The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1000-62.-3-22.1 & 24.1O�OSUFF�(�CO ... GREGORY F. YAKABOSKI TOWN ATTORNEY o= C+* Z MARY C. WILSON ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY To: From: Date: Re: Betty: JOSHUA Y. HORTON Supervisor ✓J ✓L Town Hall, 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (631) 765-1889 e-mail: greg.yakaboski@town.southold.ny.us mary.wilson@town.southold.ny.us OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth A. Neville Town Clerk Mary C. Wilson, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney March 21, 2001 -A - i r MAR 21 2uu2 Southold Town Planning Board Mullen Rezoning Amendment to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions Enclosed for safekeeping in your office, please find copies of the following documents: • Transmittal letter of Stephen R. Angel, Esq. dated 3/4/02 re: Mullen Rezoning • Suffolk County Clerk's Office Recording Page • Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page • Amendment to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions dated March 26, 2001, between Town of Southold and RWM Enterprises, Inc., Mullen Realty, L.P., and Mullen Motors, Inc., recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on 3/1/02, in Liber D00012171 at Page 937. Thank you. Mary /md encs. cc: Planning Board W-LLIAM W. ESSEKS MARCIA t. HEFTER STEPHEN R. ANGEL JANE ANN R. KRATZ JOHN M. WAGNER WILLIAM POWER MALONEY CARMELA M. DI TALIA ANTHONY C. PASCA NICA B. STRUNK is ESSEKS, HEFTER & ANGEL COUNSELORS AT LAW IO$ EAST MAIN STREET P. O. Box 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 11901-0279 (631) 369-1700 TELECOPIER NUMBER (631) 369-2065 Mary C. Wilson, Esq., Assistant Town Attorney Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Mullen Rezoning Dear Ms. Wilson: so March 4, 2002 WATER MILL OFFICE MONTAUK HIGHWAY P. 0. Box 570 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (631) 726-6633 Pursuant to your request dated 3/27/01, enclosed please find a copy of the amendment to the declaration of covenants and restrictions in the above matter, recorded on 3/1/02 in the office of the Suffolk County Clerk. SRA:mb Enc. cc : Rich Mullen William H. Price, Jr., Esq. Ve ruly yours, S EPHE R. ANGEL MAP, 5 LL"v.. T 0 k �N Al f"i3rlN �'t ''> OFFICE TDAT4 OF SOUTHOI D SUFFOLK COUNTY CLERK RECORDS OFFICE RECORDING PAGE Type of Instrument: MODIFF - COVENANT OR RESTRICT Recorded: 03/01/2002 Number of Pages: 11 At: 10:31:45 AM LIBER: D00012171 PAGE: 937 District: Section: Block: Lot: 1000 062.00 03.00 022.001 EXAMINED AND CHARGED AS FOLLOWS Received the Following Fees For Above Instrument Exempt Page/Filing $33.00 NO Handling COE $5.00 NO Notation Cert.Copies $5.50 NO RPT SCTM $0.00 NO Fees Paid THIS PAGE IS A PART OF THE INSTRUMENT Exempt $5.00 NO $0.50 NO $90.00 NO $139.00 Edward P.Romaine County Clerk, Suffolk County 1 c--1 - Number of pa ;es / RECORDED 2,0102t1a r- 01 10:31:45 W1 TORRENS Edward P.Rorn:ire CLEW OF Serial # SUFFICK Cf-11-tl"('r' L CSC X001211 7 1 Certificate # Prior Ctf. # Deed / Mortgage Instrument Deed / Mortgage Tax Stamp Recording / Filing Stamps 4 FEES Page / Filing Fee Handling TP -584 Notation EA -52 17 (County) EA -5217 (State) R.P.T.S.A. _Q Comm. of Ed. 500 Affidavit Certified Copy Reg. Copy Other v�'Q Sub Total �.Jy Sub Total GRAND TOTAL /��-- Mortgage Amt. 1. Basic Tax 2. Additional Tax Sub Total Spec./Assit. Or Spec. /Add. TOT. MTG. TAX Dual Town Dual County I-leld for Apportionment "Transfer Tax Mansion Tax The property covered by this mortgage is or will be improved by a one or two family dwelling only. YES or NO If NO, see appropriate tax clause on page # of this instrument. 'Y' "�) Real Property Tax Service Agency Verification 6 1Community Preservation Fund SUFFOLK Dist. Section B lock counm Lot Consideration Amount $ CE Stan 1000 062l 1.00 03.00 1022.001 CPP Tax Due $ 1000062.00 03.00 024.001 1000 062.00 03.00 020.000 Ini Is 1000 062.00 03.00 d 019,000 1 Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Property Owners Mailing Address RECORD & RETURN TO: Esseks, Hefter & Angel 108 East Main Street P. 0. Box 279 Riverhead, NY 11901 Improved Vacant Land TD TD TD HCo.8 Title Company Liformation Name Title # 9 Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page This page forms part of the attached AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND made by: (SPECIFY TYPE OF INSTRUMENT) Town of Southold RWM Enterprises, Inc. 11ie premises herein is situated in Mullan Realty. T P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. Mullen Motors, Inc. In the Township of Southold In the VILLAGE or HAMLET of BOXES 5 THRU 9 MUST BE TYPED OR PRINTED IN BLACK INK ONLY PRIOR TO RECORDING OR FILING. AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS Amendment to Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, made the Mcirck l day of -September, 20N, by the Town of Southold, a municipal corporation, with its place of business at 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, hereinafter referred to as the "Town," and RWM Enterprises, Inc., a New York business corporation having its principal place of business at No# Yennecott Drive, Southold, New York 11971, Mullen Realty, L.P., a New York Limited Partnership with a place of business at P. O. Box 1408, Main Road, Southold, New York 1197 1, and Mullen Motors, Inc., a New York corporation with a place of business at Route 25, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Declarants." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarants are the owners -- and in the case of Mullen Motors, Inc., the tenant and prospective tenant -- of the following four parcels of real property located at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, which parcels are collectively referred to as the "Premises". 1. Parcel owned by RWM Enterprises, Inc. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 022.001 (referred to herein as "Lot 22.1") and described on Schedule A annexed hereto, which parcel was acquired by said RWM Enterprises, Inc. by deed of Albert W. Albertson, Jr., Donald B. Katz and Gertrude Katz recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on June 27, 2000, at Liber 12051 cp. 820. 0 2. Parcel owned by RWM Enterprises, Inc. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 024.001 (referred to herein as "Lot 24.1") and described on Schedule B annexed hereto, which parcel was acquired by said RWM Enterprises, Inc. by deed of Albert W. Albertson, Jr., Donald B. Katz and Gertrude Katz recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on June 27, 2000, at Liber 12051 cp. 820. 3. Parcel owned by Mullen Realty, L.P. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 020.000 (referred to herein as "Lot 20") and described on Schedule C annexed hereto. 4. Parcel owned by Mullen Realty, L.P. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 019.000 (referred to herein as "Lot 19"), and described on Schedule D amiexed hereto. WHEREAS, Declarants and their predecessors in interest, Albert W. Albertson, Jr., Donald B. Katz and Gertrude Katz, executed a Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions on June 14, 2000, and recorded said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on June 27, 2000, in Liber 12051, cp. 821 concerning the premises; and WHEREAS, said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions were recorded by Declarants and their predecessors in interest for the benefit of themselves, their assigns and the Town, as part of an application for a change of zone for Lot 22.1 and Lot 24.1; and -2- WHEREAS, scenic buffering of the premises and the sunfounding community was and continues to be a critical issue to the Town Board of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town adopted a resolution at a regular meeting of said Town Board held on August 29, 2000 requesting an amendment of said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions to modify paragraph "4" to read as follows: "The parking are on lot 24.1 will not have any landscaped islands, however, approximately 1,000 square feet of landscaping (which represents the amount of landscaping that would have been required in the 'islands') shall be placed along the perimeter of the Mullen Motors property at the discretion of the Planning Board," in place of the following: "The parking are on Lot 24.1 shall have two landscaped 'islands"'; and WHEREAS, Declarants and the Town wish to amend said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions as aforesaid. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Declarants and the Town agree to modify the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions recorded June 27, 2000, in . Liber 12051, cp. 821 as follows: 1. Paragraph "4" of said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall read as follows: "The parking are on lot 24.1 will not have any landscaped islands, however, approximately 1,000 square feet of landscaping (which represents the amount of landscaping that would have been required in the 'islands') shall be placed along the perimeter of the Mullen Motors property at the discretion of the Planning Board or the -3- Town of Southold," in place of the following: "The parking are on Lot 24.1 shall have two landscaped 'islands"'; 2. In all other respects, said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions shall remain unchanged. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarants have caused this instrument to be duly executed on the date and year first written above. RWM ENTERPRISES, INC. By: " —10C. - Richard F. Mullen III, President Mullen Realty, L.P. B Richard F. Mullen, Jr. Mullen Motors, Inc. r' By: V aMX " Aa&, -,jr- Richard ,jr- Ri hac rd . Mul en III, Vice Pres. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD By: �,c.c ,� C� � 01 Jedd W. Cochran, Town Supervisor 0 STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On the day of'-�?-te-nah-ex--, 2000, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Mv+lerRWM ENTERPRISES, INC., personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrume t, he executed the instrument. Notary Public i.l_Ib1A14 Ii. P(710E. JR. f'(jl)lic, State of New York 1"o 4(."I`f944, Suffolk lcrm Expires Fe Suffolk bruarY 28, 20-� STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) 62 o 6 1 On the bday o -v,.�, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared Rr ItIt o /= g4j((?N TRpf MULLEN REALTY, L.P., personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, he executed the instrument. N r Public C-LIZA13ETI I J. FARRISH Notary Public, State of New York No. 01 FA4973285 OLMIMed in Suffolk County Commission Expires Oct. 15, 20 _�� STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) p U �, On the /' qday of ' �2000, efore me, the undersigned, personally appeared *'%e M -D F• N�ifleh,Trrof MULLEN MOTORS, INC., personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument �Wte�instrument. arf Public WILLIAM H. PRICE, JR. � Notary Public, State of New York No. 4644944, Suffolk Count ya Term Expires February 28, 20 V STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On the Ao day ofe-p wajea-, 200,x, before me, the undersigned, personally appeared of THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her capacity, and that by her signature on the instrument, she executed the instrument. MARY C. WILSON Notary Public. State Of New York No. 02 -t ,Cr,�39-36 Qualified in 3ufi,;Ii< County Notai ubli Commission Expiras June 12, �p0a ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being known and designated as Lots 1 and 2 on a certain map entitled, "MAP OF 33 LOTS OF JANE A. COCHRAN" filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on 10/6/1870 as map no. 399, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument set in the southerly side of Main Road distant 100 feet easterly from the confer formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main Road with the westerly side of Cottage Place; running thence along the southerly side of Main Road the following two courses and distances: (1) North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100 feet to a monument; and (2) North 85 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 98.92 feet to a monument located at the point of intersection of the southerly line of Main Road with the westerly line of Locust Avenue; running thence along the said westerly line of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 129.79 feet to land now or formerly of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz; running thence along said land of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz and land now or formerly of Mullen, the following two courses and distances: (1) South 75 degrees 42 minutes West 111.69 feet, and (2) South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 98.50 feet to a point and the easterly side of land now or formerly of Mullen; running thence along last mentioned land, North 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 171.74 feet to a monument set in the southerly side of Main Road, at the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed to Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Alfred S. Pfeil by the following deeds: 1. Deed dated 6/5/73 recorded 6/6/73 in Liber 7412 cp. 557 made by Ralph L. Glover and Una Belle Glover, his wife; and 2. Deed dated 7/18/75 recorded 8/11/75 in Liber 7889 cp. 333 made by Margaret Gentile a/k/a Margaret Gentele and Marie Cassidy, as devisees of the Estate of Bridget Furey and Catherine A. DeRosiers. SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, known and designated on a diagram of Lots belonging to Jane A. Cochran, dated October 1867 and duly filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk as and by Lots 26, 27 and 28, said lots when taken together are more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Locust Avenue distant 129.79 feet southerly fi-om the intersection of the southerly side of Maui Road with the westerly side of Locust Avenue; running thence along the westerly side of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 155.50 feet to lands of Szczesny; thence along said lands and also along lands of W. Corbett South 73 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds West 162.91 feet to lands of B. Adams; thence along said lands North 17 degrees 10 minutes West 48.80 feet to the southeast comer of lands of Mullen; thence along said lands North 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West 109.47 feet to lands of Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz; thence along said lands of Albeit W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds East 38.81 feet and 2. North 75 degrees 42 minutes East 111.69 feet to the westerly side of Locust Avenue and the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed by Judith Zavesky, James Michael Lucey, Kathleen Marie Lucey and Patricia Lucey to Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz by deed dated May 19, 1982 recorded July 7, 1982 in Liber 9207 cp. 596. SCHEDULE B ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being known and designated as Lots 3 and 4 on a certain map entitled, "MAP OF 33 LOTS OF JANE A. COCHRAN" filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on 10/6/1870 as map no. 399, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at. a point located at the intersection of the southerly line of Main Road with the easterly line of Cottage Place; running thence along said southerly line of Main Road North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100.00 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of Katz and Albertson; thence along said land South 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds east, a distance of 171.74 feet to land now or formerly of Richard Mullen, Jr.; thence along said land South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 100.00 feet to the easterly line of Cottage Place; thence along the easterly line of Cottage Place North 14 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds west, a distance of 198.00 feet to the intersection of said easterly line of Cottage Place with the southerly line of Main Road and the point or place of BEGINNING. SCHEDULE C - • • ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, designated as Lots 32 and 33 on Map of 33 lots of Jane A. Cochran, as surveyed by J. Wickham Case, October 1867, filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on October 6, 1870, as Map No. 399, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Cottage Place, where said easterly side of Cottage Place is intersected by the northerly line of Lot 33 as said northerly line of Lot 33 is shown on a certain survey by Otto W. Van Tuyl and Son, Licensed Land Surveyors, Greenport, N. Y., dated October 17, 1963; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 159.69 feet to lands of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz; RUNNING THENCE South 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned lands a distance of 109.47 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 73 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 165.78 feet to the easterly side of Cottage Place; RUNNING THENCE North 14 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West along the easterly side of Cottage Place a distance of 104.60 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed to Richard F. Mullen, Jr. by deed dated 10/3/86 recorded 10/23/86 in Liber 10152 cp. 60 made by Daniel C. Fume and Dopla M. Finne, his wife. STATE OF NEW YORK ss.: County of Suffolk I, EDWARD P. ROMAINE, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and Clerk of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in and for said County (said Court being a Court of Record) DO HEREBY CERTIFY that have compared the annexed copy /7/ 0&J and that it is a just and true copy of such original i i 0fly (�,E�}T end of the whole thereof. 0/ C o U- nl /9 ry 7 s V-- A'eSTit / c r/ o �vs IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County and Court this 1,S7— day of fi)41LC-M . aoo,�- 7v� .. ...... .......................... 7'•ff Clerk. Form No. 104 12-10e..12ie9cs ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER L_I OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD HELD ON AUGUST 29, 2000: Whereas covenants and restrictions were filed on certain properties as part of the application of Mullen Motors for a change of zone on those properties; and Whereas scenic buffering between the operations of Mullen Motors and the surrounding community was and continues to be a critical issue; and Whereas to improve the required scenic buffering between Mullen Motors and the surrounding community the Planning Board of the Town of Southold has recommended that paragraph 4 of the covenants and restrictions which reads "The parking area on Lot 24.1 shall have two landscaped "islands" be modified to read "The parking area on lot 24.1 will not have any landscaped islands, however, approximately 1000 square feet of landscaping (which represents the amount of landscaping that would have been required in the "islands") shall be placed along the perimeter of the Mullen Motors property at the discretion of the Planning Board; be it therefore Resolved that the paragraph numbered "4" of the filed covenants and restrictions are hereby amended to read as follows: "The parking area on lot 24.1 will not have any landscaped islands, however, approximately 1000 square feet of landscaping (which represents the amount of landscaping that would have been required in the "islands") shall be placed along the perimeter of the Mullen Motors property at the discretion of the Planning Board"; and be it therefore Further Resolved that Mullen Motors, as the applicant before the Planning Board shall file this amendment to the covenants and restrictions on record with the Countv of Suffolk. 4ia4e7 Eliz eth A. eville Southold Town Clerk August 29, 2000 0 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 24, 2000 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold at their regular meeting held on Tuesday, April 11, 2000 adopted a Local Law to change the zoning district designation on the following parcels SCTM #1000-6r-3-22.1 & 1000-62-3-24.1 subject to the filing of covenants and restrictFons to be an integral and enforceable part of the change of zone applicat'on of Mullen Motors, Inc., Southold, New York. T"vse convenants and restrictions were subsequently filed and this local law was numbered Local Law No. 15 of 2000 and filed in the New York State Depar#.gent of State on July 13, 2000, a copy of the filing receipt was receives, on July 21, 2000. F�ezise sign the dupiicate copy of this letter and return to me in the enclosecr self-addressed, stamped envelope. Thank you. ElizalWeth A. N ville Southold Town Clerk Attachments cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission ` 1 Hage of Greenport Twin of Shelter Island -;�_+,-n of Riverhead T �, +vn of Southampton Srf:.;thold Town Planning Board✓ Scuthold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department ALEXANDER F. TREADWELL SECRETARY rMEIVED JUL 2 1 200 Southold Town Clerk ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN HALL 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 i STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF STATE 41 STATE STREET ALBANY, NY 12 23 1 -0001 July 17, 2000 RE: Town of Southold, Local Law 15, 2000, filed 07/13/2000 The above referenced material was received and filed by this office as indicated. Additional local law filing forms will be forwarded upon request. Sincerely, State Records & Law Bureau (518) 474-2755 WWW. DOS. STATE. NY. US • E-MAIL: INFO(—WDOS. STATE. NY. US wcevc. •� ►n►cw 0 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER ,��oS�FFoc�.cG � y< a C* O - _ 0 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD HELD ON APRIL 11, 2000: Whereas there was presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold a Local Law entitled "A LOCAL LAW TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS SCTM # 1000-62-3-22.1 WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED HAMLET BUSINESS DISTRICT (HB) DESIGNATION TO THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B) DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS SCTM # 1000-62-3-24.1 WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-40) TO THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B) DISTRICT DESIGNATION" Whereas a Public Hearing was held on this Local Law on October 12, 1999 and November 9, 1999 at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard thereon, now, therefore, be it Resolved that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby enacts the following Local Law; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Local Law will not be filed with the N.Y. Secretary of State by the Town Clerk until after the petitioner of said change of zone files certain covenants and restrictions, enforceable by the Town of Southold, with the Suffolk County Clerk's office which covenants and restrictions were and are an integral part of the change of zone application. Subsequent to such filing, this Local Law shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State pursuant to the Town Attorney and Town Clerk procedure. Local Law No. 15 -2000 A LOCAL LAW TO CHANGE THE ZONING DISTRICT DESIGNATION OF THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS SCTM # 1000-62-3-22.1 WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED HAMLET BUSINESS DISTRICT (HB) DESIGNATION TO THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B) DISTRICT DESIGNATION AND THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS SCTM # 1000-62-3-24.1 WHICH IS CURRENTLY ZONED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-40) TO THE GENERAL BUSINESS (B) DISTRICT DESIGNATION 0 0 BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as .follows: Section I. Enactment SCTM #1000-62-3-22.1 and SCTM #1000-62-3-24.1 are more fully described below. The parcel identified by SCTM #1000-62-3-22.1 is currently in the Hamlet Business (HB) District as designated by the Zoning Map of the Town. The parcel identified by SCTM #1000-62-3-24.1 is currently in the Low -Density Residential (R-40) District as designated by the Zoning Map of the Town. Based upon the consideration of the recommendations and comments of the Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Planning Commission and public comment taken at the public hearing(s) and otherwise, we hereby change the zoning district designation of the parcel identified by SCTM #1000-62-3-22.1 from the Hamlet Business (HB) District designation to the General Business (B) District designation and we hereby change the zoning district designation of the parcel identified by SCTM #1000-62-3-24.1 from the Low -Density Residential (R40) District designation to the General Business (B) District designation. SCTM #1000-62-3-22.1 AND SCTM #1000-62-3-24.1 ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, known and designated on a diagram of lots belonging to Jane A. Cochran,, dated October 1867 and duly filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk as Lots 1 & 2 and Lots 26, 27 & 28 and described property, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the intersection formed by the southerly line of Main Road (New York State Route 25) and the westerly line of Locust Avenue; RUNNING THENCE from said point and place of beginning along the westerly line of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 285.39 feet to a point and the northerly line of lands now or formerly of David & Janice J. Szczesny; THENCE along said lands of David & Janice Szczesny and lands now or formerly of William Corbett South 73 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 162.66 feet to a point and lands now or formerly of Barbara S. Adams; THENCE along said lands of Barbara S. Adams and lands now or formerly of Richard F. Mullen, Jr. North 17 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 48.95 feet to a point; THENCE North 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 109.47 feet to a point; THENCE South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 59.69 feet to a point; THENCE North 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 171.74 feet to a point and the southerly line of Main Road (New York State Route 25); THENCE along the southerly line of Main Road (New York State Route 25) North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet to a point; THENCE North 85 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 98.92 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING. Section II. Sever ity. If any section of subsecti paragraph, clause, phrase or provisionhis law shall be judged invalid orMd unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, any judgment made thereby shall not affect the validity of this law as a whole or any part thereof other than the part or provision so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional. Section III. This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. Elizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk APRIL 11, 2000 Rudolph H. Bruer ATTORNEY AT LAW 55000 MAIN ROAD P.O. BOX 1466 SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 Tel: (631) 765-1222 Fax: (631)765-2752 HAND DELIVERED June 28, 2000 Greg Yakabowski, Esq. Southold Town Attorney Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Mullen/Albertson/Kat Main Road, Southold, NY Dear Mr. Yakabowski: Email: CPLIEST@ix.netcom.com In connection with the above, enclosed please find a recorded copy of the covenants and restrictions. As per our agreement, please have the local law providing for the change of zone filed with the Secretary of State, as soon as possible. Since , Adolph Bruer RHB/mmm Enc. cc: William H. Price, Jr., Esq. - = 12051PC821 . }Number of pages TORRENS Serial # Certificate # Prior CIE N. Deed / Mortgage Instnnnent 4 Page / Filing Fee L A Handling TP -584 Natation EA -52 17 (County) EA -5217 (State) R.P.T.S.A. i J Comm. of Ed. 5 t-4_- Affidnvit Certified Copy Reg. Copy Other Deed / Mortgage 'rax Stamp F F -I :S Sub Total 1 " Sub Total GRAND TO'T'AL ao� Real Properly'Thx Service Agency VeriImil i(m < Dist. Section Ii lock Lot oo�tY IoD b Of 2.01 ��3, On nzz:nom/ 962,40 n3, nc,-) ?,V�00� J Satisfactions/Discharges/Releases List Property Owners Mailing Add J RECORD & Rr'ru1ZN TO: �L Zd 6reali�, .ti RECORDED 00 JUN 2 7 Ppb 4: 2 q EDWARD R. ROMAINE CLERSUFFOLK COUNTY Recording / riling Stamps Mortgage Amt. I. Basic Tax 2. Additional Tax Sub Total Spec./Assit. Or Spec. /Add. TOT. M'1'0. TAX Dual 'T'own_ Dual County ` I leld for Apportionment Transfer Tax Mansion Tnx _ The property covered by this nrcnlgage is or will be improved by a one or two Tamil. .dwelling only. YCS or NO�_ If NO, see appropriate tax clause on page of this instrument. 6 C'ouununity I't•csel•v-itic�u I'-und Considerntion Amomit CVI 'I"nx Dire Improved Vacant Land _ 'I'1) 'I'D 8 'rifle Company 111fol-111afion Co. Name eG 'Title 1/ A%)> 9`�,.. JLI IO11C County Recording & Endorsed -i ut: Page 'n1is Nge fomes part of the attached �Q�/�/?L r �- �� —'(� '/,%�yl s made by: (SPE, CI I,Y'I'YPE OF INSTRUMLN17 ) �l, Sdr7111cpremises herein is situated in 1y7` -1 SUFFOLK COUNIY, NEW YORK. -5c the' / TO / In the Township of In (lie VILLAGE or I IAMLE'r of' 130)(ES 5'I1 FRU 9 MUST' E313 TYPED OR PRINK D IN 131.AC'K INK ONLY PRIOR TO RI.-'CORDINO OR PEI ,INC1. (OVER2 0 0 ORIGINAL DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made the day of4`-' 2000, by Albert W. Albertson, Jr., residing at No# Horton's Lane, Southold, NY 11971, Donald B. Katz, residing at No# Ferry Road, Sag Harbor, NY 11963, Gertrude Katz, residing at No# Ferry Road, Sag Harbor, NY 11963, Mullen Realty, L.P., a New York Limited Partnership with a place of business at P. O. Box 1408, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, and Mullen Motors, Inc., a New York corporation with a place -of business at Route 25, Main Road, Southold, NY 11971, hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Declarants," who are the owners -- and in the case of Mullen Motors, Inc., the tenant and prospective tenant -- of the following four parcels of real property located at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, which parcels are collectively referred to as the "Premises:" 1. Parcel owned by Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 022.001 (referred to herein as "Lot 22.1") and described on Schedule A annexed hereto. 2. Parcel owned by Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Gertrude Katz designated on the Suffplk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 024.001 (referred to herein as "Lot 24.1") and described on Schedule B annexed hereto. 3. Parcel owned by Mullen Realty, L.P. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 020.000 (referred to herein as "Lot 20") and described on Schedule C annexed hereto. 4. Parcel owned by Mullen Realty, L.P. designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000 Section 062.00 Block 03.00 Lot 019.000 (referred to herein as "Lot 19"), and described on Schedule D annexed hereto. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Richard F. Mullen, III and William H. Mullen made application to the Town Board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Hamlet Business (HB) District and Low Density Residential (R-40) District to General Business (B) _ District for Lot 22.1 and Lot 24. 1, which parcels are located on the south side of New York State Route 25 and the west side of Locust Avenue, Southold, New York; and WHEREAS, Richard F. Mullen, III and William H. Mullen are under contract to purchase Lot 22.1 and Lot 24.1 from Declarants Albert W. Albertson, Jr., Alice Albertson, and Gertrude Katz; and WHEREAS, Mullen Realty, L.P. owns Lot 20 and Lot 19, which parcels are located to the west of Lots 22.1 and 24.1; and WHEREAS, an existing car dealership is operated under the name of "Mullen Motors" on Lot 20 and Lot 19; and WHEREAS, Mullen Realty, L.P. is interested in the application for change of zone referred to above; and WHEREAS, during the course `of the proceedings before the Town Board of the Town of Southold, applicants for the change of zone amended their application to include certain covenants and restrictions limiting the use of the Premises; and -2- WHEREAS, Declarants consented to the covenants and restrictions proposed by applicants in connection with said application for change of zone; and WHEREAS, Declarants deem it to be in the best interest of Declarants, Declarants successors and assigns and the Town of Southold to impose certain covenants and restrictions upon the use of the Premises, and desire to hereby impose those covenants and restrictions. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, Declarants hereby declare that the Premises, referred to herein as Lots 22.1, 24.1, 20 and 19, and which are described on Schedules A, B, C and D annexed hereto, are now held and shall be conveyed subject to the following covenants and restrictions: 1. The use of Lot 24.1 shall be limited to vehicular parking, storage and display purposes only, and shall be associated with the adjoining automobile dealership currently located to the west. 2. There shall be no vehicular access to Locust Avenue from the parking facility constructed on Lot 24.1. 3. A 25 -foot wide landscaped buffer shall be installed and maintained along the easterly, southerly and southwesterly sides of the parking area on Lot 24.1; within said buffer there shall be a berm approximately three feet in height, and the entire buffer area shall be landscaped with evergreens, trees and shrubs. 4. The parking area on Lot 24.1 shall have two landscaped "islands." 5. Access to the parking area on Lot 24.1 shall be from the existing parking area -3- 1] on Lot 19, which existing parking area has access on Cottage Place, a public street. 6. The landscaped buffer and berms shall be designed to screen the view of the parking area on Lot 24.1 from Locust Avenue and from nearby residences. 7. Notwithstanding all of the uses permitted, as of right and by special permit in the General Business (B) District, the use of Lot 22.1 shall be limited to automobile dealership and related purposes, in the event its use is changed from the uses which currently exist. 8. When and if the uses or buildings on Lot 22.1 are changed, any new uses or buildings shall be developed jointly with Lots 20 and 19, which lots are located to the west of Lot 22.1. 9. When and if the use of Lot 22.1 is changed in whole or in part, and the existing building at the northeast comer of Lot 22.1 is removed or altered, a landscaped buffer of at least 15 feet in width shall be installed along the Locust Avenue frontage of Lot 22. 1, which buffer shall run in a northerly direction from the northerly point of the landscaped berm on Lot 24.1 to a point as near to New York State Route 25 as possible without blocking lines of site for vehicles. 10. Additional landscaping shall be provided for the existing parking area located on Lot 19, including landscaping along the entrance to Lot 19 from Cottage Place. 11. Before the Town of Southold's Building Department issues a certificate of occupancy or compliance for the parking area on Lot 24. 1, the installation of all landscaping, lighting and drainage systems for the parking area on Lot 19 and the parking -4- area on Lot 24. 1, as required by the Town Board of the Town of Southold and/or the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, shall be completed. 12. On the Cottage Place side of Lots 20 and 19, there shall be no outdoor repair work, vehicle activities shall be restricted to access to and from the site, with no parking or storage of Mullen Motors' vehicles on Cottage Place. 13. Mullen Motors shall advise its employees and customers that there shall be no test-driving of vehicles on residential side streets in the vicinity of the property which is the subject of this Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. 14. A plan shall be presented to the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, within a reasonable time after the recording of these covenants and restrictions, to minimize the impact on Cottage Place from delivery trucks servicing Mullen Motors. 15. Vehicle deliveries by vehicle transporters to the Premises shall be limited to weekdays during the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. 16. These covenants and restrictions shall be construed to be in addition to and not'in derogation or limitation of any relevant provisions of local, state, and federal laws, ordinances, or regulations in effect at the time of the execution of this Declaration, or at the time such laws, ordinances, or regulations may thereafter be promulgated, amended, or revised. 17. These covenants and restrictions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon Declarants, Declarants' successors and assigns, and upon all persons or entities claiming under them, and can be terminated, revoked, or amended only with the written -5- 0 consent of the Town Board of the Town of Southold. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Declarants have caused this instrument to be duly VOATE OF NEW YORK SS: UNTY OF SUFFOLK I EDWARD P. ROMAINE, CLERK OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK AND CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK IN AND FOR SAID COUNTY (SAID COURT BEING A COURT OF RECORD) DO*HEREBY CERTIFY T AT I HAVE COMPA D THE ANNEXED COPY 9NATI DEED LIBER AT PAGE �I RECORDED G o AND THAT IT IS A JUST AND TRUE COPY OF SUCH ORIGINAL DECLA AND OF THE WHOLE TVEREOF. IN, TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED THE SEAL OF SAID COUNTY AND COURT THIS DAY OF TUrte �c+av OY,Kitt,� CLERK 12-0169. 12/97og Mullen Motors, Inc. • STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) u/1,C_ On the y day of 2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Albert W. Albertson, Jr., known to me or'proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to`,be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on said instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this instrument. � "AGE" tjOTARy PU � State Of New `fbck N0.02HA4927029uc.' D Qua 'e on Ires�arc 1 o . ;4:.. STATE OF NEW YORK) MM'Sa Notary Public COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) J On the l day of4� 2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Donald B. Katz, known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on said instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this instrument. 7 Notary Public KAREN J. HAGEN NOTARY PUBIC, State of Now VA No. 02KA4927029 QualNied in Suffolk Commission Expires March 21, -7- STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) On the / day of `" -2�T00, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Gertrude Katz, known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidenbe to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her capacity, and that by her signature on said instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this instrument. j�--z 74ea�— Notary Public STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) KAREN J. HAGEN GARY PUBU01 State of New York No. 02HA4927029 rri�ttyy Qualified in Suffolk 21.2o�Z Commission ExPi� Mardi On the % Y7h 'day o4d2000, before me, the andsigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Alz-A�A 177YI , of Mullen Realty, L.P., known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on said instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this instrument. J Notary Public KAREN J. HAGEN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New Yuck No. 02HA4927029 Qualffied In Suffolk County Commission Expires March 21. 20 -8- STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) SS.: On the / VA� day ofi , 2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared n'1 a%` , of Mullen Motors, Inc., known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactoryevidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his capacity, and that by his signature on said instrument, the individual, or the person upon behalf of which the individual acted, executed this mstrument. ' 1 Notary Public KAREN J. HAGEN NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 02HA4927029 Qualified'in Suffolk County Commission Expires March 21, 20aZ W ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being known and designated as Lots 1 and 2 on a certain map entitled, "MAP OF 33 LOTS OF JANE A. COCHRAN" filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on 10/6/1870 as map no:.399, and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a monument set in the southerly side of Main Road distant 100 feet easterly from the comer formed by the intersection of the southerly side of Main Road with the westerly side of Cottage Place; running thence along the southerly side of Main Road the following two courses and distances: (1) North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100 feet to a monument; and (2) North 85 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 99.92 feet to a monument located at the point of - intersection of the southerly line of Main Road with the westerly line of Locust Avenue; running thence along the said westerly line of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 129.79 feet to land now or formerly of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz; running thence along said land of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz and land now or formerly of Mullen, the following two courses and distances: (1) South 75 degrees 42 minutes West 111.69 feet, and (2) South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds West, a distance of 98.50 feet to a point and the easterly side of land now or formerly of Mullen; running thence along last mentioned land, North 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds West, a distance of 171.74 feet to a monument set in the southerly side of Main Road, at the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed to Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Alfred S. Pfeil by the following deeds: 1. Deed dated 6/5/73 recorded 6/6/73 in Liber 7412 cp. 557 made by Ralph L. Glover and Una Belle Glover, his wife; and 2. Deed dated 7/18/75 recorded 8/11/75 in Liber 7889 cp. 333 made by Margaret Gentile a/k/a Margaret Gentele and Marie Cassidy, as devisees of the Estate of Bridget Furey and Catherine A. DeRosiers. SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, known and designated on a diagram of Lots belonging to Jane A. Cochran, dated October 1867 and duly filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk as and by Lots 26, 27 and 28, said lots when taken together are more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the westerly side of Locust Avenue distant 129.79 feet southerly from the intersection of the southerly side of Main Road with the westerly side of Locust Avenue; running thence along the westerly side of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East 155.50 feet to lands of Szczesny; thence along said lands and also along lands of W. Corbett South 73 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds West 162.91 feet to lands of B. Adams; thence along said lands North 17 degrees 10 miputes West 48.80 feet to the southeast corner of lands of Mullen; thence along said lands North 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West 109.47 feet to lands of Albert W: Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz; thence along said lands of Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz the following two (2) courses and distances: 1. North 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds East 38.81 feet and 2. North 75 degrees 42 minutes East 111.69 feet to the westerly side of Locust Avenue and the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed by Judith Zavesky, James Michael Lucey, Kathleen Marie Lucey and Patricia Lucey to Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz by deed dated May 19, 1982 recorded July 7, 1982 in Liber 9207 cp. 596. SCHEDULE B 0 • ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being known and designated as Lots 3 and 4 on a certain map entitled, "MAP OF 33 LOTS OF JANE A. COCHRAN" filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on 10/6/1870 as map no. 399; 1and being more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point located at the intersection of the southerly line of Main Road with the easterly line of Cottage Place; running thence along said southerly line of Main Road North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East, a distance of 100.00 feet to a monument and land now or formerly of Katz and Albertson; thence along said land South 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds east, a distance of 171.74 feet to land now or formerly of Richard Mullen, Jr.; thence along said land South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds west, a distance of 100.00 feet to the easterly line of Cottage Place; thence along the easterly line of Cottage Place North 14 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds west, a distance of 198.00 feet to the intersection of said easterly line of Cottage Place with the southerly line of Main Road and the point or place of BEGINNING. SCHEDULE C 12951PC821 ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being at Southold, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, designated as Lots 32 and 33 on Map of 33 lots of Jane A. Cochran, as surveyed by J. Wickham Case, October 1867, filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on October 62 1870, as Map No. 399, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the easterly side of Cottage Place, where said easterly side of Cottage Place is intersected by the northerly line of Lot 33 as said northerly line of Lot 33 is shown on a certain survey by Otto W. Van Tuyl and Son, Licensed Land Surveyors, Greenport, N. Y., dated October 17, 1963; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds East a distance of 159.69 feet to lands of Alice Albertson and Gertrude Katz; RUNNING THENCE South 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned lands a distance of 109.47 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 73 degrees 40 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 165.78 feet to the easterly side of Cottage Place; RUNNING THENCE North 14 degrees 48 minutes 00 seconds West along the easterly side of Cottage Place a distance of 104.60 feet to the point or place of BEGINNING. BEING AND INTENDED TO BE a description of the premises conveyed to Richard F. Mullen, Jr. by deed dated 10/3/86 recorded 10/23/86 in Liber 10152 cp. 60 made by Daniel C. Finne and Dopla M. Finne, his wife. SCHEDULE D Locust Lane Southold, NY Southold Town Board May 8, 2000 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY gear Supervisor Cochran, Valerie Scopaz, Town Board, Planning Board, and Attorney Gregory Yakaboski: As a follow up to my May 4th phone call to Mr. Yakaboski's office and May 5th conversation with Valerie Scopaz, I would like to state for the record that: On May 4th, at 11:00 AM, the Mopar 18 -wheeler delivery truck, dispatched from Mullen Motors, drove east into Town Harbor Lane, across L'Hommedieu, and up Locust Lane to Rte. 25. This adjacent neighborhood is definitely not the appropriate place for Mullen Motor vehicles to conduct their business. Before the Planning Board proceeds with the Mullen Motors application, a traffic study for Locust Lane and the entire area should be conducted. A Grandfathered, Non -Conforming, Special Exception business, such as, Mullen Motors, needs to be heavily restricted and monitored. That is why there are Covenants attached to the change of zone. And when residents bring serious infringements of these Covenants to the Town and Planning Board's attention they should be addressed and corrected. The Mullens stipulated in their Covenants that there would be "no access on Locust Lane." Already this Covenant has been violated. Please remind Mullen Motors of their contract with the Town. We ask for your immediate attention to resolve this problem. It is an itemized condition in Mullen's Covenants. Yours truly, MIT Melanie Sanford MAY - 8 2000 sourhold Town Planning 808FI • To Valerie Scopaz and Planning Board Members: 4/28/00 The statements of Richard Mullen II I in the April 19th, Suffolk Life article, "Mullen Wins Zone Change --Neighbor's Miffed" are untrue. At this time, I would like to set the record straight. Mullen says, '..there are no violations'on the Mullen Motors' properties. FACT: We uncovered 14 site plan violations in the ZBA and Planning Board files. The most glaring of these is the violation of the front yard area variance which should be grass not macadam and cars. A dangerous consequence of this violation is that drivers' visibility is obstructed when exiting Cottage Place onto Rt. 25. Pedestrians are also at risk because Mullen Motors ripped out the sidewalk as well as the grass. The front yard is ugly, dangerous and in violation. Mullen says, "He has peacefully co -existed with his neighbors for years...' FACT: For years neighbors have tolerated test drivers, car carriers and devaluation of their homes. Nearly every family on Cottage Place, Korn Road, and Locust Lane signed the petition against the Mullen Motors expansion. Property owners immediately adjacent and opposite the site voiced their objection to this zone change by signing and submitting a Protest Petition to the Town Board requiring a super majority vote. Richard Mullen III goes on to say that "LIPA... damaged some trees on Locust [Lane]. I was blamed for the damage". FACT: LIPA is not responsible for the topping of the street trees on Locust Lane. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. topped the street trees for property owner Junie Albertson in anticipation for a Mullen Motors parking lot. As one Asplundh worker stated at the time (7/15/97), "We're topping these trees for a parking lot." Adjacent property owners received letters from Mullen Motors telling them that a parking lot was proposed for the very site that was cut and bulldozed on 7/15/97. Richard Mullen III says, ' ..rumors that he intends to knock down historic buildings at the Colonial Corners site are mistaken." "We just need more space for parking.' FACT: If Mullen Motors "just needs more space for parking", why didn't they "just get" a variance on the residential lot as the Planning Board suggested to them at their May 10th, 1999 work session? If Mullen Motors does not plan to alter Colonial Corners, why did they request a zone change from hamlet to general business? Lastly, if Mullen Motors does not plan to destroy or remove historic buildings (like the 3 they did on Cottage Place and Rt. 25 in the 1980's) then why does Covenant #9 provide for the removal of the red house in the future so Colonial Corners can be developed for automobile use only? In response to finding land elsewhere for his expansion Richard III says, ' .-[he] had no other option.' FACT: Before granting Mullen Motors this zone change, the Board admitted that they had not explored any alternative options nor had the Mullen family. With all the undeveloped land in the Town of Southold, Mullen Motors certainly could have found a more appropriate location away from our homes and our historic village. Finally, Richard Mullen I I I says,... he and his family care very much about the environment and the rural nature of the area and do not want to do anything to ruin it...' FACT: If the Mullens really cared, they would protect the land, not exploit it. If the Mullens really cared, they would not be replacing the rural charm of our 1640 hamlet with the automobile clutter of car lots and a mega car dealership. And, if our Town Board really cared about preservation, they would not have favored an application that promotes suburban sprawl and strips the protection of residential properties. Sincerely, J n A. Sanford Locust Lane, Southold CC: Southold Town Board Pr Southold Town Board has approved F5 .3 The Sout I - a zoning change for Mullen Motors, ,but a battle continues to rage between, the -auto- 1 mobile dealership and its neighbors ..,FE The dealership has been embroiled in a three-year. struggle to secure additional'i parking, spaoD'.avits -site on the south side of Mullen inge )rs"Miftd. By Julie A'.' Laine Route 25 betweem-Cottage Place and Locust Power Auth&ity, in its tree -ItiriMmind,pra_4 are vowing ,,watch planning board action Lane The application for a change of zones gram to 'free limbs fro ... Wires'-; contemplating po s 1-bl& legal4action against the town board. from hamlet ,(HB),and low density residen- aged some trees h dam on Li6c'ust Avenue 1 tial (R-40jl o general business {B) on two job."' Zenk"was referring to the board's, "I was blamed for the' dams ge," Mullen h insistence that it is up. the planning board, said. He also said Np.q�jt Ar, WqRi parcels west of Locusf-Avenue was granted,';' dnoV planning knock `down hist6d- X'' not council members, toidothe site plan subject to the filing of a:number of; covenant s� a.buildiii gs f. i4fi that would address the covenants to the ',.z6tel,6'x 6N submitted by Mullen M6tors. nial-Cqrners -site are, mistaken. The buildings are rented to exi�tmg businesses Nho-iniend- What has neighbors uli`j`ii�,Ar that.chang�. Southold citizens are,rea really in a l6up "Soutlil they submitted a list of their o�yp;qovenants, 7, to continue - t -; eir operations,, he said.7?.� I - - ' -- trouble," Zenk'!sAid. rfi4're; losing 4thiir, none of ;which, they insist, were�constdered ;-"I ,,don't"'11tink we -re going to 11�, government -!in,.;O.nsw,ering:t6.,d�vpl6piri and, y board in South Town"-"Mullefi satd.11='jWOj6s0n&d" b the,. deciding to zone not the,,,cl FT� tizens of the.4�".'�, They better rnor�� - 'soa I ce 'fomparking.""As,4*lifelong.4towa't change wake;'u"p` and smell. th6'c6ffqe.up therelPeo-j 4 rest om pih 6ii'ca ly I Among the requests*ere:-thaf,at;��Oot -jJ%.pIebayq tqge0MtkJtand votq some of these I c §c.a -db buffer an.d':at�,thr,ee-;foot 'lan'l"� ,with il about,!heepv4w_W r I-,, at Ja_pdthp',ru.,a g VrAOfJ the are4jan 1do'(pq w �.pe erm antt W�hingto. d 'bushes beZusid to' -'give i kIt , V��Sotith6l Democratic Chairman Joe in It mature tree's ish," It Y -it;.h'ate"''`" ,t,gn, - " I :i new - parl(Ing::a It ruin 4added' old'. -,#I so c 'd e.zone-change., Li.4tip IMullen, ingialls - at `th'i* new sparse look,; It -;-h. �Iership� be !fit j aul e -.-de, barred;, - Y kg andfitbered, in parking sitswill Pe & 16w'poles, he said, SO rom. usinQtb C rnersiportto*rnf,;!�, A.� ;5 RIA, 'expand*,'! Gold uldii!Q �Jdi�e JAo, the site for: �'�;t';&m_o"ii" Y ,)�e.ouge.jhry'i it will'-fio rdflectdn neighboring propprt�., said tied a i :home there, I'd be.gun -, He'Alsorsaid-be pIans1o,1an&cape,-WsuWi' tial. side streefs,&in {the,vctinrtythata�bnglit Melanie wAy.as to'ckeate a-'buffe ione:- romiLocusf San f,rd, whose lamily�'� has'.- I:ane And1hat he;has"no,intenuon Aemqst,!outspokerip6A1ther`access i- the to ert Z f rom r -,T rw ,91 side4streets: In a itior Locust LAT "This �could,have been a win-win situs i tion, ,,Ca'ro`I- 'Z' _ Carolyn ,� en attornp fp Seg r4tk 'gig ,bors and a .outhampton said. "Instead, the:town* board shrugged their shoulders and 'just said" "hey,' it's not my ors -,'-,4 ere,� Lan V e. c "I, vioiations+�.joq--thi'iutq .} intde At;the .same itipp".,Mullen, rpjge,t.ed propert V,I %!hbse '�.�ijaiidfither`istarted in&,the automobile dealership ..to RouteAK busine$s,,e.Npansi1O1-,,: It.] noting -the threats- to,. M K.R.,ago,,s;iid.,therd7 are no I ijh.ai.the `there because Of.ine,towns move I-- j, .; 1. .. - t I � neighb insists ors want farmi and along' -!he North'Road. r r', i n,to move s had.no other 11"�VA�,.-.r.-V - ;,� I r, The neighbor It s have been insistingt th„covenaanat peacefully cc &With Mullen could have fouiid`liiid`e*lie,�9ere for. his neighbors for years, he:said, maintaining . —Rich Mullen . defends his expansion, but, he I said he . owns , no,o I ther, that problems began when the. Long Island ,,,COUNTERPOINT land and had no other option. Area residents :his family business. Photo by J.A. Lane 'I submit that the applicants are less than forthcoming' Carolyn Zenk Esq. SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (I violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (1 violation). 6. 'The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front w•as to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the Z13A with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. -26,1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O.P.--Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation --Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and 7_BA files. 03/14/2000 WJ: bl 12J2J41 UAKULYN LLNK LSI,( PAGE 01 0 0 CAROLYN A. ZENR ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Bays, now York 11946 516-723-2341 supervisor Jean Cochran Southold Town Board March 14th, 2000 BY FAX: %MQENT: DELIVER IMMEDIATELY Re: Mullen Motor$/S QRA Determination Dear Supervisor Cochran and Members of the Town Board, Please read the following letter aloud during your work session. I understand that you plan to make a determination under the State Environmental Quality Review Act today and possibly a decision on this application. The nature of the evidence to date reveals that a positive declaration must be made under SEQRA for the simple reason that the record clearly establishes that the project "may have a significant impact on the environment"- As you know, the threshold for requiring an environmental impact statement is quite low in New York State. An applicant does not have to establish that an application will have an environmental impact, only that it may have such an impact. The record demonstrates that the project may have a visual impact on the historic, rural quality of Southold as well as the quality of life for residents, and traffic impacts among others. A positive declaration would enable the Town Board to tackle the problem the applicant has presented which is a parking problem. The EIS can lay out various options to handle this problem including handling parking off-site on other properties of the applicant's or the Town's. A decision other than a positive declaration presents a serious due process problem today because critical records were not available to my clients, namely a list of covenants and restrictions dated from December 7th and February 24th which, on information and belief, were held in a separate file. Those covenants and restrictions will bear directly on the board's decision, yet my clients have had no opportunity to comment on them. I submit that you cannot issue a negative declaration today without providing equal protection and due process of the law to my clients by giving them an opportunity to comment on same. The covenants and restrictions only became available late in the day yesterday, one day before your decision. Thank you for your consideration in this regard. Sinerely Carrot n E Y 03/27/2000 10:29 7232341 C CAROLYN ZENK ES6 CAROLYN A. ZENK ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Hays, New York 11946 516-723-2341 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Street Southold, New York 11971 March 27th, 2000/pLEAgg DELIVER INWDIATELY BY FAX: 765-1889 PAGE 01 Re: Mullen Motors application for a change of zone/Proposed covenants and restrictions Dear Supervisor Cochran and Members of the Southold Town Board, I appreciate the opportunity to comment regarding your SEQRA determination for the Mullen Motors application and the covenants and restrictions suggested by the Mullen Motors Corporation. i also appreciate your respect for the due process rights of the citizens under your charge, reflected in your decision to table a SEQRA determination until we had a chance for input. I Offer the following Comments for your consideration! 7"- FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM or INCREASING UGLY, SUBURBAN, AUTOMOBILE - INTENSIVE USES IN DOWN TOWN SOUTHOLD REMAINS, DESPITE THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS PROPOSED BY TICS APPLICANTS. While the proposed covenants and restrictions may mitigate against the harm to the residential character of Southold's historic down -town, the fundamental question as to the advisability of converting a charming down -town hamlet center to more intensive, suburban, and ugly automotive uses remains. As you know, the applicants have no right to a change of zone. The fundamental question you must ask yourselves as officials is whether changing the zone and allowing both Colonial Corners and a residential lot on Locust Lane to change to automotive uses is in the public interest? We continue to submit that it is not for the reasons already outlined in our previous submissions. THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF MEETING THE PARKING NEEDS OF THE APPLICANT BY EXPLORING Orr_8=TE PARKING SOLUTIONS HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE BOARD, DESPITE THE FACT THIS WOULD CREATE A IFININ-WIM111 SOLUTION. A second fundamental question, which has not been addressed by the board, is the question of whether the parking mads of the applicant Can he Met by off-site aolutioas? This is one of the reasons that we have advised that an environmental impact statement or even a proper environmental assessment form which explore this question be prepared. Eti=Fi C1 1 =i:,3 µl ",F-iL`'tJ-Et t E=a- P;E' page 2 In devising solutions to controversial matters, it's usually preferable to satisfy all parties if possible; I refer to this as a "win-win" solution. In this instance, since the applicants have continually represented that the reason for their change of zone request is to satisfy parking problems, then doesn't it make sense for the Town Board to directly address the parking problem? For example, does the applicant own other properties in Southold upon which he could store his cars and equipment in more favorable Locations? It would seam that a car dealership does not have to display all of its inventory at one time. Perhaps the applicant could purchase another site which is less visible and which would not impair the down -town qualities of Southold. Certainly, this would be less expensive than purchasing the whole of Colonial Corners. From a purely political perspective, it would seem advantageous for the Town Board to come to a Salomon -like solution in which the concerns expressed by all parties are met, including Mullen Motors concerns for parking limitations, the concerns of residents on Locust Lane to keep the rural/historic qualities of their neighborhood, the concerns of business owners who believe that the board should help Mullen Motors to solve its problems, and the concerns of citizens and business owners who believe that maintaining the historic and aesthetic qualities of down -town. Southold is not only good for their quality of life, but for business because Southold depends upon a resort -based economy. Accommodating the parking needs of the applicant would solve the applicant's stated problem while satisfying all of these constituencies. To date, there has been a lack of creative solutions to the parking problem -solutions which are in everybody's interest. THE ACTION CONTINUES TO REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATE.WNT OR OUT AND OUT DENIAL WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CATEGORIZED AS TYPE I OR UNLISTED UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT BECAUSE IT "MAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT11 AS ALREADY ESTABLISHED BY THE RECORD. The primary function of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to ensure that environmental impact statements are prepared for actions that "may have a significant impact on the environment." 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.3 a). It bears emphasis that the criteria for determining whether or not an action may have a significant impact on the environment are the exact same for Type I and Unlisted actions. The only difference between these two categories is that Type I actions "are more likely to require the preparation of an EIS". See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.4 a). In other words, Type I actions carry with them a pxesumptiun in favor of an EIS. The criteria to determine whether or not an EIS must be prepared are listed at 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.7 c): To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. These. 0_. 4 1 page 3 criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment: i) a substantial adverse change in ...traffic or noise levels;.._ V) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical,...architectural,...or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character; vii) the creation of a hazard to human health; [traffic safety from huge trailers]; x)the creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences; tsuburban sprawl] Emphasis added. Our previous submissions, especially the photographic evidence submitted, establishes that substantially increasing the car dealership would have serious ramifications for the aesthetic and historic qualities of down -town Southold among other impacts, especially noise and traffic. Thus, if this project is not rejected outright, an EIS is required. The applicants themselves concede by submitting covenants and restrictions to mitigate the harm from the project that it will have environmental impacts. THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEM OF WHETHER CONTRACT ZONING IS LEGAL HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED. THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS CAN BE CHANGED AT ANY TIME AND ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE BY RESIDENTS. Another fundamental problem remains. while the applicants suggest by their proposed covenants and restrictions that they can restrict the use of their property to automobile uses, this may not be possible as a legal matter. Southold Counsel should be directed to determine whether "contract zoning" can withstand scrutiny. On information and belief, it may not be possible to restrict zoning in the manner suggested. It would be embarrassing for Southold officials to represent to constituents that such restrictions will hold, only to find they do not; this could especially be used to advantage by opponents at election time. It also bears emphasis that assuming these restrictions are valid, they would not be enforceable by area residents and would be subject to change on the whim of future town boards. Since they are in effect SEQRA covenants they should be made irrevocable. In addition, local citizens or the general public should be named as third party beneficiaries. The doctrine of intended beneficiaries maintains that only those named on the face of covenants or restrictions to be benefitted by them have standing to enforce them. I would suggest that the citizens of Southold be included as third party beneficiaries, in particular neighbors along Locust Lane and Cottage Place. i'�_i( � %111:_ !. _] -41L'/f"i � r E'- E4 _I-1 -r-� 1 -- E page 4 REVIEW OF THE COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS We continue to oppose the change of zone despite the proposed covenants and restrictions, based upon the evidence we have already submitted. The following suggestions for the improvement to the covenants and restrictions in no way indicates our support for the project. Condition #3 which requires a 25 foot wide landscaped buffer and three foot berm to be landscaped with evergreens, trees, and shrubs should specify the age of the trees, so that a lush rather than sparse buffer is provided. We suggest that mature trees be utilized. Calls to local nurseries indicate that 20 year old trees, reaching to heights of 25 to 30 fwwt, with widths of one and one half foot, can be successfully, transplanted. Condition #4 which requires two landscaped islands is vague. There is no reference to the site plan made in the covenant. The size, location, and nature of the vegetation to be planted on the islands should be specified. Mature vegetation should be utilized. Condition #7 is interesting in that it allows Colonial Corners to be used for automotive purposes. The Board should be aware that both the zoning and the covenants would still allow a full conversion of Colonial Corners to automobile uses. This would detract considerably from the neighborhood. Is this desirable? It would seem advisable for the board to not allow the change of zone at Colonial Corners to general business at all. Condition #9 suggests a landscaped buffer of 15 feet along Locust Lane and does not specify the age of the vegetation to be used. 15 feet i:� quite sparse, we would suggest that a 25 foot buffer be utilized. Given the age of the trees that were formerly removed, which on information and belief were as old as 100 years, I believe that, consistent with voorhis•s recommendations, -a mature band of trees should be placed along Locust Lane as indicated in our comments for condition #3. Condition #10 is also vague. It requires "additional landscaping" for the parking area on lot 19. The buffer area and age of vegetation should be specified. Condition #13 is useless. It states that, "Mullen Motors shall advise its employees and customers that there shall be no test-driving of vehicles on residential side streets in the vicinity of the property_" Advise is one thing; a strict prohibition is another. The condition should simply prohibit test-driving in specified areas including Locust Lane and Cottage place. 4�3. _ 7 %0,0'D 13: ='1 7 ^=2,?41 =`F01 `0 Era:: -i page 5 We recommend the following conditions in addition to strengthening those stated: Bright halogen lights should be replaced with lights that do not glare onto adjoining properties and which project light downward rather than onto adjacent properties in order to avoid a nuisance. Light poles shall be no greater in height than 12 feet, in accordance with height restrictions, and shall be properly capped and shielded. Vehicle maintenance and repair should be kept away from residential neighborhoods (e.g. residentially zoned property) due to the nuisance - like qualities of car maintenance and repair, and restricted to the existing Mullen Motors property along Main Street. My clients inform me that large maple trees on lot 22.1 exist which should be preserved. Ingress and egress onto Locust Lane should be prohibited from both parcel 22.", and 24.1. The present restriction does not include both parcels. Outdoor bullhorns or P.A. systems shall be prohibited. It is both inappropriate and illegal to address traffic concerns such as how car carriers will be handled after a SEQRA determination is made as the applicant suggests, and/or after covenants and restrictions are crafted. Traffic concerns are an integral concern o± your SEQRA determination. You may also wish to turn the project down on these grounds. The blue -stone gravel currently on Long 24.1 and 22.1 should be maintained rather than being replaced with more suburban asphalt. CONCLUSION In conclusion, first and foremost, alternative solutions to the parking problem should be explored, including off-street parking solutions. Secondly, the enforceability of "contract zoning" should be researched by counsel. We continue to advise against this change of zone. Thank you for your consideration. I hope that Mullen Motors parking problems can be solved in a Manner which does not detract from the Southold's rural and historic character. sine rely, Ca yn Z ] Attorney t Law cc: Gr g Yakob ski, Town Attorney Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk PLANNING BOARD MEMBER* BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk From: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner 6 - Date: March 20, 2000 Subject: FOIL Request of Melanie Sanford, 3/14/00 Town Hall, 53095 State Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Fax (631) 765-3136 Telephone (631) 765-1938 Please be advised that there has been no correspondence received by the Planning Department from either Nelson, Pope and Voorhis or Esseks, Hefter and Angel since October 13, 1999. /ck aft. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR, OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER • OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD REVISED REQUEST TO: Supervisor's Office 1w'Planning Board Town Attorney's Office FROM: Elizabeth A. Neville, Southold Town Clerk DATED: March 14, 2000 RE: FOIL Request Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 Transmitted herewith is a FOIL request of Melanie Sanford. Please respond to this office within five (5) business days. Thank you. MAR 14 2000 Southold Town Planning Board i ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax(516)765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 APPLICATION FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECORDS INSTRUCTIONS: Please complete Section I of this form and give to Town Clerk's Office (agency Freedom of Information Officer). One copy will be returned to you in response to your request, or as an interim response. SECTION 1. TO: rtment or O icer,—If known, that has thel information you arse requesting. RECORD YOU WISH TO INSPECT: (Describe the record sought. If possible, supply date, file title, tax map number, and any other pertinent information.) Al r IIIice.tTWI&INALiftlu Address: Mailing Address (if different from above) Telephone Number: '!�go2co» r Date: ---------------------------------------------—--------- RECEIVED [ ] APPROVED [ ] APPROVED WITH DELAY* u74444 Elizabeth A. Neville Freedom of Information Officer [ ] DENIED* MAR 14 2000 * If delayed or denied see reverse side for explanation. svurholcl town Clerk Date (Handed in at The Traveler) I Keep Dreaming of Ugly 'R1�- Editor: This is a sequel to "I Pass Through Ugly" published by you last December 23`d. I keep dreaming of Ugly, the way it could be. With two or three houses just west of the Place, The link fence replaced by tree after tree, The Ugly black stuff has grass in its place. RECEIVED The houselike shops mimic the Corners just east. FEB 4 2000 The add-on building has the add-ons off; ;�oufhotd Town Clerk The glass bubble window, too gaudy, is gone. It has windows, brick walls and a whole new face A curb marks its edge with Main Road and the Place. Where the add-ons came off, the tarmac did too The two houses are back that once faced on the Place. Colonial Corners has walkways to shops at their rear There's a double -width driveway for cars that come here. The black stuff is gone, and it's Ugly no more. To prove it you'll notice that on down the Place A wrap-around hedge that was two -stories high Has been cut quite low for the owner's pleased eye. He sees houselike shops, and no car after car. Just cottages fronted with neat little lawns. Cottage Place has been given its cottages back; No more cars on Ugly, on Ugly tarmac. Now the Place, as named, really is Cottage Place, Redeemed and renewed with its old -new face. Will I keep dreaming of Ugly the way it could be? Will the cottages come back for both you and me? Dreams can come true. We'll see. We'll see. Helen Prince Southold 2/2/2000 C.C.: Town Clerk, Town Board Mullen Motors Hearing File Planning Board l _A 0 To Southold Town Board, 7� January 4, 2000 Z— In regard to the former Lucy property, the contract vendor, Mr. Junie Albertson, has -1;t LE made no attempt through the years to sell the residential land. The residential land -TS across the street, (now the Soto residence), sold just before the Mullen Motors application was filed. Being that Mr. Albertson owned both properties, the argument T4 that he is unable to sell the Lucy property is without merit. Downzoning residential property to accommodate land speculators should not be even considered. Besides, if Mullen Motors compromises and devalues adjacent properties so badly, they,.. certainly should not be allowed further expansion behind other already established f V E D homes, but be contained where they are. The way the zoning is now with hamlet zoning to the north, residential to the east, JAN 4 2W residential to the south and residential to the west, with a variance for Employee Parking Only, someone certainly can build a house on the former Lucy property. sourhow Town Cle* People tell us what they think would make Locust Lane residents happy. Well we were all happy when the Sotos built a house on the former "litter strewn" residential lot next to 7 -Eleven and the Zito's home. We all would be happy to see another home built directly across the street from their new home. The fact that the property behind 7 -Eleven has already been sold to a family with children invalidates Valerie Scopaz's claim that "its desirability as a homesite has been compromised". If anything, the Lucy property has become more desirable with this latest addition to the neighborhood. For these reasons, the zoning should remain as is on Locust Lane. Albertson's Century 21 can certainly find a buyer as they did for the for the residential land across the street. If a house can be built behind 7 - Eleven, then a house can certainly be rebuilt behind Colonial Corners. These two properties are identical in three regards: Acreage, Location and Zoning. 1. Both parcels are 3110 of an acre. 2. These two northern most residences would distinguish the residential community from the business community in a uniform manner. 3. Both properties are located one lot south of our Main Road Hamlet and are zoned R- 40. In addition, a new home on this site would reestablish the entrance to the Founders Estates residential community, that was tragically altered by the loss of Mrs. Lucy's house by fire in 1980. The line between residential and general business should not be eroded as it has been on Cottage Place. When Mr. Albertson wanted to downzone from residential to hamlet zoning for Colonial Corners, he reassured the area residents that he would never do anything to hurt the neighborhood or put up any tall buildings that would block our views or diminish the character of our town in general... and besides, he said the Town Board would never let him do that anyway. Now Junie Albertson wants to sell this land to a corporation for warehouses, storage and noisy auto repair. We ask the Board to honor Junie Albertson's word and reject this downzone application in our neighborhood. „�.. Your ul Julie anford, Founders tates JAN _ 5 2hZjii Southold Town Planning Board • 0 Letter to the Southold Town Board, by Tom Jarnich. (My Own Enviromental Impact Statement) Dear Southold Town Board, August 14,1997 I am a resident of the Founders Estates area. This is My Own Enviromental Impact Statement. Southold is steeped in history and many historic sites. Many of the people here are descendants of the early settlers. Plaques bearing their names are still to be seen on homes they once lived in. Some other buildings that were built later on, lend themselves to the historic scene too --including the little hamlet shops on the Main Road and Locust Lane called Colonial Corners. A block or two west, there are museums and exhibits in a rural setting. The attitude of people today is to save as much of our heritage as possible. Do you want to replace Colonial Corners --a village within a village --with a commercial car dealership? i am a very concerned person who resides part time in Southold, in a home owned by my wife's family. They built the house some forty years ago and have continuously used it as a second home for weekends, holidays and summer retreats. Every year, I look forward to my time spent in Southold. I have come to love and appreciate its pristine beaches, tree -lined streets, quaint shops and quiet neighborhoods. The Mullen Motors Company's plans for expansion is a serious threat to this historic rural scene. It is also a threat to the property owners of the Founders Estates area; because it will decrease the values of their homes --Homes for which they worked very hard and long to earn the purchase money and to later carry on a long term mortgage. Previous expansions. of_.Mullen's_business has devaluated homes in the vicinity of the r _99_14_Wsin.ess along CottaaQ� Plaoe, If this latest plan to ezpanc7is successful; Eben the property owners a1on�C Locust Lane will suffer the same fate. For example, there is a very beautiful homy on Locust Lane t at is for sale. Already, -the proposed expansion of Mullen Motors Car Dealership, has adversely impacted the sale of this home. If a traffic survpy was made for Locust Lane, we would realize that an auto accident nearly occurs, several times DAILY. Now, add to this all the additional traffic that will be gererated by the automobile sales and service cars and trucks exiting and entering the expanded premises onto Locust Lane. It will become very unsafe to drive down Locust Lane toward the Main Road, along with trying to turn onto Locust Lane from the Main Road. And remember, Locust Lane is a very narrow two-way street. Hobart Road is a one-way street. Heavy commercial traffic coming from the Main r Road, detours down Hobart Road, across Korn Road and up Locust ILane: T e_se J traffic conditions --along with a dealership expansion --creates an unthinkable situation. ---- At least one resident of Founders Estates, travels about town by motorized wheel chair. This person must drive down Locust Lane or Cottage Place to get to the Main Road in order to reach their destination. Both of these streets are already congested from heavy commercial traffic and pose great safety hazzards. Once on the Main Road, there is no designated sidewalk from Mullen's display window i►_alf"way to the video store. Pedestrians and wheelc air users must walk or rive on the edge:of the road to o westwa — — 9 intotQ�ro_ Again, the advocates of expansion do not consider t e nee_s of residents --Its not their problem how others fare because of their mounting greed. Next, we come to the letters of the local businessmen coming to the rescue of .Messrs Mullen and familv-- Each implying that the said expansion will not hurt the community. Question. Where exactly do each of these businessmen and their families live�of them live on Cottage Place? Would any on them tolerate the intrusion of a commercial business adjacent to their homes? Wou dTthey aTfow their young cfiildren of gran c i re to pldy or walk on the street? Let's say, on Locust Lane after the expansion was to take place? Would they tolerate bright lights burning all night for the protection of the business premises from theft? We could continue to ask many more questions. If by chance a "NAY" response was given to any of the above questions, then expansion plans must be scrapped and no zone change with special exception awarded. Each Board member and/or employee of Southold Town, should ask himself/herself the same questions. It would be interesting to hear their responses. According to the principals advocating this expansion, one is led to believe, thatiiit is not next door to me, glaring me in the face and decreasing my property value --who cares. — Up to this point, the emphasis of this letter has been on the safety of Founders Residents and their guests Secondly, their property values. Has the impact of health hazzards been addressed? What impact will the additional carbon monoxide poisoning have on the residents an the ecolo What abou a toxins in asphalt itsel o people realize that asphalt is an unregiilate toxic su ss a _By � increasing paved areas for parking, the ecology will surely su er. ready, Mullen Motor run-off has had an ecological impact on property adjacent to his macadamed parking lot. Flooding, errosion, contamination, general dampness --these are all unacceptable problems. f An article in Suffolk Life (dated Wednesday, August 27th) indicated that the auto business may have o consider relocating if further enviromental impact studies are necessary. Mr. Mullen stating that he may have to "relocate", shows that other Foptions arepossible. Satisfied1:3atisfied customers wi I fo low M Wan anywhere --and so will his emp oy es. competitor is conduc ing business on a north -sou road just north of Route 48 right now! A NEW facility, with NEW showrooms, shops and service centers will be more impressive roan the present old patcheT �Toggether aroup of decrepit, non-conformin ui in s on the existing site. A FRN, good looking face i y m icates a potentially successful business. People ike that. And relocation may generate ad itlona ax moniesfor gouthoI d Tow_n. - 1 When businessmen boast, "We support_ local institutions", it is not always done out of the goodness of their hearts. Businessmen don't do anything without some motivation in mind, or as part of their Master Plan for conducting business. Spending money around town is an act of good will --hoping it will improve and promote additional car and truck sales is another thing. The concerns of the Public Citizens and the way Southold Town looks is something our Vi age government needs to take very seriously. Pray tertt, w y are -'t �e p poe e of Founders Estates taken seriously? Why can't their pleas be heard and considered? Down zoning in this case can not benefit, improve or enhance the value of our residential property or Mom & Pop property owners' real estate. Should our crusade fail, will the town re -appraise the Founders Estates properties and decrease the tax burden of the local owners in proportion to the amount of depreciation? Also, will Mullen's tax burden be increased to cover the amount the Town loses from us? 12 In conclusion, the Town_Council must render a decision that preserves the rural character of our town, maintainsits eviromental balance aneau y a�-d-fiR5l-ds ffie value o r .sidjqntial property -In ancient Home, even caesar was guided by the voice of the Public before rendering a thumbs up or thumbs down decision. Like the Ancients, we are asking the Town Board to hear the voice of the people and render a Thumbs Up! on our behalf. Sincerely, c, l Tom Jarnich JAN -3 2000 Southold T. Board/Code Comm. Southold Town Hall Southold Town Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Planning Board Re: Public Hearing on A Local Law to Revise Business Uses, HB District, Section 100-91B, Gasoline Service Stations & GB District, Section 100-101A Automotive Repair Shops. To Southold Town Board & Code Committee: January 27, 1998 We do not think the proposed changes to the Hamlet Business District for Gasoline Service Stations, Section 100-91B are a good idea. Our concerns lie not only in how this amendment will affect the look of our, Hamlets, but what the heavy uses and accessory uses that are allowed to accompany Gasoline Service Sta o will do to our centers and neighborhoods. Convenience stores are a particular menace and are nasi becoming synonymous with gas stations. In a December 4th article, (Wonton's Gone, Big,Gulp's On the Way?, Traveler/Watchman) Planning Board members made the following statement: "In the past ten years, the convenience store -gas station combination has proliferated to the point where it has become difficult to locate a gas station that doesn't double as a convenience store ... In fact, it has become so common that a convenience store is now considered an accessory use to a gas station, and may no longer require special permission from the ZBA." We find this alarming. Have the review standards at Town Hall dropped so much in the past 10 years that Town Officials would seriously consider streamlining applications for convenience store -gas stations? Do we really need any more? And do we really want them in our Hamlet Centers, under Section 100-91B, with all the problems that they pose? Convenience stores do not enhance the character of our Town. They generate noise, garbage and nightly traffic. The goods they sell are above market price and directly compete with Mom and Pop grocery stores, delis, beverage stores and restaurants. Since most convenience stores are franchises, they have little allegiance to local econornies like ours. Instead, they funnel profits to a centralized National Headquarters, so more convenience stores can come to town, compete with local merchants and squeeze them out of the market. This is precisely what's happening in Southold Town with 7 -Eleven. In a January 9th 1998 letter of transmittal to Southold Town Planning Board members, the Notaro Grupp Architects & Associates group writes: "Enclosed, you will find site plans and exterior elevations for 7 -Eleven #32347, in Mattituck on Main Road and Factory Avenue for architectural review and site plan review." If 7 -Eleven comes to Mattituck, that will make store #4 in the Town of Southold. Do we really need another convenience store? The answer is NO and certainly not a -I. • franchise establishment like 7 -Eleven for all the reasons just explained. Our delis and beverage stores are trying to make a go and all the while 7 -Eleven is thriving and expanding. A recent promotional campaign for Party Platters (please see enclosed) shows how 7 -Eleven targets our local market and with financial backing from its Dallas, Texas Headquarters, takes a chunk out our local economy. Now we discover, 7 -Eleven is teaming up with Citgo to open a brand new convenience store -gas station in Mattituck. The convenience store as an "accessory use" is just one reason why the Hamlet Business District should not be liberalized under Section 100-91B to include Gasoline Service Stations. Another good reason to prevent gas stations from setting up shop in our Hamlet Centers is the "accessory use" of auto repair. Auto repair is unattractive and use intensive. The heavy equipment needed to conduct au o re --ic! ts.�neumatic air guns, e ed ricanriad�rs a c -;are very nois_y� So too are the post repair examinations. The r iw and idlinof car enain�s to monitor performance and.... the.�ehicle test dr_iv_e.� It should be noted that these last 3 tests are often done outdoors. As for the vehicle test drive it is ally conducte on t e nearest residential street. Such activities can truly be disruptive to quiet neig orhoods and pose traffic hazards to busy Hamlet Centers. While we are on the subject of auto repair, we ask the Board to please keep Auto Repair Shops Special Exception. Anything as use-intensive_noisy and potentially, unattractive as_.�_. Auto Repair needs a stricter guideline, not just a site plan review. Site plans are not inding anwa _�Op . Ple_violat�them,.all the time and_ then�li�tng_the Q(d-plans m for amen ment. So long as they adhere to the lowest standards of their zoning category, `15usinesses have little to fear when they don't comply with the site plan. To ensure that use -intensive businesses like Automotive Repair Shops do not behave in this manner, we ask for ZBA review as well as site plan review. When all the elements of a Gasoline Service Station are considered --the "accessory uses-, the IaCK o aesthetics, noise, gas emissions, testdnvm� or simply the__ flamma cts o as and oil-- the Hamlet Busine�ss �rict is not an appropriate location for gasoline stations. A ar etter district for activities such as 'i ese would be the use district gas stations have traditionally conducted business in -- the -General Business District (Section 100-101B) ... away from Hamlet Centers. To illustrate this point further, we have compiled a list of all the gasoline stations in Southold Town. According to the NYNEX Yellow Pages and Yellow Book for the North Fork directories, there are 17 service stations (please see enclosed list). Of these 17 stations, 4 are located in appLopriate- districts, outside Hamlet Centers. e othe(5)Cutchogue Metro (now called Coastal), Mr. Roberts and Southold Automotive are in our Hamlets only because of preexisting conditions. While we recognize them as the exception Fo the rule, we do not want the exceptions becoming the rule. In fact, the problems posed by these hamlet gas stations may give the Board reason enough to reject the Hamlet proposal and simply uphold our current code --General Business Sec. 100-101 B. e';'J1,44 (Y1ut1� Mir°i'3 S e_v- v ic For example, in 1991, Cutchogue Metro (now Coastal) constructed a building canopy 5,�L 5 �= in the hamlet of Cutchogue without an approved site plan or building permit. Bad enough on the outskirts of town, but in the hamlet center! Rather than make Metro ` dismantle the structure, the Town imposed a fine and allowed Metro to back -file all the appropriate papers that would legitimize the canopy. Now we are stuck with an ugly, out of proportion, interior lit canopy in the middle of our Cutchogue hamlet. A very poor addition to our scenic center and a very poor precedent to set for the Town. r Since that time, a Mattituck gas station has followed suit building a similar canopy on Rt. 25 and a Laurel gas station has just applied to the ZBA asking permission to build the same unsightly structure. Mr. Roberts in Greenport poses a big problem too. Because it is located in the Hamlet Center and close to Residential Neighborhoods, this convenience store -gas station has become a teenage/youth hangout. Even on the coldest, darkest night you can see kids loitering in the parking lot and on the corner of 3rd Street. Rowdy gangs call out to passing cars, garbage and bottles are tossed on the street and drug activity is conducted by those milling about pretending to make phone calls. Mr. Roberts is an eyesore with no landscaping, ugly macadam and harsh bright lighting. Whether you are driving through town or just coming off the Shelter Island Ferry, it is the first thing that hits you as being out of keeping with the beautiful architecture and seaside atmosphere of Greenport. Southold Automotive has the same out of keeping feel when you drive through the center of town --especially at night. The lights that illuminate the pumps are so bright they hurt your eyes. Instead of attracting cars, the lights and bright orange signs actually make you look away. The modernization of this facility has ruined the country character of what was once an old time gas station. The internally lit signs and. bright flood Iiclhts are totally unnecessary, especia y in the hamlet. Shrill lighting and sleek modernization does as much to destroy the feel or our quiet rural setting as _ automotive repair and late night convenience stores. We do not need to encourage anymore Gasoline Service Stations in our Hamlet Centers next to rest entia_-prop, commune y par s, is oric points of interest; day care centers, churches, schools,, libraries a I tie fhihAs-tFa istinguish ouF; pedestrian c_e_n_ter_s.. If anything, in the future, we will need ffiba–gas stations in the en 6eraf Business District along Rt. 48 to service all the ferry_traffic_streaming along that corridor. The convenience store -gas station and auto repair -gas station would be perfect for travellers and truckers. Not every vehicle needs to s. _ swing into our...-._-- hamlet cen gr for coffee and as--especia y iz e overse tractor- rr- ruc Let's kee gm -- t. 5 con estion free. At the moment, there is only one gas station on Rt. 48 between Orient -and Riverhead that offers gas --it's located in Peconic on the south side of the road. Somewhere along that stretch, there should be a gas station located on the north side! Again, please consider the integrity of our Hamlet Centers and Residential Neighborhoods and do not revise the zoning codes to allow Gasoline Service Stations in our Hamlet Business District under Section 100-91B. The General Business District with Special Exception is the more appropriate location for Gasoline Stations and Auto Repair Shops. For the general welfare of Southold Town, we ask the Town Board, Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals to uphold the General Business Use District, Section 100-101B as the only use district and section for Gasloine Service Stations and Automotive Repair Shops. Yours truly, zy 2 tX,/2A(,-- Ben Orlowski --P ,Valerie obi --TP, Gerard Goehringer-- E -i Forrester--Co b �� • Southold Town Service Stations List compiled from the NYNEX Yellow Pages 1997-98 & Yellow Book for the North Fork 1996-97 AMAC Inc. 7400 Main Road, Laurel Amerada Hess Corp. 11100 Rt. 25, Mattituck Cutchogue Metro (renamed Coastal) Main Road, Cutchogue Cutchogue Service Station Main Road, Cutchogue Dinizio Service Center Inc. Rt 48 & Wickham Ave., Mattituck East End Petroleum Corp. Factory Ave. & Main Road, Mattituck Ell -Jay Mobile of Peconic 32400 Middle Rd, Peconic Empire Service Station 1100 Rt. 25 Greenport Carpluk's Service Center Inc. Main Rd & Bayview Rd, Southold Lou's Service Station Sound Ave & Pacific St, Mattituck . Mr. Roberts 300 Front Street, Greenport Nassau Point Service Station Main Street, Cutchogue Southold Automotive Corp. Main Road & Youngs Ave., Southold Ocean Service Mini Mart Main Road, Cutchogue Spano's Greenport Service Station 1100 Main Street, Greenport Wheeler's Garage North Road Rt. 48, Southold Willow Hill Automotive 45845 Rt. 48, Southold U. C-_ LA 030 r- I X Sewwce sk+ions locgfa irL 4he Almle_4-s Locust Lane Southold, NY. 11971 Southold Town Board January 3, 2000 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY. Re: Mullen Motors application for the downzoning of Hamlet Business and Residential R-40 property for General Business Use. To the members of the Southold Town Board: Along with all my Best Wishes to you for a Happy New Year are two previously - written letters that explain what a Car Dealership/Service & Repair Operation is like. AUTO REPAIR IS USE -INTENSIVE. The heavy equipment needed to conduct auto repair ---HYDRAULIC LIFTS, P UMATIC AIR GUNS, )= — CTR CAL GRINDERS etc. are very noisy. So too are the POST EPAIR EXAMINATIONS ... the reving d idling of car engines to monitor performance grid of course the vehicle test drive. It should be noted that these Last three are done out of doors. As for the vehicle test drive, it is usually conducted on the nearest residential streets. Such activities are truly disruptive to quiet neighborhoods and pose traffic hazards to busy Hamlet Centers and residential communities. Any business as USE -INTENSIVE, TOXIC, NOISY, and POTENTIALLY UNATTRACTIVE as a Car Dealership/Service Repair operation needs to be located away from Hamlets and neighborhoods. The residential R-40 neighborhood of Locust Lane should not be destroyed with these repair bays, hydraulic lifts, warehouses and all the other obnoxious uses a General Business downzone would permit. "A PRETTY LITTLE PARKING LOT" is not the Mullen Motors intent for this property. CAR DEALERSHIPS/SERVICE REPAIR OPERATIONS and AIRPORTS are the two operations that CAN NOT BE BUFFERED. They COMPROMISE all that surrounds them. I hope these letters will help you all understand what a Car Dealership/Service Repair situation is like. Yours truly, Jean Sanford cc: Ben Orlowski, Valerie Scopaz and members of the Planning Board 1 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 To Southold Town Board, October 5, 1997 I reside at 315 Cottage Place, the property adjacent to Mullen Motors' Employee Parking Lot. This lot is used for more than just Employee Parking. Very often, car repair activity takes place in this lot as well as overnight storage. Car deliveries are made in front of my house, blocking my driveway and causing noise and inconvenience. At night, the lights shine in our windows. It's ridiculous in a Residential -'Area! Early in the morning,1hydrolic car lifts) wake us up at 6:30am. I can't imagine being surrounded on two sides by this operation. Devon and I love this house. It dates back to the early 1900's. This house would be adversely affected by any zone change. The neighborhood cannot stand anymore. Please refuse any downzoning and "exceptions" to our zoning code. Yours truly, David Liss Devon Massar C.C. Ben Orlowski --Planning Board Valerie Scopaz--Planning Board Ed Forrester --Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer--Z.B.A. Judith Terry --Town Clerk 0 Ms. Judith Terry Town Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: 1800 Town* Harbor Lane Southold NY 11971 Since purchasing a house in Southold last February, we have been impressed with the concern of residents of the North Fork to ward off development pressures that Mould compromise the rural character of the area. — — P,ecently, however, the trees on Locust Lane were butchered t7f�out a concern for the impact ttia� would -have on the en- v ronment and local residents.____._--�--_---_------_-------------- Having lived in Bayside, Queens, for many -years, we have faced ------------.� 1 dealerships from, intruding I in residential neighborhoods. nce•�� ~-----'--�- they require more and =y more space, OTSe,rf i i ; �ht ncr -for security purposes, then hi_a_h_ fencing. After a while, the parking s ace ex ands to Include more r e air f a c i -� �----- P _— ---.p liti�s This generally leads to test driving_, mon residential streets and is certainly a safety concern t, at puts the elderly and young children at risk. We do not want Southold to look -like automobile row in Riverhead._ Ste hope the- g—OuEhOld Tow" Board" will deny the zoning change proposed by Mullen Motors and thereby protect the interests of the hamlet districts and local residents. Sincerely, Caro -1 A . Owens James A. Owens Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane "oa tihoid Tov;rl Southold, NY 11971 HaInning Board William J. Mills 11.1 P.O. Box 2126 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr. Mills, January 5, 1998 We have read your letter to the Town Board in support of Mullen Motors. This application for a change of zone is not simply for "the rear section of the property known as Colonial Corners", but rather, the entire Colonial Corners complex, as well as a residential property. As residents of Locust Lane and Founders Estates, we find this objectionable given its proximity to our homes. The activities of a car dealership are incompatible with quaint Hamlet shops and densely populated, R-40 neighborhoods. You say this additional expansion will "reduce the amount of 'automobile clutter' on or near the Main Road." In truth, it will only serve to increase and expand this unsightliness. What makes you think it is acceptable for Locust e and Foun dBLL residents to view c aln- ink fences macadam and a monotonous f "automobile cuter" as we eave n enter our homes? And what will it look like when the old homes of olonial Corners succumb? Mullen's past expansions included the removal of two 18th Century homes from the Main Road, as well as the demolition of another on Cottage Place. Now again, this area is expected to offer up another Residential property. There is no way for this dealership to expand without destroying and devaluing all that surrounds it. Car dealerships and residences are not meant to coexist. Our zoning cQ_�e�s o-no_t_ allow it. Mullen Motors has been the exception to the rule and just look at the results. We live with test-driving on our streets, 18 wheeler car carriers eroding private property, clogged and dangerous access to Route 25, car alarms, bright flood lights, macadam and chain-link fence. Wm. J. Mills & Co. could not expand where they were. Suffolk Times couldn't expand in their neighborhood. They didn't demolish adjacent properties. Even the Southold Post Office had to relocate to expand. It did not become a community problem. I don't see why the Town Board and the neighbors should be faced with this unreasonable request. No one is disputing that Mr. Mullen is -a good employer and a generous contributor of "government and charitable organizations." While all this may be true, these acts do not justify allowing him to be made the exception to the rule, allowing expansion after expansion. Especially because of his inappropriate location. The health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighbors has been compromised for years. From past experience, we already know it is not within the ower Plannin Board or an bod els i car dealershi ex ansion workable wit iri a amlet and Residential environment. Yours truly, Jean A. Sanford cc: Southold Town Board STOP -Watch member Planning Board *2�� ce. Ja, BEEN CHANGED FROM (516) TO j631) EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1 1999 ADAm B. GRossmAN ATTORMW AT LAW D P.O. BOX 155 180 COURT STREET p C ` J. RIVERHEAD, PLY. 11901 TEL (516) 787-800 SoutholdIOW ` f FAX (516) 869-HO80 December 20, 1999 Southold T rd uto Town Plan inn RocirZK o Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 SENT VIA TELEFAX TO 765-6145 (Town Board), 765-3136 (Planning Board) and 427-5620 (Charles Voorhis) and by REGULAR MAIL Re: Application of Richard F. Mullen III and William H. Mullen before Southold Town Board for Zone Change CONFIDENTIAL Addendum to Staff Report by Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner dated December 1, 1999 Dear Members of the Southold Town Board and Southold Town Planning Board: I, along with Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq., am the attorney for members of Founders Estates who own real property in close proximity to the property which is the subject of this application, and who are opposed to the above referenced application before the Southold Town Board for a Change of Zone. Attached to this letter is a CONFIDENTIAL Addendum to Staff Report by Valerie Scapaz, Town Planner dated December 1, 1999 which was recently brought to my attention by my clients after previously not being disclosed to the general public. Regarding the failure to disclose to the public, the decision to make this a "CONFIDENTIAL" Addendum to Staff Report at any time from the date it was prepared and filed was a flagrant violation of New York State Freedom of Information Law. In addition, the attached addendum to staff report is devoid of substance, and summarily dismisses issues which have been brought to the attention of the Southold Town Board by myself and co -counsel related to this application. I would like to take this opportunity to refute the contents of the addendum. This addendum to staff report is intended to address the "Southold Town Vision" as it relates to this application, and quotes from the Final Report and Recommendations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force of June 1994, which states in part, "We believe that a better way of developing commercial properties is by multiple small buildings in campus - like settings With good site planning and building design this type of development would better fit the historic context of Southold." This paragraph, based on my familiarity with the Founders Estates section of Southold Town, sounds like a vivid description of the current Colonial Corners development which will most certainly be destroyed should this application be granted by the Southold Town Board. Indeed, the reference to "campus -like settings" hardly envisioned expansion of a business use directly adjacent to a residential community. The quotes from the 1994 report by Ms. Scopaz simply re -affirm that the application before the Southold Town Board contradicts the "Southold Town Vision". What is ignored in the addendum is that the "opponents" are a residential community surrounding a car dealership which is seeking to expand it's business use with this application to the detriment of the surrounding residential community. It is the proximity of an expanded business use to a residential community which contravenes the "Southold Town Vision". To put it more simply, this is the wrong location for expansion of a car dealership, and is contrary to sound planning principles, particularly in a residential pocket of Southold Town. On page two of the addendum, Ms. Scopaz, in discussing the subject property, states: "The current petition represents a maior expansion in terms of adding land and enhancing the growth potential of the Mullen Motors Company". As both Boards I'm certain are aware, the Mullen Motors location has requested expansion after expansion for decades, while violating the Southold Town Code on numerous occasions. As for enhancing the growth potential of Mullen Motors, this is precisely what my clients object to the most. It is my contention that a zone change is too broad a device and will in fact allow the applicant to expand their car dealership while they claim to only need a parking lot by taking advantage of one of the additional new uses associated with granting the requested zone change, and leaving the surrounding residential community unable to stop such an expansion. On page three of the addendum it is suggested that "the decline in the quality of the [Founders Estates] residential neighborhood due to the way the business [Mullen Motorsl is being operated and fears that a physical expansion of that business will introduce a heightened level of intrusion should not be perceived as insurmountable obstacles." This conclusion is reached without the detailed examination of issues associated with this application which would be provided if the applicant were required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Any SEQRA analysis to date has failed to take the legally required "hard look" at this application. Additionally, the addendum fails to examine the other uses associated with this change of zone, and instead only addresses the "parking lot" option, when in fact numerous uses are available to the applicant which the applicant refuses to discuss, and which are not addressed in even a cursory fashion in this addendum. This addendum, in refusing to fully examine all uses associated with this change of zone application, and in failing to connect the granting of this application to the "Southold Town Vision", is rendered meaningless. Further, not one word is addressed to the traffic, environmental, noise, and other impacts this zone change application presents. Good planning requires detailed analysis of ALL issues associated with this application. It should be added that there is no detailed analysis submitted by either the Town of Southold or the applicant which even begins to adequately address the actual planning and SEQRA issues associated with this application. First, should the Southold Town Board fail to issue a Positive Declaration and require the applicant to prepare en Environmental Impact Statement, any action taken by the Town Board will be illegal due to violation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Second, any action taken by the Town Board in granting the relief requested will constitute spot zoning. Third, should the Town Board require the applicant to file covenants restricting the uses of the subject property, they will be violating Town Law Section 262's uniformity requirement previously outlined by Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. in her letter dated November 22, 1999. Since that letter fully addressed numerous legal issues associated with this application, I will not address them a second time, but instead would advise both the Town Board and the Planning Board members to review Ms. Zenk's letter. I would additionally refer both Board's to the Memorandum of Arthur DiPietro, Esq. dated November 9, 1999. In conclusion, sound planning policy is being ignored in the advise being given both to the Southold Town Board and the Southold Town Planning Board. Without a complete review of the real issues rather than the applicant's spin of issues associated with this application, the Town of Southold will be left fighting a losing battle defending any action taken based on such flawed documentation. In the strongest possible terms, I urge both Board's to require further environmental study in the form of an environmental impact statement so the issues associated with this application are fully addressed. I further recommend denial of this application for the reasons outlined above. Anything less than proper SEQRA review and/or denial of this application will be the basis for successful litigation against Southold Town. V truly y l� t' r Adam B. Grossman ABG:ag Enclosure cc: Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. Arthur DiPietro, Esq. Elizabeth Neville, Southold Town Clerk Mr. Charles Voorhis • 9 ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Petition of Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen to Rezone SCTM# 1000-62-03-22.1 and 23 1 From Residential -40 and Hamlet Business to Business DATE: December 1, 1999 Pursuant to your request, this addendum is designed to supplement the previous report on this matter, dated November 12, 1999. Specifically, the Planning Board asked for an examination of the subject petition relative to the several and various programs and policies that define the Town's planning effibms. Southold Town's "Vision"., as stated in many documents and public meetings, some going back to the mid-1980s (prior to the adoption of the 1989 Zoning Map), is to preserve the small-town qualities that distinguish it. These qualities are a result of several factors, among them the distinction that is still evident between densely - developed hamlets and the countryside. Whereas most of the rest of Long Island is characterized as being a sprawl of development, Southold has managed to maintain the character of its individual hamlets and their respective business centers. These business centers are not purely business in nature. Rather, like most small towns, the business centers grew around and from a core of residential, municipal and religious structures. Within the hamlets there are some dissonant elements, businesses whose location once marked the outer limits of business development within a community, but which have become surrounded by a mix of other businesses and residences. Southold Town's hamlets are no different. However, since 1989, the Town has clearly stated that it will move to consolidate future retail business growth around existing business centers within its traditional hamlets. The following quote from the Final Report and Recommendations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force of June 1994 illustrates this Vision explicitly. The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold Town, We consider this to be a desirable pattern of development, which .should be encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful Planning should be undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered..... The blurring of the distinction between hamlet and countryside should be avoided as a priority. (Chapter S. P.61.) The report goes on to note (in a discussion recommending against strip shopping centers): IIIIli11�1j1�111�i� • We believe that a better way of developing commercial properties is by multiple, small buildings in a campus -like settings. With good site planning and building design, this type of development would better fit the historic context of .Southold. (Chapter S. P. 63) The report went on to suggest that all business zoning on CR 48 be removed or at the least, confined to existing developed lots currently in business use. The Town Board recently retained a consultant, who studied the CR 48 corridor in conjunction with this and other Town vision statements or planning policies. In October of this year, a number of rezonings were undertaken which had the net effect of reducing the overall amount or intensity of.business zoning on CR 48. The petition involves two lots with different zoning designations. The southernmost parcel is zoned for single family residential use. It has remained vacant these many years, no doubt because of the intensity of the adjoining business uses to the west, north and northeast. Its is fair to say that given how this hamlet has developed, its desirablity as a home -site has been compromised. The petitioner proposes to use the property as a parking and car storage lot, which properly buffered with sufficient landscaping, would put this land to productive use other than a vacant, litter -strewn lot. The Hamlet Business zone, which is the zoning of northernmost of the subject parcels, permits the most intensive of retail uses, including that of fast food restaurants, which are known high -traffic generators This lot is already developed and in a manner which the Town wishes to encourage. The site contains a former residence and barn that were modified to contain small shops and professional offices_ Additional small structures were added to form a small cluster of businesses that manage to retain the residential flavor of the original home. This particular business center complements the existing residences along Main Street, some of which are of noteworthy historical interest and value. The petition to the Town was quite specific in stated intent: to permit the continued expansion of an existing business dating to 1427. As noted in my earlier report, the Town has a long tradition of permitting this business to expand its operations and has granted that permission in a series of site plan approvals, variances and a use variance. The current petition represents a major expansion in terms of adding land and enhancing the growth potential of the Mullen Motors Company. Granting the petition may seem a contradiction in terms. Indeed, opponents have averred that allowing this business to expand would generate such negative impacts on the surrounding residential community as to destroy the very character and fabric of this part of the hamlet. If this petition involved vacant land and a proposal to construct a modern car dealership, then I would have to agree with that assessment However, this petition involves a unique situation and circumstance. The site is mostly developed, albeit in a somewhat haphazard way. However, it contains elements of adaptive reuse which the Down wishes to encourage, and which can be used as a foundation for the continued expansion of this business. From a design standpoint, the petitioner's use of the site is less than optimal. there are alternative ways of using the existing parking fields and of landscaping the site that would work to mitigate and minimize some of the negative impacts the current operation has on the surrounding community. The addition of the two subject parcels to the equation, as it were, would make it easier to re -design the operational use of the overall site. Underscoring this analysis is my understanding that the petitioners are willing to work with the Planning Board during the site plan review to facilitate the best possible combination of operational, layout and landscaping changes so as to minimize the business' impact on the surrounding residential community. Also, that the petitioners are ready and willing to redress past violations of previous site plan and variance approvals.- some pprovals;some of which seem to have come about in a desperate attempt to handle increased business within limited quarter,-. If such is the case, then the Town and the petitioners have a unique opportunity to guide this company's physical expansion in such a way as to redress some serious traffic, lighting and parking problems and ultimately to become an asset to the community. At the heart of this analysis and recommendation is a concept which bears some explanation. The opposition of the community is perceived to be based on two things - unhappiness with the decline in the quality of their residential neighborhood due to the way the business is being operated and fears that a physical expansion of that business will introduce a heightened level of intrusion Their concerns are valid ones, but in this instance, they should not be perceived as insurmountable obstacles. To explain: for a decade now, the Town has worked to maintain its distinctive character through a series of actions, each designed to deal with a specific problem. For instance, it has eliminated strip shopping center designs from its zoning code; it has prohibited the construction of commercial buildings in excess of 60 feet in length parallel to the road in order to preserve vistas and encourage buildings of a mass and shape complimentary to its existing architectural heritage; it has eliminated the use of interior -lit signage from all but Hamlet Business districts. Several million dollars have been spent and are proposed yet to be spent to preserve the agricultural land around each hamlet. The Town has pursued this path knowing that the accommodation of future business growth within the existing hamlets was going to take a great deal of creative design and compromise. 12, 2011339 1J: 15 t mI?RNEr.%T 1,A%N DA� V2 otUi 99 f TSL,EFAX NUMBER: I I FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER. S�EBT I 1 TI IE• -i`' tJ a.m. p.m. /-7 4 5-- '3 1-3 � I u.;? -7- 5-er070 BE Ani 1?xUbl'g 9 W 1'1'li 1 LL12> L -AA . CTn:k.TG.r'?' �4 Q ek 404:- #'V` LA L / $ ;zs ✓1 -e C /Er A CONFIDENTIALITY The documents accompanying this elecopy transmission may contain informaion which is confidential and/or legally p ivileged. The information is intended onlyIfor the use of the specific individual or entity named on this transmission sheet,, If you are ncT: the intended rec4ient, you are hereby no_if_ied that any dis losure, copying, 7istr:ibuticn or the tak ng of any action in reliance on the concerts of this telecopy' S ..nformat icon is strict y probibited, and that the documents should be x: turned to tklis office immediately. in this regard, if you have received this tP1 cov-i i.n. error, please notityjAdam B. GSma1� raSEsq. by telephone irwtie iateiv. Nil Southold Town Planning Board 213:'993 ADAM3GRJS:=P�AN PAGE Q1 I RK 4s '00t!(» iS5 � M 120 C.C)i Wr STREFT MS HIVYilIEW), `. V. LLOO I tlil. (616) 727-42W IAX (616) 3694W TSL,EFAX NUMBER: I I FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER. S�EBT I 1 TI IE• -i`' tJ a.m. p.m. /-7 4 5-- '3 1-3 � I u.;? -7- 5-er070 BE Ani 1?xUbl'g 9 W 1'1'li 1 LL12> L -AA . CTn:k.TG.r'?' �4 Q ek 404:- #'V` LA L / $ ;zs ✓1 -e C /Er A CONFIDENTIALITY The documents accompanying this elecopy transmission may contain informaion which is confidential and/or legally p ivileged. The information is intended onlyIfor the use of the specific individual or entity named on this transmission sheet,, If you are ncT: the intended rec4ient, you are hereby no_if_ied that any dis losure, copying, 7istr:ibuticn or the tak ng of any action in reliance on the concerts of this telecopy' S ..nformat icon is strict y probibited, and that the documents should be x: turned to tklis office immediately. in this regard, if you have received this tP1 cov-i i.n. error, please notityjAdam B. GSma1� raSEsq. by telephone irwtie iateiv. Nil Southold Town Planning Board 12/20,E1999 11:15 2@32933 ADAMBGROSSMAN PAGE 02 • • BEEN CHAlYGED FRaM.(S 161 TO 03 1) EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1. 1 S►99, ADAM B. GR()SSMAAI s i r ATRAM AT LAW PO Box X" Y. 180 mt_t r 97R.1S1."T 2 RZYAD, S.Y 11901 TEL (616) 797 900 FAR (616) 868.4090 'outhold Town 1��ning Board Dedember 20, 1999 Southold Town Board Southold Town planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 SENT VIA TELEFAX TO 765.6145 (Town Board), 755-3136 (Planning Board) and 427-5620 (Charles Voorhis) and by REGULAR MAIL Re: Application of Richard F. Mullen III and William H. Mullen before Southold Town Board for Zone Change CONFIDENTIAL Addendum to Staff Report by Valerie Scopoz, Town Plonner dated December 1, 1999 Dear Members of the Southold Town Board and Southold iTown Planning Board: 1, along with Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq., am the attorney for members of Founders Estates who own real property in close proximity to the property which is the subject of this application, and who are opposed to the above referenced application before the Southold Town Board for a Change of Zone. Attached to this letter'is a CONFIDENTIAL Addendum to Staff Report by Valerie Scapaz, Town Plannerdated December 1, 1999 which was recently brought to my attention by my clients after previously not being disclosed to the general public. Regarding the failure to disclose to the publii, the decision to make this a "CONFIDENTIAL" Addendum to Staff Report at any time froom the date it was prepared and filed was a flagrant violation of New York State Freedom bf Information Law. In addition, the attached addendum to staff report is devoid of subs#ance, and summarily dismisses issues which have been brought to the attention of the Southold Town Board by myself and co -counsel related to this application. I would like to take this opportunity to refute the contents of the addendum. This addendum to staff report is intended to addreis the "Southold Town Vision" as it relates to this application, and quotes from the Final Report and Recommendations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force of lune 1994, whish states in part, "Webelieve that a ofdevllooina comcnerciol Rropgrtiesis b m Iti le small buildings in cam us- i:l-_ __u'— \AA41..........J -A— --A k..*.Winn Amaink. ihie fvnp of davelnnmant would • 12x'26,'1939 10: 15 2'032993 ADAM13GROSSMAN PAGE 63 1 � I • Iter fit the historic context of Southold.' This paragraph, (based on my familiarity with the Founders Estates section of Southold Town, sounds like a vivid description of the current Colonial Corners development which will most certainly be d6stroyed should this application be granted by the Southold Town Board. Indeed, the reference to "campus -like settings" hardly envisioned expansion of a business use directly adjadent to a residential community. The quotes from the 1994 report by Ms. Scopaz simply re -affirm that the application before the Southold Town Board contradicts the "Southold Town Vision". What is ignored in the addendum is that the "opponents" area residential commun,ty surrounding a car dealership which is seeking to expand it's business use with this application to the detriment of the surrounding residential community. It is the proximity of cin expanded business use to a residential communitywhich contravenes the "Southold Tow� Vision'. To put it more simply, this is the wrong location for expansion of a car dealership, and is contrary to sound planning principles, particularly in a residential pocket of S6uthold Town. On page two of the addendum, Ms. Scopaz, in discussing the subject property, states: "termsofad in land and ThC curt amnhancin the arowth. g_otential of the Mullen Motors Com Dany". As both Boards I'm certain are aware, the Mullen Motors location has requested expansion after expansion for decades, while violating the Southold Town Code on numerous oGq�asions. As for enhancing the growth potential of Mullen Motors, this is precisely what rn� clients object to the most. Itis my contention that a zone change is too broad a device and will in fact allow the applicant to expand their car dealership while they claim to only' need a parking lot by taking advantage of one of the additional new uses associated with granting the requested zone change, and leaving the surrounding residential commhnity unable to stop such an expansion. on page three of the addendum it is suggested that 4e decline in the quality of the _I .a a _ _-- ra1__11_, ILA —A --I fS�UGE11 ot•..�i as M. ....,..� .. _.. c�htened level of intrusion should not be perceived as i surmountable obstacles." This conclusion is reached without the detailed examination' of issues associated with this application which would be provided if the applicant 'were required to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Any SEQRA analysis to dlate has failed to take the legally required "hard look" at this application. Additionally, the'addendum fails to examine the other uses associated with this change of zone, and insteadlonly addresses the "parking lot" option, when in fact numerous uses are available to the applicant which the applicant refuses to discuss, and which are not addressed in even a cursory'fashion in this addendum. This addendum, in refusing to fully examine all used associated with this change of zone application, and in failing to connect the granting of chis application to the "Southold Town Vision", is rendered meaningless. Further, not one ward is addressed to the traffic, environmental, noise, and other impacts this zone chanjge application presents. Good planning requires detailed analysis of ALL issues associate with this application. It should be added that there is no detailed analysis submitted by ei}her the Town of Southold or the applicant which even begins to adequately address the actual planning and SEQRA issues �I 12/20/1999 10:15 20B2993 ADAMBGROSSMAN PALE 04 • I • associated with this application. First, should the Southold Town Board fail to issue aPositive Declaration and require the applicant to prepare en Environmental Impact Stotemdnt, any action taken by the Town Board will be illegal due to violation of the State Environmehtal Quality Review Act. 5econd, any action taken by the Town Board in granting the re4f requested will constitute spot zoning. Third, should the Town Board require the applicarht to file covenants restricting the uses of the subject property, they will be violating Towk Law Section 262's uniformity requirement previously outlined by Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. iih her letter dated November 22, 1999. Since that letter fully addressed numerous legal issues associated with this application, I will not address them a second time, but instoad would advise both the Town Board and the Planning Board members to review Ms. Zenk's letter. I would additionally refer both Beard's to the Memorandum of Arthur DiPieiro, Esq. dated November 9, 1999. In conclusion, sound planning policy is being ignored in the advise being given both to the Southold Town Board and the Southold Town Planning Board. Without a complete review of the real issues rather than the applicant's spi� of issues associated with this application, the Town of Southold will be left fighting a loping battle defending any action taken based on such flowed documentation. In the stron�est possible terms, I urge both Board's to require further environmental study in the fo m of an environmental impact statement so the issues associated with this application, are fully addressed. I further recommend denial of this application for the reasons ouilined above. Anything less than proper SEQRA review and/or denial of this application 'will be the basis for successful litigation against Southold Town. A50:09 Enclosire cc: Carolyn A. Zenk., Esq. Arthur DiPietro, Esq. Elizabeth Neville, Southold Town Clerk Mr. Charles Voorhis Dssmon 12/20/1999 10:15 2002993 ADAMBGR055MAN 1AZ:13,,99 14:45 FAX 51.87859359 AFRUTECH PUH' ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO, The Planning Board / FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner J RF, Petition of Richard P. Mullen III and William Mullen tc Rezone SCTM# 1000-62-03-22.1 and 23 1 From Residential -40 and Hamlet Business to� Business DATE: December 1, 1999 1 PACE 05 Z02 I Pursuant to your request, this addendum is designed to suppement the previous report on this matter, dated November 12, 1999 Specifical;y, the PI: ming Board asked for an examination of the subject petition relative to the several and various programs and policies that define the Town's planning efforts Southold Town's "Vision", as stated in many documents an' public meetings, some going back to the mid -19809 (prior to the adoption of the 1 9 Zoning Map), is to preserve the small-town qualities that distinguish it. These ualities are a result of several factors, among them the distinction that is still evid nt between densely - developed hamlets and the countryside. Whereas most of the rest of Song Island is characterized as being a sprawl of development, Southold his managed to maintain the character of its individual hamlets and their respective business centers. These business centers are not purely business in nature R'ther, like most small towns, the business centers grew around and from a core of residen ial, municipal and religions structures. Within the hamlets there are some dissonant elements, businesses whose location once marked the outer limits of business development within a community, but which have become surrounded by a mix of other businessep and residences Southold Town's hamlets are no different, However, since 1989, the town has clearly stated that it will move to consolidate future retail business growth aroolnd existing business centers within its traditional hamlets. The following quote frorn the Final Report and a tecommenoations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force of lune 1994 illustrates this Vision'explicitly. Ae hamlets are the historic faeris for residential and business activity in Southold Town, We consider this to be a desirable pattern �f development, which .should be encouraged by allowing appropriate new r'esiden'tial and commercial development in the existing eerrters. In order to*cilitaie this growth, careful planning should be undertaken by the Town, so the't a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, vonsistent wish our history and tradi Pional pattern of development, is fostered ,, .. The blurring of the distinction be een hamlet acrd countryside should be avoided as a priority. (Chapter 5. P. 61.) 1, The report gocs on to note (in a discussion recommending 4ainst strip shopping centers): 12-/'2011999 IA:15 20e293 1.2/13,,99 14:45 FAX 516'7659359 ADAMBGROSSMAN • AE Q' NCH PL'31a i i i i We believe that a better way of developing com►nercigl properties is by multiple, small buildings it? a campinc-like settings. With good:.site planning and building design, this type of dovelonment ,vmild better fit the storic context of ,Southold (Chapter S. P, 6.3) The report went on to suggest that all business zoning on CSR 48 be removed or at the least, confined to existing developed lots currently in busrnpss use. The Town Board recently retained a consultant, who studied the CR 49 corridor in conjunction with this and ether Town vision statements or planning policies In OcItober of this year, a number of rezonings were undertaken which had the net effect of red' ting the overall amount or intensity of business zoning on CR 48. The. petition involves two lots with different zoning de3tpatrons, The southernmost parcel is zoned for single family residential use. h has rt mained vacant these many vearc, no doubt because of the intensity of the adjoining busyness uses ro the west, north and northeast. Its is fair to say that given how this hamlet * developed, its desirablity as a home -site has been compromised. The petitioner prop �ses to use the property as a parking and car storage lot, which properly buffered with sufficient landscaping. would put this land to productive use other than a vacant, litter -strewn lot. The Hamlet Business zone, which is the zoning of northern' lost of the subject parcels; permits the most intensive of retail uses, including that of fastfood restaurants., which are known high -traffic generators This lot is already develops and in a manner which the Town wishes to encourage. The Site contains a former residence and barn that were modified to Contain small shops and professional ofTiices. Additional small structures were ad -led to form a small cluster of businesses that manage to retain the residential flavor of the original home This particular business center complements the existing residences along Main Street, some of which are of note%�orthy historical interest and value The petition to the Town was quite specific in stated intInt: to permit the continued expansion of an existing business dating to i 927 As noted in my earlier report, the Town has a long tradition of permitting this business to expand its operations and has granted that permission in a series of site plan approvals, variances and a use variance. The current petition represents a major expansion in terms 4adding land and enhancing the growth potential of the Mullen Motors Company PAGE 06 Granting the petition may seem a contradiction in terms ln�eed, opponents have averred that allowing this business tc expand would generate styCh negative impacts on the surrounding residential community as to destroy the very character and fabric of this part CC the hamlet. if this petition involved vacant land and a pr'iposal to construct a modern car dealership, then I would have to agree with that as,sess+jnent However, this petition involves a unique situation and circumstance. The site is inostly developed, albeit in a . somewhat haphazard way However, it contains elements! of adaptive reuse which the 1903 0 12/20/1939 10:15 20132993 AJAMEGROSSMAN PAGE 07 11.13/99 14:45 FAX 51.67659359 AERQTECH PUBIS' Town wishes to encourage, and which can be used as a Foundation for the continued expansion of this business. I From a design standpoint, the petitioner's use of the site it less than optimal: there are alternative ways of using the existing parking fields and .of landscaping the site that would work to mitigate and minimize some of the negative mpacts the current operation has on the surrounding community. The addition of tho two subject parcels to the equation, as it were, would make it easier to redesign the Operational use of the overall site. Underscoring this analysis is my understanding that the petitioners are willing to work with the Planning Board during the site plan review ip facilitate the best possible combination of operational, layout and landscaping changes so as to minimize the business' impact on the surrounding residential community.' Also, that the petitioners are ready and willing to redress past violations of previous site plan and variance approvals, some of which seem) to have come about in a desperate; attempt to handle increased business within limited quarters if such is the case, then 6e Town and the petitioners have a unique opportunity to guide this company's physica� expansion in such a way as to redress some serious traffic, lighting and parking proble s and ultimately to become an asset to the community. i At the heart of this analysis and recommendation is a concept which bears some explanation The opposition of the community is perceiveld to be based on two thinks. unhappiness with the decline in the quality of their residential neighborhood due to the way the business is being opera'ed and fears that a physici expansion of that business will introduce a heightened level of intrusion. Their concetns are valid ones, but in this instance, they should not be perceived as insurmountable ob�tacles. To explain- for a decade now, the Town has worked to ma ntain its distinctive character through a series of actions, each designed to. deal with a spe ific problem. For instance, it has eliminated strip shopping center designs from its zoning code; it has prohibited the construction of commercial buildings in excess of 60 feet it� length parallel to the road in order to preserve vistas and encourage buildings of a mass and shape complimentary to its existing architectural heritage; it has eliminated the use f interior -lit signage from all but Hamlet Business districts. Several million dollars hav , been spent and are proposed yet to be spent to preserve the agricultural land around each hamlet The Town has pursued this path knowing that the accommodation of futute business growth within the existing hamlets was going to take a great deal of creative d�sign and compromise. 11n4 Locust Lane D ' Southold, NY, 11971 December 19, 1999 Nelson, Pope & Voorhis MAR O LUUIrI Walt Whiltman Rd. Melville, NY 11747 Att: Mr. Charles Voorhis Southold Town Fax:516-427-5620 Planning Board Re: SEQRA Richard F. ullen Zone Change Application SC o. 1000-62-03-22. 1 & 24.1 Dear Mr. Voorhis, In conjunction with your environmental evaluation of the proposed Mullen Motors downzone application, we are again sending you letters, newspaper articles, affirmations of attorneys Carolyn Zenk and Arthur Di Pietro and a video of the Mullen Motors Hearing to be incorporated into your decision. In addition to the traffic, noise, lights, invasion of privacy and devaluation of our homes, about which we've already documented for you, there are other environmental issues at stake. Mullen Motors sits on the top of a macadamed slope of land. Automotive runoff from this operation drains directly into neighbors' yards and the nearby creek. This area has been designated by the Peconic Estuary Study as a Habitat "Hot Spot" where fish and wildlife nest, breed and feed. Macadam and automotive run off are environmental pollutants and toxic to marshlands and creeks. At Silver Lake the DEC would not sanction the paving of a road because of its close proximity and toxic impact on the nearby lake (please see enclosed article). Any waste management professional will tell you the dangers of macadam as an unregulated, toxic substance. There is also the question of old, deteriorating oil drums that may be buried on the property and contamination also from previous years of careless automotive disposals. The area aquifer at one time carried soapsuds from a Laundromat in the Mullen Motors building on the north side of Rte. 25 to wells as far south as Korn Road. The top of a hill less than one block away from a salt water marsh and creek is, for very obvious and good reasons, not the correct location for an ever-expanding Car Dealership/Service Repair Facility. The Mullen Motors operation has been an ever-increasing blight to the hamlet area, to the scenic vista of our Main Road, and to every property in its' path. It would not be truthful to state otherwise. Mullen Motors thinks their problems are everbody's problems. Other businesses have outgrown their locations but they take care of their own problems without bothering other property owners. They don't knock down houses, intrude on the lives around them or destroy the familiar, well -loved landmarks of an established eighteenth -century area. Mullen Motors has situated itself in a most inappropriate location for an over- expanding Car Dealership and no amount of creativity can possibly surmount, control, mitigate or hide the offensiveness of this operation. As said by Carolyn Zenk, to do • this would be like "DRESSING A MULE IN A SILK SKIRT. As it now stands, the Locust Lane area has been compromised enough by 7 -Eleven and Mullen Motors. Any more compromise now must come from Mullen Motors and another area. Our section of town can not absorb any more Mullen Motors Car Dealership/Repair Service Facility nor should we be made to do so. Over the years, Mullen Motors has shown a total disregard and disrespect for its' neighbors. I don't see things improving by allowing this automotive facility to spread across another block, disfiguring the area with a mega Car Dealership,only to inform us a few years down the line that they need "a little more parking". They have access onto Hobart Road and can pull their stuff through there if need be. As it is, they have more than their fair share of Main Road frontage. As for the Covenants- - If Mullen Motors can remove town sidewalks, grass, trees, and houses then we're certain Mullen Motors can remove Covenants, which by the way,(in case no one noticed) only restrict Mullen Motors to exactly what they are asking for and more. These Covenants are BOGUS - FAKE Limited outdoor intercom Use? What a thoughtful addition to our area. Limit hours of operation? How uncontrollable! Tow trucks bringing wrecks in the middle of the night. Traffic -delayed car carriers arriving after hours! No Access onto Locust Lane? We know from a reliable source that access onto Locust Lane was their original intent and purpose Colonial Corners must be developed right away in conjunction with the whole megalomania. It must be used solely for automotive use. How convenient. It couldn't be better if Mullen Motors had written it themselves. "Sorry to have to put everyone out of business here and tear down Colonial Corners, but the Covenants say we have to have only automotive use here. I can't help it". There are other businesses in this town and they have to go where business is zoned. They cannot just intrude into a neighborhood and upon home owners, devalue their properties and request the town to downizone residential properties for business - - - use -intensive business at that. In the interest of good town planning, environmental protection and the safety and welfare of other property owners, we look to you to give a POSITIVE DECLARATION - A VERY VALID POSITIVE DECLARATION. Thank you for your thoughtful attention to this most serious decision. Yours truly, J an A. Sanford cc: Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. Arthur DiPietro, Esq. &146.41 T '31 Of e. aun-off & Erosion from Mullen Motors onto Hobart Road & Town Creek Pec nic Estuary Program Critical Habitats .tom -`U AOTO All d � l .. _ _ ie�:`.:' �� y:, �'<.s,�� r �...._ ;r_ •.. : o`er Peconlic Estuary Program PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas JFF acs +0 0 +o +o w4nnrrn Scale a 1:330,000 Nov 1C� , 1(i`\R� m Dumping remedy: paving? More cars is exactly what the board would like to see on Monsell Path near Silver Lake. The dirt road attracts illegal dumping, which the board has struggled to contain. Video cameras posted on the path haven't wore, so r. s as e �g way See Notes, page 33 Village .lull NoIt.eS:O,,0**. ®-From page 21 Mills _"referenced -a . letter -from the department head Bobby Peterson . county health department to town water and sewer 'utility. head Toni about possibly paving the roadway. Cybulski. Seems the county wants "the "You get more traffic on there and village to shutdown its No.3 pumping you'll eliminate all the dumping," said station on Moores Lane, ayequest the Trustee Mills. Suffolk County Water Authority made Former trustee John Costello once pushed for the same, project, 'Mr. in February. - The water — which is not Peterson said, and was told by -the state Department of Environmental `authority a county. government agency - has -recently Conservation that asphalt :in the low- well fields on property it pur chased adjacent to t`he No. 3 pumping ` lying. area ma introduce oirm[o t e nd Silver Lake in times o station and. apparently doesn't want to marsh aro hi water. Mayor Kapell sugges a share the water there with. Greenport. The village isn't using the well but still - that something , other than asphalt likes knowing it can pump the water might work. "Even if the DEC rejects the idea of should it need to. blacktop, maybe you could :discuss ,'.'This to me was a big red flag, that alternatives,". he said. "Maybe blue- the health department and the water „ — stone or beachstone. . authority are talking," said Mr. Mills ----- of the health- department's letter. ® Tug o' war over No. 3 field "Now another branch of county gov- 'County government was the. target ernment is coming back. at us and of village government ire at last telling us that if we aren't using the Thursday's meeting, when Trustee well, discontinue using it." • 0 74, 01 , �'_ Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Stephen M. Jones, Dir. of Planning Mr. Gerald G. Newman, Chief Planner The Suffolk County Planning Board H. Lee Dennison Bldg. Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 December 12, 1999 Re: Application for Change of Zone involving SCTM# 1000-62-03-22.1 and 24.1 from Residential & Hamlet business to General business located in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County N.Y. Dear Messrs. Jones & Newman & Planning Board Members: The Founders Estates Residents, Tax Payers, and Plaintiffs against the Mullen Motors expansion are very dissatisfied with the November 3rd recommendation to downgrade Hamlet and Residential property for exclusive car dealership use. Car Dealerships or any General Business use in this locality is totally objectionable. Please revise this recommendation. It does not address the issue. As explained to you in our October 18th, October 25th, and November 1st correspondence (both by letters and telephone conversations) A CAR DEALERSHIP/REPAIR FACILITY is the very use to which all objections are directed. How could this be considered an appropriate recommendation? Car dealership/repair facilities head the list of USE -INTENSIVE BUSINESSES which are totally incompatible with residential neighborhoods and pedestrian oriented hamlets. Under the Southold Town Table of Uses, a Car Dealership/Repair Facility is allowed ONLY by SPECIAL EXCEPTION in a general business zone. This SPECIAL EXCEPTION requirement, makes the November 3rd recommendation doubly objectionable. Enclosed, is a legal brief by Arthur DiPietro that may throw more light on the subject and help the SCPB to reevaluate and to rectify this most misconstrued recommendation. You have already received Carolyn Zenk's November 22, 1999 brief on this matter. We appreciate your reconsidered input and look forward to your earliest reply. Yours truly, JieSanford cc: Southold Town Board Southold Planning Board Dr. Lee Coppelman North Fork Environmental Council Mr. Vito Minei Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services Office of Ecology County Center Riverhead, NY 11901 December 8, 1999 Dear Mr. Minei: Melanie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, N.Y. 11971 VA1 Z7CiC SGoPA2 As a follow up to the Peconic Estuary public meeting (Oct. 28th) and our phone conversation Thursday (Nov. 4th) I would like to submit to your attention some of the concerns we have with the proposed expansion of Mullen Motors, Inc. in Southold. Please incorporate these concerns into any recommendations you may have for the Town of Southold --be it environmental or land use. As you can see from the map, Mullen Motors is located within the Peconic Estuary Study Area, ONE BLOCK FROM A CRITICAL HABITAT "HOT SPOT". The configuration of the land, south of Rte. 25, that Mullen Motors has paved and misused runs down hill into Town Creek. This area has been identified as one of the Critical "Hot Spots" on Long Island where fish and wildlife eat, nest, and breed. A green slime from automotive chemicals is carried in this macadam run-off that contaminates neighboring properties as well as the creek. In their October 28th presentations, both Matt Sclafani (NYS DEC) and Rick Balla (EPA) mentioned the importance of land use management. Both speakers suggested that every Town in the study should be extra careful with the land uses situated next to waterways because these uses directly impact our creeks, bays and beaches. When asked how we might achieve this goal, Rick Balla held up the example of East Hamptons' harbor overlay plan. The plan implemented by East Hampton targets all land uses one block away from the water. Strict guidelines on commercial expansion, paving and chlorinated water disposal were implemented and enforced for the benefit and protection of the whole community. Excessive paving and unbridled expansion near delicate water systems is a leading cause of pollution for our creeks and bays. This is the yery concern we have with Mullen Motors. Having granted Mullen Motors expansion upon expansion, the south side of Rte. 25 in this area is fast becoming a sea of macadam. The dangers of asphalt, as an unregulated toxic substance, can be substantiated by any waste management professional. In the Nov. 18, 1999 issue of The Suffolk Times (please see enclosed) the DEC confirms the dangers of asphalt and its toxic impact. It is a low grade mix of scrap materials and highly toxic to the environment. Permission to macadam the road by Silver Lake was denied by the DEC because of it's close proximity and polluting affect to Silver Lake and nearby marshes. Why then should Mullen Motors be allowed to continue on this destructive course of paving and expansion in a fragile ecological area? Gayle Mariner Smith, PEP coordinator, brought up the dangers of old oil drums. Wlth 14 site plan violations on the Mullen Motors dealership properties, many people burie there Our aareness has also wonder if old oil drums might still b Mitcheldl Park inoGreenport (see enclosed been raised not only by the oil drum fiasco gas articles), but the documented oil plume flowing rAek Oveer the years, the DEC has corner of Youngs Avenue and Rte. 25 into the Town monitored the progress of this plume an phiskled l could eating Ztals t minimized (even eliminated) o the to break up the spill. Future problems if restrictions were placed on heavy land auses neardelicate underscore the includes Mullen Motors. As part of the final Estuary Report, 000emen.00 to importance of Land Use M road waertrunoff!eand useswe are phatdblatantl� contaminate or improve the quality of our whose waste products are hazardous ddifficult to monitor should be discourage from setting up shop near bodies of water. In the Nov. 11, 1999 issue of The Suffolk Times II of hpeath se see Town Creek was noenclosed) 4 tks were examined by the DEC and one go poor mentioned at all. The west side of Jockeexca aCreek in �on p oject that tookuthold has been sp ace one public. We are all familiar with the disastrousfrom Oaklawn Avenue for the new middle schoe� school!oRes'denocated 1 blalchomes adjacent toJockey Creek was cleared for a parking lot and n the project (and 1 block away from Jockey swemm here flooded wit g in legal and sand streamed into backyards, cellars and 9 pools proceedings. It seems logical that all ek silt Af erand th ssediment loodi g disaster, itresidential as no properties, ended up in the nearby Greelosed it to surprise that the DEC found Jockey Creek to be unhways ealthneed offbeand alegulated and the public. Again, land uses close to delicate o monstrous expansions of concrete and macadam need to be curtailed. n a The idea of a Mullen Motors expansion,ourlbaois outrageousfrom . it It sur own Creek a textbookoexample steep gradient that flows directly i Y of poor land use near our fragile estuaries.theredi st still steps should be taken to halt any further expansion of this operation whila Yours truly, Melanie Sanford cc: Southold Town Board Steve Jones, Director SCPB Dr. Lee Coppelman, Exec. Director LI RPB Gayle Mariner=Smith, PEP Coordinator Kevin McAllister, Baykeeper SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer. 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed. replaced by multiple car access. (1 violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (I violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales. only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed.. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (I violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O. P. --Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation --Watch P.O. Box 1445. Southold. N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. )C / ,1 ; S LTA ICt,ihl 7:45.4- 1,-(( Run-off & Erosion from Mullen Motors onto Hobart Road & Town Creek Peconic Estuary Program Critical Habitats L 'ViIV L 0 — 0 cr 0 LA 0 Peconic Estuary Program PEP Critical Natural Resource Areas hAl- 11 ,-"4T to 0 10 *0 VIb scale - 1:350,000 wx 0 :1, -- All� hAl- 11 ,-"4T to 0 10 *0 VIb scale - 1:350,000 wx 0 :1, -- 1-'ECONIC5 U ,.T\ C 1 r 1 1 cY a 4 f ti-� irkc s ,- � ! •+ 1r n A .�^r � �f 9..ti 4'{� ai' °(�P>t.°.I'r "q�Nt_, t _Y •SSfrt 1 .:� •-•. ......e't'dfr`14?':C t.a tC�S Y}ST... r _•\.,., �4,} _ fltr IL T rlf •a�:Y1„t;,'..twi.•r i tiyr. '�l: i, Yr. ri+ .ea.,'.. U1U1!!Y!' '' . > s 1yy-•Yi•{/iy�{•,1% _..d1�'.Y..`` �Lilftzl;.. :d�a.?'s; l.• , C�C.k "s' ri?r, "Ae.:.t RIM , � IJJ� `'{rai.�. `�Y•;k.a'�'�;r..~`7�1+x n A�7`r�• f.i s } .;?�or�lSit t[ S ,tYu-, _ "l f u' r , '! .1 *tir`{• i. - rwi v' ,. ', f ..�. J7 ra^j, 7� h. _fai d.• y r a. yt� - lt. 4, ....1 .,:, J .)w. ,.(/c6� .... ,�. .n.g .t•._r -J.� rf r i f -:, x! :c: .,-'jk ;yr r�.�f�},.;,• t. +s,i,y .; '> ,, • -t-a `''"Sz.. .:!k•. ..Iy:;�,/ .K . LC; .- -K. ." .�H�rbor �, k � u�! v a��(• 4fi •:t.e .T ,�`; •,.:,1 kYl•/ •;iC - a- ....�5��k.:••S fir. r. -. - v. .0 v, Y. :•,M.: >>,.• 5�1 Irn: , �•.-. �'"P# ,5. ,,- -p•�:.1 - r ?,.;.�.. fi. 'i^•?` .. �'+'�ifir, � ��r, e_ +f�3�•,;C 'i�;4, �a '1*f+�?�.JS A`i. .ti•-�:: ` i.z ! �r'��:�^ ...: k.. tY �,r. ,�c,,}}��j'T1; .c .i<vM,•�� , >"'. '� �} . ,; �..rY.il � J. ff � .� s. Txg,. �..�'1--.u�y� t '2i..�'.�1: Z .tt. .:'14-v! r:r., "-�� ,F, , •5 F. 1� v , i +��1 �._:.' l-.�. s ._,.,iT. � uyiry;. �':A'4�.f ,:_ •u•�•.�'l Y ��. '>'f' Y:4 �f :�_} -.. '.: �.. �{`y.� �t''Ipi� ,!�'C:•Yij f�'. .� .t.-. �:...'•�i 1 +.1� u'„:f`s?}• �. ��s;_ 's�m{ .y�,:i'� .qt �yka�•l y st Sr��K�.1-^: ::, � �.::'y�..�. ��r-.. a' v .,:. , �l`�l•t a, .!s .n: '•wie i„h - ":Y4?� ,. •�`i� ,�y,, ,��jg.!5.,+ a:'�-:+1. -r,. ;r %.�. �.+.::r'4 -! �n'•j2l:.C.�+� �r�.•,r.•I�S`,. �•.Nt a` _ _<+.'ti' v � c J,�":sr d'`f "e. 3. '' ..:ate r7 i:... >sz'.. '4 �.�', r) -i�. {, w-1 : "�4"'S1/" .. ,tt.rL.. 'ti:=: ,•.:."; ,�,.:t1%.•t,r ,:.0 v., "r 'r� � , 1.:: -,- `r:, i� ez-F' Ji- n ,1�.. r' ! .Ti.. z �`_ �'.n ,' •;� �'�J- ,-s�'"�-_ ., � u , !i �t. � „! ;,!'. , �• �� r -r.. �.: �,rs,+z�=.... � Y Y . tj � •,,, t td:S 5 3•rs.rJ •-}�. -r:�. ,; " . '}:'�' � �:rrr sa"jc �:�` � c :.,,.. �•n' �!xr ..% � r ''' �•+,w } � ,� n , , _.��r �x � s , x :;�� s ` ! f� :: i Si'- + k. � �r;! .. r.•.oN � v,� �6v.+iy�i�_, x�x+�i�p c_,•,n,,.•: a '.•...a!r,. t. /�. �1 a..>�.. x . -. ._:' J•`f.2' ,: wi'SNSLYi � �` =� 4 .J,.`}' f .l r t ::.i .lxxlf.pgll�Ji�4t:T!.�>inc't..��ir,at"�vr... 5'•'-C�.!-_;_ �.�i_ ... ./li��-'./� �, _,�.., .; . -af��rn.� °?Y',.sii-: °'.`a.cst.�::v rz .. '�''i. ._ .:.: �,'kl .. .. k .. .w. .. •_..:�.c. fir_-.... si,.x� _'::1rd�flt'±IrS�'., _ «J n .:.as.•. .or. a..i/ is � _...•_ . y.•s;ti•S+:,.; ,�.�� -.. ,w.} „�:x "a✓'f•f .. 4_:.-., t/�.o`.y.: .,_ '� 'WSt:y Mw: s»+ IIK .:'•�.'ai4. :G- -'l.� i:.�f 7r ni% .P : „ •, S l .. .. /�i#. a;' S+{.�:d, x R .�:\- r - '•i } . psi r Ri` t cj 6ARD1 y,tt {� ? �. .V! -W µr► ! +1.ri�` '� ''�.:;�+ '"' t.w;.., .. � ._. .,:. � .%' 1 t + �r„�r# at1'�di��?.r•• 9 rt?',, b,5c.�,.,5.; ..';.. yr '- ,_.� _y,,.: •.. , .. � ! .;- l* r - '' r^s ?fi � , i', i! r n+' � .,....Doti Fv ,,: .:; � : _ ;• ::h. ..?'•• / - ` '. y..--- �� ., 'y� r r r; �f �.e T tt - x ?r+4'h.�'��'t"a c i .Pc air. at z i r :: LU� U :: . '.-;^>..v�� ,., a moi. l °`,i��'3!`',i, t+ra�•r,,i .'- `fir t !~�'f • r Ej . 4y+ ....,. �£ y J Y1', _4k {l ak �t Y} Il.aili.I ,1 J,� t.F ry1 3f", '�'ist`�� l ` ` -.� I oS TNOt ,,�[,'� 't''f '�p`9{�!+'u-:: / dz !: � n � i +y� }.r'�'Pt y it`v T .• a ..•.... + - , \ .' . \: r r .: ....: I .: J k '<(,� �.'1' S lit FJj a! [+ �.• 3 y r 1 F IaU lltLf'zl JP fUL _, 13 ! fFUL J ` f BAy:I`ia r ,1L Ll,� ;,:rte;•al a �"�-F .�' r, `* e ff > i e,S,4 '" yt _ ,,� %` µw+ :! Jp , 'a 5 4' JF �T JYF V?y}•F ti +.. 1. Uttle 4'/ :.xK v4 t srr n hlx '_ 1 - \ �"--�..�1� �• ti .. - .ir � + r� Pttcnic _ .r;[ ! / }.v��* r; r c %�„a � j y� �,�-.{t,,•�x.��%�'�r`}e,;A � A.. +• i1 f •a 'fi'''t �y . 1 3 1^B�i IIUYaIr•ILI4JUI1- �^'1 .1 7 �. .N�QI��I:" YY uu ! MII•J IbW��tl�Rcq Bay i 3 ,fl.naerL Bay. JJJtr'IlJit r 1 �` rJ1c{ ,iLL51/!ll1 . �1� � 1 . yu¢tJJ fA \ dUrl.'ULLYJUII ' ( \. r! ♦ : f .pW1YU:�1C i T J fY,J Y AttanticOcean 1 \ � ♦,C r !' T itY F` I YYL'1JU1tllYlUil ;! / !)D < )tifUXL IY \jL► `,`� mill s r+il i J 3 . r, at r`; i r ,tia-Jtlr.k+�ri"r, 6,i ," rkt r Jn' Jcsl t t clZ ,.F'.� Fir 4'$ K: W tk f ' Vri —,44 TT S J rY {i. �• 44 l5 ,Z .S:l,( }::•:4 r•SF.•t•Sp ftY •!: •4 .I. f + Y i• iX-.., .?F. �..:. .i \ .: _' _ .,. ' ...:: ,_ f P, ,.._ f. ':,:':. •. . ;... .b J':r'...n ati3_'; `Ita ", .,. .f ... �?. �,. �:3.rF...3`r3. .._. +r. .s.r,.e;l. �,._l: ".. �,3 ...+.�•}.r;'9 �,a �.".e f` r♦.x�`/:I LJ'aLXFLtiYV rrr +r sFri erg J S: +xE''I. r.,-..�4.-.4y,X;i�ara {i • 7Y,w pv°i .:+Y Yiy t, dab J .t ryl 1 -,v. i;t r r vr,li+,•,! ^t Rr II ,1{r1 4tiT, d„i .}'C rr ict,. ,i��f�•S/^'{/T+��Sj,/Xj ,, "`.S'tti, y{�j '1f /77/4J?a \i r y" r. !.r " ,139, •!I ,If , d h ii r ¢ �V e/,! LCG,r4Ld,q SoVL tI I,D d? it portions o f the Towns o f r!R N ' td R l 5' iv - °•i .� -. t,J.p at q r i vs', y,U� � r 'r y < + 4 v , , ' r r + MM. ' Y - fit! 1•liley,l, ' • a ` X� } ! L r " r ;},'` y rLia<1'f. r r a a i } • ., s ton; a sma11 portMoof yy�peon and,Southamp !! Y r t�i'a. �c i• ;+`'i L nr a y r ! a 'S - :,°`' n :and ll'or portio o f the ��%il1 ageso f r Brookhave , tiv�, J r ` ' arb �To ' ga' nor and N y,.1, t,er�ng . _ ® Dumping remedy: paving? More cats is exactly what the board would like to see on Monsell Path near Silver Lake. _ The dirt road attracts illegal dumping, which the board has struggled to contain. Video cameras posted on the path haven't wor e , so r. Mills_Tas-FeU ig way See Notes, page 33 • ill... V-age,HallNotes Mills referenced a letter -from the ►From page 21 county health department to town department head Bobby Peterson water and sewer utility head Tom about possibly paving the roadway. Cybulski. Seems the county wants "the' "You get more traffic on there and village to shutdown its No. 3 pumping you'll eliminate all the dumping," said station on Moore's Lane, a request the Trustee Mills. Suffolk County Water Authority made Former trustee John Costello once in February. pushed for the same project, Mr. The water authority — which is not Peterson said, and was told by the Environmental a county.goveinment agency -- has state Department of Conservation that asphalt in the low- Well fields on property it.recently pur- chased adjacent No. 3 pumping in area ma introduce of into the to t'he station and apparently doesn't want to marsh around Silver Lake to Mmes o share the water there with Greenport. h water. Mayor Kapell suggested eie The -village isn't using the well but still that something other than asphalt likes knowing it can pump the.water might work. "Even if the DEC rejects the idea of should it need to. "This to me was a big red flag, that blacktop, maybe you could discuss the health department and the water alternatives," he said. "Maybe blue- authority are talking;'. said Mr. Mills stone or beachstone.' of the health department's letter. ■ Tug o' war over No. 3 field "Now another branch of county gov- government was the target ernment is coming back- at us and ernment telling us that if we aren't using the of village government ire at last Thursday's meeting, when Trustee well, discontinue using it More- Park Money Greenport wins $42,750 grant for tank removal By Tlm Wacker GREENPORT—Somebody in Al- bany must really like Mitchell Park. With the announcement this week that Greenport will be getting $42,750 to clean up oil storage tanks at the park, Village Hall inched closer.to the $1 million mark in. grants aimed at fixing up the harbor front The latest largess comes from the State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the $1.9 bil- lion_Clean. _Air/Clean_Water bond act 114 'uidAMarCh 19,1998 The Sklies 5 tanks to be removed with the aid of the state grant. A. ... _,T 4 • The Suffolk.Times • November 11, 1999 DEC : creeks:,:are'cleaner State opens three ` creeks, closes one By Tim Wacker Cleaner waters will mean more clams in the com- ing months, according to the announcement by the state Department of Environmental. Conservation that three town creeks have been opened to shell- fishing.. Officials weren't exactly sure why waters in parts of East Creek in Cutchogue," Goose Creek in Southold and Hay Harbor on Fishers Island have come up cleaner in recent tests. But it's good news to people hoping to capitalize. "I was shocked . with the news, myself," said Southold bayman and Town Trustee Ken Polywoda. y"I think it's' a positive was shocked ' trend." • 4h F It's actually a reflection with the news r zM of lower bacteria levels in myself; samples the DEC takes "Town'7rustee on a, periodic basis in Ken Polywoda hundreds of locations all =`N over. the East End. What that sampling found was Goose. Creek, which had been closed to shellfishing from April 15 to Dec. 31, could .now be opened. year-round. Hay Harbor, which was closed year-round could be opened year- round, and the southern portion . of East Creek, which were closed year-round, will now be open from Jan. I to April 15. On the downside; ,;the western portion .of Southold's(tockey Creek -is being closed year-round after being opened Jan. 1 to April 14. That area encompasses about 11 acres of underwater lands versus 141 acres that have been reopened year - While three other Southoid,Town waterways were opened to sheliflshing, the western section of Jockey Creek In Southold was closed. round atkaistCreek se Creek an&Hay Harbor. The partial Runoff's not the only reason opening encompasses 43 acres. Goose Creek received such basins about two The closures result primarily from the presence of years ago, but it's uncertain if that's the reason the coliform bacteria, which is commonly found in ani- water is cleaner. The southern side of East Creek mal and human feces and carried by. road runoff. has been closed for a decade, and there's been no The town has worked to control runoff through installation of undereround retPnt;n �� • Creeks... ►From page 4 such work done there, said one town official. "I think anything that reduces storm water has an effect on water quality," said town administrator Jim McMahon, who oversees such. pro- jects. "But a lot of it has to do with other changes. that may not be noticed." Like a resident along East Creek who 'stopped feeding' the geese and waterfowl that congregated on her lawn in increasing numbers over the years. The animals are gone and East Creek is open, but it's impossible to. pinpoint the reasons why, Mr. McMahon said. It could also be where the DEC takes its measurements. Road runoff, nesting swans or even pet geese near a sampling station can close a creek. "It would be nice to think that it's the projects we did," Mr. McMahon ' said of the basin installations. "They do, probably, fairly significantly re- duce the amount of bacteria going into the water, but' that can get offset by a pair of swans." So get rid of the swans? That may not be necessary. It's believed the cause of shellfish poisoning is human, not animal, coliform bacteria. And there's been some investigation by Cornell CooPerative Extension in Riverhead to see if DNA can't help identify what kind of bacteria are befouling a creek. Mr. Polywoda said he expects Goose Creek will yield some soft shell clams he hasn't.dug yet because of the seasonal closing there. And it's unlike- ly the creeks could close 'again right away. "One bad number doesn't mean they will close," said ' agency spokesman Dan Lewis. "[The col'- iform] has been decreasing for some time," in the opened creeks. Budget... Melanie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 Mr. Steve Jones November 1, 1999 Director of Suffolk County Planning Dept. H. Lee Dennison Bldg. Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Re: Application for Change of Zone made by Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen involving property located in the Town of Sothold, Suffolk County, State of New York, SCTM# 1000-62-03-22.1 and 24.1 Dear Mr. Jones: On Thursday night, (October 28) 1 attended a public meeting of the Peconic Estuary Program to discuss the findings of their CCMP. The topics discussed were very pertinent to the Mullen Motors expansion decision. *Contamination from road ruh-off into our creek and bays was a paramount issue. This run-off pollutes, degrades and destroys our fragile marine habitats. As you can see from the enclosed maps, Mullen Motors is located within the Peconic Estuary Study Area, ONE BLOCK FROM A CRITICAL HABITAT "HOT SPOT". The configuration of the land, south of Rt. 25, that Mullen Motors has paved, runs down hill into a fresh water pond and Town Creek. This area has been identified as one of the Critical "Hot Spots" on Long Island where fish and wildlife eat, nest, and breed. There is also a green slime from automotive chemicals in this run-off that contaminates neighboring properties as well as the creek. Many people also wonder if old oil drums might still be buried on the Mullen Motors dealership properties as was the case at Mitchell Park in Greenport. At one time there was a laundromat in the Mullen Motors building on the north side of Rt. 25. The water from this operation flowed into the underground area aquifer and brought soap suds into the wells of homes as far south as Korn Road. For obvious reasons this is the wrong place for an ever-expanding Automotive Service and Repair Car Dealership. Please incorporate this information into your recommendations to the Southold Town Board about the proposed Mullen Motors expansion -- an expansion that should be denied. Thank you again. Sincerely, `C`i1escs-��- Melanie Sanford -) c)"" -101' 12-T �a:�CA -ko�'tC, Sa)DS*VV�_ KIM, �__ qtWAW�� 0 Note to a carin LETTERS community 8 • The S�Nblk Times • December 2, 1999 r Fo Atushed again Cutchogue Dear Jeff: Just as we start to feel rested after the Route 48 zone change marathon and the endless debate over how best to preserve the quality of the hamlets and the viability of hamlet business we run smack into another ambush. First, the recommendation from Suffolk County Planning that the Mullen Motors zone change request be approved with conditions. SCP suggests that changing the Colonial Corners tasteful array of shops from Hamlet Business to General Business is a justifiable move if the only Gen- eral Business use allowed is that of an automobile related business, in other words an extension -of Mullen Motors. Visualize it, 675 feet of showroom, parking lot and fluttering lines of 666 banners and reflective pennants and the obligatory billboard of the scant- ily clad maid exhorting us to take ad- vantage of the deal of the day. is that preserving the viability of the ham- let? We don't think so! Simultaneously, the Department of Transportation (aka the Colossus of Roads) is planning a grand upgrade of Route 25 in Cutchogue and Southold. With a number of new drainage sumps (for what appears to us to be nonexistent water) and yel- low zebra striped median dividers and eliminated roadside parking to allow space for a plethora of left turn and right turn lanes, it appears that the Indianapolis 500 straightaway sans pit stops was the model for this "improvement.", Certainly they should eliminate at least one sump and use the area for the interment of flattened cyclists. ' With Route 48 designed and built to be the straightaway for east/west traffic and Route 25 designated the shoppers' road, where is the logic to this plan? Traffic calming is the mantra among planners as well as the desire of the scenic byways study as well as of all the hamlet merchants. We suggest that the DOT fund the rebuilding of the Brush's Creek bridge and do something useful with the money, and that they study our history and possibly even visit our town and meet with our planners be- fore recommending expensive rever- sals of progress. Howard Meinke, president North Fork Environmental Council 11122/1999 15:00 7232341 CAROL'YN ZENK ESQ • 4 CAROLYN A. ZzNx Attorney at Law 121 POnquogue Avenue Hampton Hays, New York 11946 516-7232341 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 November 22nd, 1999 BY TAX: TOM boABD AND pLANNING BOARD 765-6145 and 765-3136 PAGE 01 1 l� RY, US ID IvuV G Z 1y.,3 Southold Town Planning Board Re: Mullen Motors change of zone Reports of the Suffolk County Planning Commission 11/3/99 and Report of the Southold Planning Board 11/19/99 Dear Members of the Southold Town Board and Planning Board, Please read this letter at the joint meeting of the Town Board and Planning Board scheduled for your Southold Town Board meeting for November 23d, 1999 before you take any action on the Mullen Motors application as said action may be arbitrary and capricious. As you know, the Mullen Motors Corporation is the contract vendee for property it does not yet own, upon which it seeks a change of zone from residential and hamlet business to general business on two properties. The first property, tax map number 100-62-3-22.1 is located adjacent to its car dealership and contains a development. known as Colonial Corners which contains a number of attractive shops compatible with the character of the residential neighborhood in which it is situated. The second property, tax map number 100-62-3-24.1, is an open piece of property located behind Colonial Corners and zoned residential upon which the applicant seeks to build a parking lot. It has been suggested by the Suffolk County Department of Planning in a letter dated November 3d, 1999 that said application could be approved subject to four conditions. The Planning Board has apparently reviewed this letter and supported three of the four conditions, not including condition one. The Town Hoard is now considering an option in which an approval might take place subject to said conditions. However, such a conditional approval has no basis in law or logic for the following reasons. The conditions of approval from the Suffolk County Planning Commission wenn as follows: 1. That portion of premises comprising SCTM #100-62-3-22.1 shall be limited for automobile dealership and related purposes only; 2. That portion of premises comprising SCTM 0100-62-3-24.1 shall be limited for vehicular parking, storage and display purposes 1!!22/1999 15:00 7292=41 CAROLYN ZENk ESU PAGE 02 • i page 2 only as associated with the automobile dealership on adjoining lands to the north and woat thereof, with no vehicular a,ccese via Locust Avenue; 3. Premises shall be developed jointly with adjoining lands of Petitioner to the west thereof; and 4. Premises shall be encumbered by appropriate operational and dpvolopmental restrictions to adequately protect surrounding residence zoned lands including buffering, shielded lighting, vehicle loading and unloading off the street, a limitation on the use of outdoor speaker systems, and a limitation on the hours of operation.. Three of the four conditions are illogical and absurd_ The first condition basically requires that Colonial Corners be torn down for an automobile dealership and related purposes or that all stores be used for automobile purposes only. Since condition number 3 requires that "premises shall be developed jointly with adjoining lands of petitioner to the west" an approval subject to these two conditions would mean that the development of the now residentially zoned parcel must take place with the development of Colonial Corners for automobile uses. Do the Town and Planning Board actually wish to convent all the shops at Colonial Corners to automobile uses? An approval along the lines of this letter leads exactly to this result. Condition number two is illegal. it attempts to engage the Town Board in what amounts to illegal contract zoning with the applicant, illegally tie the hands of future Town Boards with respect to the use of the property, and illegally treat a generally business zoned property differently than other properties in the same zoning classification in vio latiun of Town Law section 262. Condition number three requires joint development with adjoining lands of petitioner to the west thereof. While the applicant has stated repeatedly that he only wishes to build a parking lot, the word "Premises" relates back to both condition 11 and #2. Thus, it would require that the existing car dealership, as well as parcels 100--62-3- 22.1 and I00-62-3-24.1 have to be developed together. Combined with Condition 2, this would mean that Colonial Corners would have to be developed. I do not believe that this is the intent of the Town Hoard or the Planninq Board. This condition makes no sense. Condition number 4, while legal, presumes that a parking lot in this area is acceptable. My clients have repeatedly made it clear that a parking lot is not acceptable and that the uses under the residential zone are more compatible with the neighborhood than uses under general business. usually, a change of zone has some benefit to the public. Here it only benefits the property owner. Town Law section 262, which grants town boards the right to zone property, requires that: 11/2211999 15:00 7232341 CAROLYN ZEW ESU PAGE 03 • • page 3 For any or all of said purposes the town board may divide that part of the town which is outside the limits of any incorporated village or city into districts of such number, shape, and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of this act; and within such districts it may regulate and restrict the erection, construction, reconstruction alteration or use of buildings, structures or land_ All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings, throughout such district but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts. (Emphasis added). Town Law section 262 makes it clear that parcels in the same zoning category must be treated the same. While conditions may be placed upon a particular project in a given zone, they cannot fundamentally change the nature of the zone itself. Were the Town Board to pass the change of zone which allows any number of uses as of right on the one hand, and then attempt by condition to limit the very uses it had just allowed, this would violate section 252 because lands in the same zone would be treated differently. The commentary to section 262 explains the uniformity requirement thus: Section 262 authorizes the creation of distinct districts in which particular use and bulk regulations may apply. However, section 262 does contain an important restriction u1i a town board's authority to enact zoning regulations. Section 262 mandates that zoning regulations must "be uniform for each class of kind of buildings throughout each district..." In other words, although zoning regulations obviously may vary from district to district, regulations must apply uniformly throughout any particular district. The uniformity requirement is intended to assure property holders that all owners in the same district will be treated alike and that there will be no improper discrimination (citations omitted), The likelihood of overreaching is thus reduce because the legislative body pre—approves the uses permitted in a district without reference to the particular owners (citation omitted). Uniformity requirements may transcend mere statute, however, for it has been held that the Constitution requires that all land in similar circumstances be treated alike (citations omitted)... The uniformity requirement of section 262 "is not merely a procedural or administrative detail ... (but] constitutes a limitation on the zoning powers which have been granted to a town by the state. It aonstitut*e a mandatory, binding directive to the town to promulgate use regulations which shall be uniform within and throughout identical district—Consequently a town "must strictly adhere to the statutory mandate of Town Law section 262... 1//2211999 15:00 7232341 CAROLYN ZENK E5G PAGE 04 page 4 in Callaman Read Comnny v. Town of.. ewburgh, 6 Misc.2d 1071, 167 N.Y.S.2d 780 (Sup. Ct. Ulster Co. 1957) affirmed 5 A.D.2d 1003, 173 N.Y.S.2d 760 (2d Dept. 1958), the court invalidated a zoning amendment which prohibited quarrying except in certain defined areas, which areas were not coterminous with either of the town's two zoning districts. The court concluded that "the purport of this section, section 262 is to bar discrimination in uses in one type of zoning area. The effect of the amendment is to vary permissible uses in the business and industrial zone of the Town—The Town Board has no power to declare that quarrying can be done in part of a business and industrial zone but not in another part of the same zone... The uniformity requirement of section 262 generally does not interfere with the ability of a town board to impose conditions on the rezoning of a parcel of property if such conditions are related to and incidental to the use of the property and intended to minimizes any adverse impact on the surrounding area.. .Practice commentaries by Tarry Rice pages 48 and 49 of McKinney's Town Law. The Town Beard would be breaching the uniformity requirement by allowing every other business in the general business zone to enjoy a full range of uses, but limiting Mullen Motors to only one use. This is illegal under the uniformity doctrine. The Town Board faces a second legal problem. It cannot as a matter of law contract zone and bind the hands of future legislative bodies with respect to the zoning on this parcel. As you know, each Town Board has the prerogative to amend the zoning ordinance. If zoning were done by contract 3n each case by current Town Boards, the authority of future Town Boards would be undermined. A municipality cannot contract away or in any manner limit or impair the discretionary authority of future [legislative bodies] in an area relating to government or legislative functions. Almar Associates v. Town of Skananteles, 231 A.D.2d 863, 64-1 N.Y.S.2d 316 (4th Dept't 1996). The Town Board has a third legal problem -spot zoning. The record makes it clear that no evidence what -so -ever has been presented establishinq that the change of zone is consistent with a comprehensive plan or for thaththefchange8of zoneoiissintendedato benefit one owner andtonetowner only -the Mullen Motors Corporation. Much of the testimony by the business community for example, emphasized that Mr. Mullen was a good citizen who deserved a change of zone. This is not the standard for a change of zone. In addition, the fact that the change of zone is for very limited acreage cuts in favor of a spot -zoning argument. My clients have no objection to creative solutions to Mullen Motors parking problems. Such solutions could be examined within an environmental impact statement. Arthur DiPietro suggested one such solution -the purchase of a parcel of land not located in the heart of a historic hamlet. obviously, cars can be stored elsewhere until they 11,122/1933 15:00 7232341 CAROLYN ZENK ESO • • PAGE 05 page 5 are needed and given the relatively generous parting lot that already exists, another parking lot at this site is not needed. 11, conclusion, three of the four conditions now being considered by the Town are illogical, and illegal. In addition, a change of zone for Colonial Corners .itself, when it is not even included in project plans makes no sense what -so -ever. Sinc�erel° , Ca o yn Attarne at L cc: Su silk C my Planning Commission, Arthur DiPietro 0 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD November 19, 1999 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 RE: Petition of Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen to Rezone SCTM # 1000-62-03-22.1 and 24.1 From Hamlet Business and Residential -40 to Business Dear Mrs. Neville, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 As per the Town Board's request, the Planning Board and its staff engaged in a thorough review of the petition. The Board's recommendations follow. Assuming the Town Board adopts a Negative Declaration in accordance with the environmental consultant's recommendations, the Planning Board recommends the change of zone of the two subject parcels from HB and R-40 to Business with the following restrictions, as suggested by the applicant, the environmental consultant and the Planning Commission that: ➢ That portion of the premises comprising SCTM # 1000-62-3-24.1 shall be limited for vehicular parking, storage and display purposes only as associated with the automobile dealership on adjoining lands to the west thereof, with no vehicular access via Locust Avenue; Subject premises shall be developed jointly during the site plan process with adjoining lands of petitioner to the north and west thereof (including the west side of Cottage Place); and Premises shall be encumbered by appropriate operational and developmental restrictions to adequately protect surrounding residentially -zoned properties, including the addition of landscaped buffers and street trees, shielded lighting, off-street vehicle loading areas, a limitation on the use of outdoor speaker systems, and a limitation on the hours of loading/unloading operations. akav Chairman / nr'5 15��011 �,......,.-...,,.........,....._.' a0 51'6283820-2 PAGE 01 1 V 1..�. .�.... ,. VS INCOMING FAX DATE:///��'TIME:,. .�3 MESSAGE W MESSAGE To: Oml. MRTHVR WFIETRO RTTOCINEY 1, COVFVPaLLOR MY LMW FORTY ONE SuNagrAvENu WESrHAMPTON 9EACH • NEW YORK 1 1678 - 2323 518.288,8200 • FAX 288-8262 COMPANY: FACSIMILE; TELEPHONE: FAX SENT BY: - REGARDING: TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (INCLUDING THIS SHEET): _1•� __ Please check tran$miseion after lest Me is received. If you did not Mcrive the number of pages shown above, or if any oopke are Illegible, please cell 516.288.8200. IhOnk You. MESSAGE: '1'b® information contained in this lac laaAe meow is BAcr ed for the use of the h dlvldual or entity named above and map oonttstn irtformatim that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from de.,tonum If the reader of this means& is not the Intended redpient or is the employee or spot responsible for dslivedrtg It to the intended redplent., the reader Is hereby nodded that any dissemimdon, dlatributtm or mppW of thle commurdoadon is strictly prohibited. If you have recelved this nwsa4e In error, please nodfy us by triephom izt o*dtately and return the original message to us at the Above address via U.S. Postal Service. Thank You. P %e15. 11/15/2011 15:'0 5162838262 PAGE 02 1 tiwr iVR boVICTRO MTTORnlY 6 ICOVMVELLOR MY LRW FORTY OMC SV119ET RYenve W"TMMN►TOM RoMCM A MEW YORK I17r8-L'St3 s31.166.8100 A PAX L68.82AI TO: K ANn1ING HOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FROM. ARTHUR DIPD? MO, attorney for Rkhard and C a� ie Frede" RE: M1.TLLEN CHANCE OF ZONE PE'IMON DATE: November 15, 1995 I am advised that the above rerencad matter is on your agenda today. I am fur d -w advised that Stephen R. Angel, Esq., attorney for Petitioners IS scheduled to be present. I learned of the foregoing only one hour ago and cannot be present. Aceordh4y, I request that the memorandum T submitted to the Town Hoard last Tuesday (11/9/99) be made a part of you board's official record in this matter. I am FAXING a copy of same to you together with this MM0. Also, the Town Attorney is in possession of a eopy should the FAX triwantasion not be completely *&Le, Encl. OC! Mr. a Mrs. Frederick client file/99/WEB X;,*bJpc Ai/36/99 ADP 40M&WW1496AM1MUVftn/ Brederlak 1 1'-!15/2011 15: 40 F":.62P? 38'62 PAGE 93 • • R9ZTtIV9 hIFIeTRO RTT(WMET a COV17ELLOR nT LFlW roniv One 7Lsnse-r nvenve WesInnMrron IZeACH A new Ulm 117Ta•LUS 951-toa.6200 A rrx taa.aLAt 70, Southold Town Board FROM, Arthur DiPietro, Attorney for Richard and Gayle Fmdedck RE: hfullen - Change of Zone DATE: November 9, 1898 ThLs document, to be made pert of the of lclai public hearing mord in connection with the above referenced change of zone application, is not intended to be a legal memorandum replete with judicial and statutory (Atations. There will be time enough at some future date for such a document should litigation prove to be the only alternative. Rather, t take this opportunity to share with you some observations, some conclusions and some recomnwndations gleaned from my study of the record compiled to date in support of and in opposition to Messrs. Muller& petition for a change of zone. There are four (4) categories to my analysis. They are as follows: 11 Documentation germane to the Petition; 2) Zoning Code and planning Study provisions relevant to your BoarWa decision; 3) lel principles materiel to the merit, or lack of same, of a given change of zone application; and 4) Conclusions that,. with all due respect, I urge you will be compelled to reach in order to avoid an arbitrary, capricious and prejudicial determination that will be set aside by judicial intervention. I 1"_i15f20I1 15:0 �1c2888202 PAGE 04 2 w DpCE�tMENTATION: new are four (4) essential documents at the core of the matter. They are as follows: U EAF Rem, prepared by NPV for your Board and dated 9/ 10/87; 21 EAF III, prepared by Petitioners' agent, dated April 19&9 and Sled with the Town Clerk on 4/23/98; 31 NPV response to said EAF III dated and Shad 5/24/89; and 4) Protest Petition Med by Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. Under cover of letter dated 7/5/97. ZONA O AND PLANNING �*itOVISIQNS: Code Section 100-90 PURPOSE (HAMLET BUSINESS) states: OMe purpose ... is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas ... that gill support and enhance the retail development and provitle a focus for the hamlet area" Code Section 100-100 PURPOSE (GENERAL BUSINESS) states: "The purpose is to provide outside of the baxmlet area (for) uses that a) bene.IIt from, large numbers of motorists: b) need fairly large parcels of land; and c) involve ... heavy truckin4 and no " [EMPHASIS ADDED). 1) 11115?1©11 15:6 515�8a$2o2 PACE 05 3 (NOTE: in low very few, if any, customers walk to a car dealer, either for purchase or repair). Code Section APPENDIX - HULK SCHEDULE provides for General Hustrxes, as follows: 1) Front yard - 100 feet or average of existing adjacent setback; 2) Side yard - 25 feet/50 feet; 3) Rear yard - 35 feet; 4) Landscaping -- 36% minimum; and 5) Lot coverage - 30% maximum. Code Section 100-13 DEFINMONS provides, in part: "AUTOMOBILE SALES LOT OR BUILDING - A lot or building used for the sale or hire of automobile equipment' (EMPHASIS ADDED). Code Section 100-191 - OFFSTREET PARXWG provides, part: a.) " The Planning Board may waive all or a portion of these requirements in the Hamlet Businew Used on a finding of adequate and proximate municipal parkhW" (EMPHASIS ADDED), and; b) (Hulk Schedule at page 10107): "Motor vehicle ... salesroom or outdoor sales lot - 1 per each 600 sgaam feet of showroom and sales lot area ... " (EMPHASIS ADDED). I 11/15/2811 15:41 562888262 PAGE 86 4 Local Law 15-19198 - ROUTE 48 CORRIDOR MORATORIUM provides: "PURPOSE:... (The) necessity to locate businesses in sul W zoning districts in areas which etre best suit, �„eci for the pmt of such businesses," and; " ... to ensure that economic activity take place in desirable locations thereby maxlrnizyng the existing cikaractsr of the Town's bwWet centers. " (EMPHASIS ADDED). LEGAL P11000MW TO A PETITION FOR A_CKMW OF IONIC 1) A change of zone runs with the land and is not personal to a given. applicant. 2) A change of zone involving only one owner and one parcel of land often constitutes illepl spot zoning especially where a) such change is not part of an evolutionary trend of a neighborhood in transition recognized by the municipality's comprehensive plan or more recent hamlet studies, or b) such change is considered favorably in large part by the needs of the applicant, as opposed to the needs of the convmnity, and because the applicant is a "good" property owner. 3) A change of zone involving a plea by the Petitioner that he has no intention of taking advantage of the plethora of new uses available In the new (downzoned) classification and that he will agree to an endless list of convenanta and restrictions circumscribing his use and er{joyment of the property often constitutes illegal contract zoning which can later be successfully attacked by either the citizens in opposition or the Petitioner himself. 4 11/15/2011 15:40 5162888262 PAGE 97 5 Y 4) A change of zone, eapeolallq one initiated, as here, by a private property owner must be consistent with and in furtherance of the existing comprehensive land use plan of the municipality. It cannot be considered in a vacuum. It must be viewed relative to what else to being considered by the municipality, in distant as well as 4aoent zoning use districts. AU have an impact on each other. 5) The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQAA) gui, b) alternatives to the proposed action be evaluated; and, el substantialmi ' afro of signior nt impacts be addressed and implemented. 6) SEQRA further requires that a "hard look" be taken both by the petitioner and by the municipality. Cursory, conclusory, self-serving environmental assessments constitute glaring defeats in the public record just screaming for a court to set aside the determination. Cq�tC'xttSlditT�: 11 The SEQRA process is not complete. The EAF III (died 4/23/991, prepared and submitted by a consultant/agent hired and paid by Petitioners, is deficient on its face. It is conclusory and self serving to the paint of being offensive and patronizing. This is a Change of Zone application. For Petitioner's consultant to baldly state that its comments are reserved to perking/landscaping because no other charges arc proposed displays either a total ignorance of the law or a complete disregard for the duties of the Town Hoard. S 11/15x'2011 15:uE1 5152338262 PAGE 08 v Having securely piaoed foot in mouth, the author of the EAF 131 parOOKKI8 to Pg on her toes. hug !dulously, she states at page 2 thereat' that the Board need not consider the impact of further actions if some are wDecula • This is not a use varim= application before the Zoning Board of Appeals (The Applicants have already received and abused one of those). This is not a site plan review by the Planning Board. This is a chance of 1Ar1G. Several new uses, all Inconsistent with the continued integrity of the hamlet cone will become permitted uses on the property. Instead of HB uses such as prolessionai offices, banks, shops, Sslleries, libraries, museums and B & B's. the Board is being asked to permit as matter of right warehouse, food processing plants, beverage distributor's, dry-cleaning plants, take-out restaurants, gas stations, tier, boat and RV salas. This is not speculative. Furthermore, nothing is offered in the EAF III to mitigate or insure against the likelihood of any such future actions coming into existence. We are told merely that the applicants are good guys and we should trust them. That is not the laws 2) The Hoard must issue a positive dedaration and require a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). NPV (6/24/99) advised that the Board cannot issue a nepative declaration with conditions. It fin then advised that the EO II was de9drnt. No response has been forthcoming from the Petitioners to attempt to cure these defects. NPV stated at page 6 of its 5/24/99 review that: " If there are one or more key impacts that are not mitigated, the Board would retain the option to seek a complete draft E1$.* The failure or refusal of the Board to exercise its stated option is per se arbitrary and capricious. Shiers i counsel to the applicants I would demand that they voluntarily prepare and submit such a document to assure the integrity of the record. 31 The w&Mc study is incomplete. It fails to of!r alternatives to the project. It fails to pay mare that cursory attention to acts of mitigation. Examples of such items that should be considered are as follows: a) access to Locust Avenue; D 11,'15%2011 15. 4Z) 562888262 PAGE 89 1. r • 7 b) relocation of existing buildings on Colonial Corners; c) prohibition of Ieft turns (South) from the proposed park!ng lots onto Cottage Mee; d) restriction of commercial vehicles (except for local deliveries) on Cottage Place and Locust Avenue; e) reconfiguration of all existing ofttreet ptft% at Mullen Motors to maximize efficiency and enhance mitigation of impact on the adjacent residential community; and fl calculation of percentage of parking needed for new/used car inventory (sales lot - a principal use) as opposed to the that needed for customer/employee parting (an acxusary use). Dunn EngUiemW is the retained consulting engineer for the Village of Westhampton Beach. There is no way this most disastrous change of zone would occur in the manner proposed in that municipality on Dunn's watchl 4. No alternatives to the project have been proposed, discumed or considered. It would seen quite simple for Mullen Motore to have its cake and eat it too by simpky acquiring a piece of land nearby presently zoned General Business for its repair and back up inventory storage needs. It would be less expensive (see testimony of Richard A. Winters on behalf of Mullen before the ZBA of 3/5/$7), it would be more efficient. Most intelligent, forward thinking busirum, now have front -orae, showroom facilities in high -exposure, high -rent areas and backroom operations at other, less costly locations. Most importantly, it would be more a appropriate land use and it would relieve this Hoard of being asked to approve an illegal change of zone. 5. Covenants and restrictions will not be suffiel nt to hold the applicant to Its word and prevent future violations and abuse. To keep the horse in the barn on this topic would, require a set of covenants so extensive and pervasive as to sterilize the property except for a parking lot. Those covenants, as recommended by the Suffolk. County Planning Comoisio;n, (11/3/99) would have to cover the entire Mullen site. Yet, the Mullen's have maintained a checkerboard (single and separate ownership) and look to continue to do so on the subject premises. '7 11/15/2011 15:40 51-52888202 PAGE 10 The Cottage place parking lot is illegal. it is an aecaess ay use (eustomerlemployee parking) standing alone on a parcel that has no principal structure or it is s principal use (outdoor sales lot) that violates all of the set back and lot cove/Landscaping requirements of the code. This entire situation is a mese, it has been so for twelve years. It is getting worse. $. The hoard is currently in the process of trapping a vision for Southold for the next century. As I understand it, that vision has three ( 3) component parts. They are as follows: 1) Rt. 48 as a scenic corridor; 2) Traditional hamlet centers as core magnets for civic and cultural vitality; and 3) Hamlet f k* areas as reo&mrs of uses now thought inappropriate for eldw Rt. 48 or the hamlet centers. I do not expect Mullen Motors to pack up and leave lock, stock, and barrel. I do not expect its showroom to be converted into an antique auction barn, a beach plum preserve shoppe or a boutique for the sale of Founder's day doilies. However, neither do I expect my clients, Richard and Gayle Frederick, to plan the conversion of their historic colonial home into a speed shop selling hubcaps, continental kits and checkered dice to adorn the rear view mirror of a 2000 Prowler. One of the gfeatest enemies of hamlet pedestrian friendly intimacy and the effective working relationship between traditional residential neighborhoods and am" town Main Street businesaea is the blacktop wasteland masquerading as a parking or outdoor sales lot. Any planning consultant worth his or her salt and sensitive to traditional mixed-use communities abhors this sterile vacuum, devoid of human prewmm, with its alien lancet light stanchions buzzing out nVe of blue and orange glare. I would rather walls by a friendly country burying ground. 7. On a more pedestrian. vein (pun intended) i take this opportunity to list, perhaps recapitulate, sevetui compelling reasons to deny this application. They are as follows; R 11/15/2011 15:40 516-2888252 PAGE 11 9 a) they applicant comes to the Board with unclean hands, having failed to comply with several conditions of approval previously imposed by the ZBA and the Planning Board; bl the applicant has failed to offer alternatives to the project, incorporate acts of mitigation (including consent to covenants), address cumulative impacts or otherwise comply with Applicable Law; C) the applicant has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not making application for a use variance to the ZBA (unless, of course, he has some untold secret future plans for the property); d) the Board has failed to consider this application in the context of its comprehensive plan, hes failed to address its relationship to the proposed rezoning of Rt. 48 and has failed to require the applicant to respond to the concerns raised. by NPV on 5/24/96; e) the citizens in opposition have fiW a protest petition, requiring a super majority vote of the Board as pointed out by counsel for the applicant on behalf of clients in the Rt. 48 rezoning; 0 there has been no balancing of the equities between the demands of the Petitioners and the genuine needs and concerns of the neighbors', g) to grant the application would constitute illegal spot and/or contract zoning; h) to grant the application would constitute an arbitrary and capricious abuse of sound discretion by the board; and J) to grant the change of zone would violate the civil rights and property rights of Richard Frederick and Gayle Rederic� and expose the Town of Southold and its representatives to both compensatory and exemplary damages. F 1°_;'15/2011 15:40 5162888262 PAGE 12 10 8. It is absolutely essential to the continued lntgpity of the Hamlet Business zone and the continued vitality of rural smell town hamlet centers for the pending change of zone petition to be denied. Chanted Mullen Motors has been at its present location sine the invention of the horseless carriage. May they retrain until the transporter room daces the car and Scotty beams us all to and from wherever we need to go. However, may they remain a traditional small town car dealer and not Aig MacMullen. if they want to be Big MacMullen, they should go, at hast in part, somewhere e;se, to so doing they will lose their personal touch, their sumn town appeal and, hopeftilly so the lesson is well taught, most of their loyal customers. Thc7 will be no different than the Rt. 58 auto malls. If Mullen wants to be an Auto Mali, so be it; however, do not allow theca to bulldoze this Board into mamas Main Road, Southold just another Rt. 68. Do not allow the PAC -MAN of blind commercial ambition to chew its way into the traditional small mixed use and residential communities that make Southold unique. LDI S1 in STAFF REPORT TO: THE PLANNING BOARD FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner RE: Petition of Richard F. Mu,1len III and William Mullen to Rezone SCTM # 1000-62-03-22.1 and 24.1 From Residential -40 and Hamlet Business to Business DATE: November 12, 1999 The Board may find the following information useful in reviewing the above -noted petition for a change of zone. 1. The site has been in continuous use as a car dealership since 1927 2. The use presently consists of an automobile dealership with a lot for display of new and used cars; and accessory buildings housing the service garage and auto body shop. It is a conforming use within the designated zoning district of this property: General Business, B. 3. Through the years, the Town has granted the property owners the right to expand its operations in order to accommodate the needs of the business. a. June 20,1983: Site plan to construct two additional repair bays. b. April 2, 1987: Variance to use residential -zoned land for employee parking. c. June 30,1987: Variance to increase height of fencing in front yard on Cottage Place from 4 to 6 feet. d. August 10, 1987: Site plan for new parking area, fencing and landscaping fronting on Cottage Place. e. September 18, 1987: Variance to enclose part of required front yard for a show room.. f. October 31, 1988: Site plan for new show room addition. g. September 26, 1991: Variance to install two concrete pads in required front yard for display of cars for sale. 4. The current petition before the Town Board involves a neighboring, split -zoned parcel. The northern -most part of the parcel contains a cluster of shops located in residential buildings that were converted to business uses, in 1977, under the auspices of an approved site plan. (Colonial Corners, Approval date: September 19, 1977). This portion of the property is zoned Hamlet Business. The southern -most part of the parcel is vacant and is zoned R-40 residential. 5. Although the surrounding land uses are predominantly residential, there are a number of other businesses located within several hundred feet of the subject properties. These include: a 7-11, three antique shops, a gourmet food shop, a marine repair business, a florist, professional offices, a barbering salon, a discount outlet, a restaurant (presently closed), a general merchandise shop (also closed), and an optometrist's office. 6. In 1989, the Town adopted a series of zoning amendments, which resulted in a new Zoning Code and Zoning Map. This action recognized the Mullen dealership by specifically zoning it B- General Business as opposed to Hamlet Business, which does not permit automobile dealerships 7. The Town's policy is to remove opportunities for siting new retail businesses along CR 48 and to consolidate traffic -generating retail businesses within the existing hamlet business centers, most of which are located along SR 25 (e.g. Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, unincorporated Greenport). Reinforcing the existing hamlet business centers will maintain the integrity of each hamlet, prevent sprawl, and reduce the introduction of new traffic —generating uses on the by-pass, thereby helping to maintain the quality of life that is unique to this Town. The neighborhood to the rear of the subject premises is an established older neighborhood that has grown and co -existed with the original Mullen Motors operation since 1927. The average residential lot in the immediate vicinity is about a quarter of an acre in size. Due to the small lot areas and the corresponding inablity to add landscaped buffers, homeowners in this neighborhood are easily impacted by the adjoining business uses. Several of the residential property owners near the Mullen dealership have indicated a strong preference that the subject business not be permitted to expand further. Their position is due to legitimate concerns about the existing and potential traffic problems, as well as the anticipated negative visual impact of the proposed addition of parking on the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. Past expansions of the Mullen Motors operation have resulted in the introduction of high-intensity lighting adjacent to this residential neighborhood and a loss of buffer landscaping. Further, the delivery of new vehicles and servicing supplies to the dealership has resulted in tractor -trailers traversing the adjoining local streets. 9. In reviewing this petition, the neighborhood's concerns and their willingness to litigate were expressed to both the Board and its staff and duly noted in the file records. Also noted is the fact that the Town has a long and consistent history of accommodating the changing needs of this local business. 10. The Town's Vision for strengthening its existing hamlet business centers must take into account the potential for adaptive reuse of existing operations. The Mullen Motors site is unique in its structural compostion: the buildings were designed and added -to specifically for their current use. It would be difficult and potentially costly to convert them to a strictly retail use. 11. The applicant has indicated to the Planning Board that the primary intent of acquiring the two parcels, which are the subject of this petition, was to obtain additional space for off-street parking, presumably for customers, for storage of cars being serviced by the dealership, and for employees. The intrusive spill-over of cars and delivery trucks into the residential neighborhood is one of the issues of complaint by the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the attempt to squeeze more parking onto the existing site has resulted in the removal of previously installed buffer landscaping that was required on the approved site plan. This removal has made the existing operation more intrusive and offensive to the residential neighbors. 12. In response to the neigborhood's concerns, the applicants have indicated that it would be acceptable to them if their future use of the residential portion of the subject parcels were limited only to parking related to the dealership and car repair operation. Further, the applicant indicated a willingness to mitigate existing and potential traffic concerns as suggested by the Town's environmental consultant in his review of the Environmental Assessment Form for the petition. 13. The petitioner has verbally stated a willingness to work with the neighborhood and the Town during the site plan review. In its review of the preliminary site plan, the Planning Board noted that many of the residential neighborhood's concerns can be addressed or mitigated through careful site design. For instance, the visual impact of the business on the neighborhood can be mitigated through re -installation of the landscaping that was required by previous site plan approvals, and the introduction of new street trees and landscaped buffers in appropriate places. Further, the impact of the high-intensity lighting on a quiet residential community of smaller lots can be mitigated by shielding existing and proposed lighting so that it is more directly contained on the site, and that it shines both downward and away from residential properties. Finally, the traffic may be reduced through careful re -design of the existing parking field along with the subject properties to permit the access and off-loading of tractor trailer and other delivery trucks directly on the site instead of the local or state roads. 14. The petitioners operate a stable business that is one of the few, major year-round employers located within the Township of Southold. Although not part of this petition, the petitioner also uses buildings located on the north side of SR 25 opposite the Colonial Corners site for storage and other operations related to the dealership. Although this property is not contiguous to the subject site, it appears to be an integral part of the dealership's overall operations. 0 • 15. At this time, the primary need seems to be for more parking or car storage space to accommodate the existing business operation. If this petition were to be denied, the petitioner would be forced either to continue to operate the business under conditions that already are unsatisfactory: both to the business and to the neighborhood; or to relocate elsewhere. If this petition is denied, the Colonial Corners site is likely to continue to operate as a retail center. The fate of the vacant residential lot cannot be predicted, but given the close proximity of existing business operations, it is not considered a highly desirable home site. Eventually the physical constraints of the existing site may result in this business relocating to a larger property elsewhere within the Town. If and when this should occur, the cost and difficulty of generating an adaptive re -use of the existing buildings may well result in an abandoned complex of buildings near the heart of the hamlet of Southold. This would work contrary to the Town's stated intention of reinforcing existing business districts within the hamlets and concurrently, to discourage the migration of retail and other traffic -generating businesses from SR 25 to CR 48. 16. The Town Board has not determined whether this application will have an environmental impact. However, the environmental consultant's review indicates that the EAF Part III submitted by the applicant "leaves some questions incompletely addressed in regard to growth -inducing aspects, traffic (parking), and aesthetic impacts (lighting)." The consultant recommends that the Board obtain specific details in the following matters: • What, if anything, is the Applicant planning to do about the reduction in parking space available for Colonial Corner patrons? At present, the lot to be converted to Mullen Motors parking is presently used for overflow parking for Colonial Corners, as Colonial Corners has insufficient parking. • Specify the planned height of the new lighting poles, as well as any design or operation measures taken in this matter which would reduce or eliminate potential impacts to the adjacent residences from fugitive lighting. (e.g. reduced lighting intensity, reduced number of lighting fixtures, reduced hours of lighting, shrouds, reoriented lighting direction). • Specify the minimum height and/or diameter at breast height (dbh) for the 5 new street trees on Locust Avenue, to replace the 5 large trees that were cut down. • Is the Applicant willing to agree to a number of Covenants and Restrictions (C&R's) in regard to the traffic and operation of the facility? If so, following are suggested C&R's: 1. No access to Locust Avenue from the new parking lot. 2. No Certificate of Occupancy for the new parking lot until all landscaping; lighting, drainage systems, etc. are completed, for both parking lots. 3. Cessation of the existing auto storage, parking, and outdoor repair work along west side of the Mullen Motors building. 4. No test driving by Mullen employees on residential side streets in the vicinity. 0 • 5. No parking, unloading/loading, or use of side streets in the vicinity by trucks related to Mullen Motors. 6. Limitations on the hours when such deliveries are allowed, to 8 AM — 5 PM, weekdays. The environmental consultant also recommends that the Town provide additional mitigation by installing "No Parking" signs on Cottage Place along the boundaries of the Mullen Motors operation as well as along the south side of SR 25 where it bounds the Mullen Motors site. The Planning staff is in agreement with the environmental consultant's recommendations and notes that site design could provide for overflow parking for Colonial Corners. Further, it is our understanding, based on transcripts of the hearing before the Town Board that the applicant is willing to comply with the suggested Covenants and Restrictions noted above. Complete adherence to (and enforcement of) the details noted therein would provide sufficient support for a determination of negative environmental significance. At this point in time, it is felt that enforcement and careful site design will be sufficient to mitigate the existing impacts of this business operation on the surrounding residential neighborhood. 17. The Planning Board also received the input of the Suffolk County Planning Commission, which issued a recommendation to approve said petition subject to the following: ➢ That portion of the premises comprising SCTM # 1000-62-3-22.1 shall be limited for automobile dealership and related purposes only; ➢ That portion of the premises comprising SCTM # 1000-62-3-24.1 shall be limited for vehicular parking, storage and display purposes only as associated with the automobile dealership on adjoining lands to the north and west thereof, with no vehicular access via Locust Avenue; ➢ Premises shall be developed jointly with adjoining lands of petitioner to the west thereof, and ➢ Premises shall be encumbered by appropriate operational and developmental restrictions to adequately protect surrounding residence zoned lands including buffering, shielded lighting, vehicle loading and unloading off the street, a limitation on the use of outdoor speaker systems, and a limitation on the hours of operation. The Commission's first recommendation is to limit the use of the Colonial Corners site, (SCTM # 1000-62-3-22.1) which is currently retail, to that of an auto dealership and related purposes only. However, the Applicant has indicated for the purposes of the EAF that redevelopment of the Colonial Corners site is "not contemplated at this time. " Consequently, I suggest that this recommendation on the Colonial Corners site is inappropriate and should be disregarded. However, I find no fault with the three subsequent recommendations of the Commission regarding this petition. Assuming the Town Board adopts a Negative Declaration in accordance with the environmental consultant's recommendations, the Planning Board could entertain a recommendation to change the zone of the two subject parcels from BB and R-40 to Business with restrictions, as suggested by the applicant, the environmental consultant and the Planning Commission. This statement is made with the assumption that the Town would vigorously enforce past (and future) site plan requirements and not permit the applicants to continue operating the site in violation of Zoning and Planning board approvals. COUNTY OF SUFFOLf RECEIVED NOV 8 1999 Southold Town Clerk DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Ms. Elizabeth Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P.O. Boa 1 179 Southold. NY 1 1971 Dear Ms. Neville: ROBERT J. GAFFNEY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE November 3, 1999 M-1 — Mo - STEPHEN M. JONES, A. I. C.P. DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Re: Application of"Richard F. Mullen Ill and William Mullen" (#312) for a change of zone from R-40 and HB to B Business, Town of Southold (SD -99-8). Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on November 3, 1999 reviewed the above captioned and after due study and deliberation Resolved to approve said application subject to the following: 1. That portion of premises comprising SCTM #100-62-3-22.1 shall be limited for automobile dealership and related purposes only; 2. That portion of premises comprising SCTM #100-62-3-24.1 shall be limited for vehicular parking, storage and display purposes only as associated with the automobile dealership on adjoining lands to the north and west thereof, with no vehicular access via Locust Avenue; 3. Premises shall be developed jointly with adjoining lands of petitioner to the west thereof; and 4. Premises shall be encumbered by appropriate operational and developmental restrictions to adequately protect surrounding residence zoned lands including buffering, shielded lighting, vehicle loading and unloading off the street, a limitation on the use of outdoor speaker systems, and a limitation on the hours of operation. GN:cc f1AN`, Mf MOf71 AI HI";HWAY Very truly yours, Stephen M. Jones Director lanning b I t.1l1II IIJ; A[hf+l h 1l.I Jf'{'AWA . NY I I /H tS NUV 0 � 19JS Southold Town Planning Board • 0 CAROLYN A. ZENR M ATTORNEY AT LAW tj 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Bays, New York 11946 516-723-2341 SEP 2 1999 Southold Town Planning >M(d Southold Town Board c/o Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Mullen Motors Change of Zone request/Environmental assessment of the wrong action and requirement for an environmental impact statement as a matter of law. August 27th, 1999 Dear Members of the Southold Town Board, I am the attorney representing a number of homeowners in Founders Estates, a residential community surrounding the Mullen Motors car dealership, located south of New York State Route 25, near Locust Lane and Cottage Place. I have reviewed the Part III Environmental Assessment Form submitted by Freudenthal and Elkowitz Consulting Group, dated April 1999, prepared for the Mullen Motors Corporation. I have also reviewed the May 24th, 1999 letter from Southold's Town consultants- Nelson, Pope and Voorhis- which constitutes a review of the Part III EAF. I) THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PART III IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE IT EVALUATES THE WRONG ACTION. The PART III EAF submitted by the applicant is legally insufficient as a matter of law. QmIte sj"Jv, it is deficient because it evaluates the wrong action. The action at issue is a change of zone for the existing Colonial Corners shopping centers from Hamlet Business to General Business, as well as a change -of- zone for the lot immediately south thereof, from Residential -40 to General Business. The EAF evaluates only a proposed site plan for a parking lot. According to the applicant, the alleged need for the change -of- zone is to enable the contract vendee2 to expand a pre-existing nonconforming use by establishing an additional 36 car parking lot in an already 1Colonial Corners is located at the corner of County Route 25 and Locust Lane. 2It bears emphasis that the Mullen Motors Corporation does not even own the land at issue, and yet seeks a zone change upon it. page 2 blighted area. If this were in fact correct, why is the applicant seeking a change of sone for Colonial Corners itself, when this is not necessary for the establishment of a parking lot? I submit that the applicants are less than forthcoming. If this was truly the applicant's intent, why take the windfall approach of changing the zoning on two separate parcels of land to a more intense, commercial use? While the applicant verbally assures the Southold Town Board that it does not seek any of the uses that the change -of -zone would permit once the zone is changed, these uses are permitted as a matter of law. In addition, there are no legal documents on record that would ensure that Colonial Corners would not be destroyed or the applicant would limit himself to a parking lot. The applicant states in his EAF Part III, "As no changes to the northern segment of the property housing the Colonial Corners development are proposed, no further discussion of this section of the property will be provided in this Part III EAF." (p. 1 EAF Part III) This is ridiculous. The applicant cannot fail to study the very topic at issue, namely a change -of -zone. At page 3 of the Environmental Assessment Form Part III, the applicant states: Consideration of the impacts of changes to Colonial Corners or expansion to Mullen Motors is not appropriate at this time as: There is no proposed plan for changes to the Colonial Corners development nor is an expansion of Mullen Motors to the Colonial Corners property proposed. Thus, such actions are, at best, speculative; Changes to Colonial Corners and/or the expansion of Mullen Motors may never occur; and Any changes that may be proposed to Colonial Corners or Mullen Motors in the future are functionally independent of the proposed action. Furthermore, any future actions that may be proposed would require environmental review pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Town's consultants seek to reassure the Town that there would be some control over the project through future site plan review and State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) analysis. However, once these uses are allowed as a matter of right, site plan review and SEQRA will only be able to mitigate harm to the neighborhood, not prevent it. To make an analogy, even if you dress a mule up in a silk skirt, it is still a mule. once the zone change is passed, you will only be able to minimize the damage to the neighborhood by way of conditions. A change -of -zone clearly constitutes an "action" within the meaning of the SEQRA regulations and must be evaluated as such. 0 page 3 11 "Actions" are defined in the State Environmental Quality Review Act regulations at 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.2b) thus: (1) projects or physical activities, such as construction or other activities that may affect the environment by changing the use, appearance, or condition of any natural resource or structure, that: iii) require one or more new or modified approvals from an agency or agencies; 3).adoption of agency rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances, executive orders and resolutions that may affect the environment; and 4) any combinations of the above. e) "Approval" means a discretionary decision by an agency to issue a permit, certificate, license, lease or other entitlement or to otherwise authorize a proposed project or activity. A change- of- zone constitutes an action within the meaning of SEQR. Since the change -of -zone enables intense commercial uses that are currently prohibited at the site, the new commercial uses must be evaluated as a matter of law. II) THE RECORD ESTABLISHES THAT THE PROPOSED CHANGE -OF -ZONE WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO SUBURBAN SPRAWL, HURT LOCAL BUSINESSES AND THE RESORT - BASED ECONOMY, BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE RURAL AND HISTORIC CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TOWN, AND POSE TRAFFIC SAFETY HAZARDS. The record establishes that the expansion of Mullen Motors Inc. and the change of zone would have the following undesirable impacts on the neighborhood: 1) The change -of -zone would increase the suburban sprawl already encroaching on the area, by expanding an automotive use, one of the uses most at odds with the rural, residential character of the neighborhood; 2) The change -of -zone would be detrimental to local small Mom and Pop businesses as it would injure the resort -based economy by detracting further from Southold's small Town charm. It bears emphasis that to be successful, Southold's business community must be able to successfully compete. Obviously, we can never compete with the low prices that up - island vendors can provide. Our success lies in our small town charm. Nothing detracts faster from the rural quality of the hamlet than automotive uses. Their chain link fences, halogen lights, sprawling parking lots, metallic cars, and used car signs are the very symbol of suburban and urban blight; page 4 3) The change -of -zone would detract from the rural qualities of Southold by allowing general business uses which are much more intense than residential uses and hamlet business uses. For example, while residential zoning allows such uses as farms, horse farms, churches, and residences, the general business zone allows fast food marts, gas stations, car washes, bars, and warehouses; 4) The change -of -zone would detract from the historic qualities of Southold; 5) The change -of -zone would introduce additional traffic hazards into a residential neighborhood with small children, such as those posed by huge tractor trailers; 6) The change -of -zone would reduce neighborhood property values; These impacts are illustrated by the photographic exhibits enclosed with this letter. The first set of photographs (Exhibits 1A, 1B, and 1C) depict the character of the surrounding neighborhood, with the exception of the Mullen Motors Car Dealership. As you can see, there are some quaint historic homes in the R-40 zone, including salt box houses with picket fences. Exhibit 1C depicts the charming houses that existed in this area before Mullen Motors built its current parking lot. A number of beautiful, early colonial homes were destroyed or removed to accommodate this business to the detriment of Southold's historic character. Exhibits 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D depict some of the existing businesses near Locust Lane that are consistent with the historic character and charm of Southold. They include the Colonial Presbyterian Church, the Currie Bell House Museum, the Thomas Moore House Museum, a Colonial Bed and Breakfast, the Federalist Inn and Restaurant, and others. Exhibit 3A depicts Colonial Corners. Colonial style homes, converted into shops, blend nicely with the existing character of the residential neighborhood. The architecture is consistent with the colonial style of Southold. The buildings are to -scale and nicely landscaped. The change -of -zone could allow the destruction of this entire development for such intense uses as fast food restaurants and gas stations. Exhibit 4A, 4B, and 4C depict the existing Mullen Motors car dealership. This development is in sharp contrast to those depicted in the prior photographs. The corporate building is modern, flat, and ugly. Plastic signs mark the site. An ugly chain link fence surrounds the building. There are cars parked everywhere. There is little, if any, landscaping to buffer the ugly view. Exhibit 4C depicts some of the buildings of Mullen Motors. Note the lack of landscaping and the wall-to-wall pavement. Exhibit number 4B depicts the dealership once • • page 5 again. The cars, chain-link fencing, halogen lights, and the sign hung from what appears to be a pipe are all ugly and highly visible. Exhibit 5A depicts some of the very intense uses that the change of zone would allow. These uses should be contrasted with Exhibits 1 through 3. Among these uses are a car dealership, a warehouse, a car wash, a gas station, and a fast food mart. Exhibit 6A and 6B depict some of the safety concerns already associated with the existing Mullen Motors Inc., which include concerns about oversized car carriers roaring through pedestrian - oriented hamlets. The carriers pose traffic dangers on the very narrow, overcrowded County Route 25. They rumble down residential streets creating noise and fumes. They endanger small children in the neighborhood. Allowing the Mullen Motors Corporation to expand further would pose additional, similar problems. Exhibit 7A depicts the bright, obnoxious halogen lights already associated with the facility. These lights glare into the neighbors' eyes at night. Additional bright, glaring lights would be needed to illuminate the cars, increasing this nuisance further. Exhibit 8 depicts the damage already inflicted to the area proposed for a parking lot. Majestic trees, over one half century old were cut down, some three feet across. Note that these trees were cut before the developers received permission from the Town of Southold to construct a parking lot. Note also, that a lush, vegetative canopy still remains which continues to help buffer the residential neighborhood. The buffer lessens noise from County Route 25 and helps screen residential properties from commercial properties. II) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MUST BE PREPARED AS A MATTER OF LAW BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ACTION "MAY" HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. The record makes it clear that the proposed action "may" have a significant effect on the environment. Thus, an environmental impact statement is required as a matter of law. The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations make it clear that an environmental impact statement is required for the proposed action. 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.1 d) states: The basic purpose of SEQR is to incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the existing planning, review and decision-making processes of state, regional and local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQR requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they directly undertake, fund or approve may have a significant impact on the environment, and if it is determined that the action may have a significant adverse inact, oreoare or reguest an environmental impact statement • page 6 • 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.7 b) requires that, for all Type I and Unlisted actions the lead agency making a determination of significance must: 3) thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; ... 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.7 c) sets forth the test for making this determination: Criteria for determining significance. 1) To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environment: i) a substantial adverse change in existing... traffic or noise levels:...; ii) the removal or destruction of large quantities of vegetation... v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical,...architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character; vii) the creation of a hazard to human health; x) the creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences; Also See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. 617.2 for the definition of environment. The record clearly establishes that the change -of -zone would substantially increase existing traffic or noise levels, thus triggering criteria #i). The record establishes that the historic, rural, aesthetic, and residential quality of the neighborhood would be detrimentally affected by the expansion of the Mullen Motors Corporation; thus triggering criteria # v). The record establishes that oversized car carriers rolling through residential neighborhoods and pedestrian -oriented hamlets are already creating a serious traffic hazard. Expanding Mullen Motors would exacerbate this condition more, thus triggering criteria #`vii). Finally, the record establishes that a change -of -zone would create a "material demand" for more intense commercial development that would result in all of the above consequences, thus triggering criteria x. page 7 In sum, an environmental impact statement is required as a matter of law. It bears emphasis, that to pass a negative declaration, the board must determine that the project will not have any significant environmental impacts. 6 N.Y.C.R. R. 617.2 y) provides: Negative declaration" means a written determination by a lead agency that the implementation of the action, as proposed, will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts... (Emphasis added). It is clear from this record, that such a determination would defy the facts of the case. CONCLUSION There is no advantage to the Town of Southold what -so -ever in allowing this change of zone. Indeed, there are substantial detriments from both an economic and quality -of -life point of view. The record makes it perfectly clear that the proposed action will definitely have a negative and significant impact on the environment. Therefore, if the Board wishes to continue with this project, it must issue a positive declaration under SEQRA. We would recommend that the change -of -zone simply be denied based upon the clear evidence already in the record. Sincerely, Carolyn Z k Attorney t La cc: Town Clerk Town Attorneys Planning Board Town Planner Zoning Board of Appeals Trustees Code Enforcement Officer/Chairman of the Building Department Nelson, Pope, and Voorhis Suffolk Times Times Review Suffolk Life Traveler Watchman MAY -10-1999 14:22 NELSON & POPE 9 LLP J l b 44 e .L Z I� Betty Neville, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town'Hall,' 53095 Main Road P:O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear -Ms. Neville: NELSON, POPE a VOORHIS. LLC E N V I R O N M.E N T A L I P L A N N -I NIB C O N 5 U16 -r; No CHARLES 1 VOORHIS. CER AICP • ARTHUR J. KOERBER. P.E. ` VINCENT 13, OONNELLY, PE VICTOR BSRT. P.S. • JOSEPH R. EPIFANIA. RE. - ROBERT G. NELSON, JR. RE • CHRISTOPHER IN ROBINSON. P.E. May 10, 1999 Re: Mullen Motors Review of Long EAF Part III As per your request, this letter provides .you with a proposal for services in connection with the above referenced project. We have received a copy of the Part III EAF dated April 1999 directly from the applicants attorney. The.4ecumeht responds to the NP&V review letter dated September 10, 1997 and contains technical information pertaining to land- use, growth inducing aspects, visual resources, tree cutting, traffic impacts. and aesthetics and noise. The fee., for technical review of this Part III submission is $1,400.00. Included with this is a detailed letter outlining the adequacy and accuracy of the information submitted, to assist the Board in reaching a determination of significance on this project. Also included is review of the traffic memorandum prepared by Dunn Engineering, by a traffic professional. on our staff. Thank you for theopportunity to provide you with this proposal, and please do not hesitate to contact me- should you have any questions. Very truly yours, NEi,so Po & 'Voottms, LLC Charles J. oorhis, CEP, AICP 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD. M£LVILL.S. NY 1 17A7-21 a6 (51 0] A27-5805 . Pnx c 5't ei ae7-0Ae0 Ms. Judith Terry, Town Clerk Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING • CONSULTING CHARLES J. VOORHIS. CEP, AICP • ARTHUR J. KOERSER, PE. • VINCENT G. DONNELLY. P.E. VICTOR BERT, P.E. • JOSEPH R. EPIFANIA. P.E. • ROBERT G. NELSON, JR. P.E • CHRISTOPHER W. ROBINSON, P.E. September 10, 1997 RECEIVED SEP 16 1991 Southold Town Clerk Re: Supplemental Review of EAF Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen Zone Change Application SCTM No. 1000-62-03-22.1 & 24.1 N&P Job No. 97208 As. per the request of the Southold Town Board, we have completed a supplementary review of the above referenced zone change. This review is intended to examine current site conditions as a result of tree clearing activity, and the review and analyze these conditions, community concerns, and potential impacts in the context of the proposed zone change and subsequent use of the subject site as an expansion of Mullen Motors. We have completed a second field inspection, with particular emphasis on, assessing the impact of the recent cutting of trees along Locust Avenue. In addition, we have reviewed available material concerning community concerns. The primary issues raised by local residents are: 1) visual impacts; 2) cutting of trees on the property; 3) land use conflicts and growth inducing impacts within the area; 4) traffic impacts; and, aesthetic impacts including noise. , This letter will provide a brief discussion of each of these impacts; however, we believe that the burden should be placed on the applicant to address in detail issues concerning the proposed use of the intended zone change parcel. In addition, local residents have stated that conditions at the existing Mullen Motors to the west violate past site plan approval for buffering and use of the employee parking areas. These issues are separate from the current application, but the Town may wish to address these issues in the context of the requested expansion of Mullen Motors to the subject parcel. The Board may also wish to have the appropriate branch of Town government further investigate these claims as a separate action. One difficulty in reviewing the action is the lack of specificity with regard to future use of the site. While we understand that the project is for a change of zoning to General Business (B), the Page 1 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAO. MELVILLE. NY 11747-2188 (51 6l 427-5885 FAX [51 B7 427.5620 Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review proximity of the site to the residential neighborhood is such that many uses_ allowed in General Business may be incompatible with the neighboring community. In addition, the specific aspects of site design including design and layout, setbacks, buffering and landscaping, play a major role in impacts and mitigation. Many Long Island Towns require conceptual site plans and often get into the level of detail more appropriate for a site plan review, at the time of a change of zone application.. While exact use and design may not be binding at the time of the zone change, detailed review generally results in conditions, or covenants and restrictions regarding use, setbacks, design and buffering that help to minimize impacts. This approach seems appropriate for this project in order to fully understand the potential impacts and mitigation available, particularly in view of the potential land use conflicts. Accordingly, it is suggested that a concept plan be submitted with supplemental information outlined in this review The following project summary and summary of issues is provided: Project Summary The project site is a 1.2484 acre parcel in the hamlet of Southold, and is located at the southwest corner of NYS Route 25 and Locust Avenue. The northern portion of the site fronting on NYS Route 25 is zoned Hamlet Business (HB), and the southern portion of the site zoned is Low Density Residential (R-40). The current application is for a change of zoning designation on these two lots to General Business (B). The existing site conditions and zoning are discussed in greater detail in the NP&V review dated July 8, 1997. Mullen Motors, the project sponsor, operates an existing car dealership on the two parcels to the west of the site. The southern R40 portion of the site is currently vacant, although the vegetation is partially cleared. The sponsor intends to expand the parking facilities for the existing business onto the southern parcel, as the current parking is inadequate. Auto sales are not permitted within Hamlet Business or Residential zoning districts, and thus rezoning to a General Business designation would be necessary for the proposed use. There are five existing retail structures on the northern HB portion of the site which are collectively known as "Colonial Corners". It is believed that these structures would remain under the current proposal, although the change of zone could permit future removal of the retail buildings and further expansion of the dealership. Land Use Issues As was stated in the preliminary review of the EAF Part I, the primary concern associated with the proposed project is the potential for land use conflicts between the proposed project and adjacent residential uses. The project site has frontage on NYS Route 25, a primary route through the Town of Southold. Commercial development has occurred within individual hamlets along the NYS 25 corridor, and the subject property is located on the eastern border of the hamlet of Southold. The predominant commercial zoning category within the area is Hamlet Business, and the existing Mullen Motors parcels are the only properties in the area which are zoned for General Business. The Hamlet Business zoning on the north side of NYS 25 is fairly deep, without side streets, and thus the residential lands further to the north are well buffered. The residential lands to the N" NELSON. POPE 6 VOOPF-IIS. LLC NVFC VIAENTAL • PLANNING . CONSULTING Page 2 + Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review south of NYS Route 25 are not as well buffered from the commercial uses. The commercially zoned properties along the south side of the road are only 100 to 300 feet in depth, with residential development abutting immediately to the south. In addition, there are several narrow side streets in this area, which help create the potential for land use conflicts between the residential and commercial uses. Local residents have expressed concern that the change of zone will `.`compromise the rural character of the area", and might result in subsequent requests for zoning changes on surrounding properties. Limited land use conflicts might be expected .to occur with any commercial use, even under the existing . Hamlet Business zoning. The proposed expansion of the car dealership will present a conflict, particularly if the existing Colonial Comers Center were to be removed in the future. The center is traditional in design and is occupied by several small businesses, and would offer a visual buffer as long as it remains. There are relatively few properties within the Town with a General Business zoning designation. If additional areas for General Business development are needed within the Town, it is preferable to locate them adjacent to existing General Business parcels as proposed. However, due to the depth of the change of zone parcel which encompasses the R40 parcel south of the HB frontage, the encroachment of this zoning into residential use areas indicates that the proposed change of zone is generally not consistent with the surrounding zoning (with the exception of the existing General Business zoned Mullen Motors property to the west). The potential conflicts of the proposed project can be minimized through limitations on signage and lighting, appropriate setbacks, buffers and landscaping, and use of traditional building design for any new structures. Mitigation as well as alternatives should be explored in order to ensure that land use incompatibility is minimized. Visual Impacts The preliminary review also discussed the visual impacts of the proposed rezoning as potentially significant, particularly if the property is used for the expansion of Mullen Motors as proposed. Car dealerships are typically characterized by bright lights, banners, pennants and other advertising methods, as high visibility is preferred. The expanse of pavement which is generally necessary for a car lot may also detract from the visual quality of an area. These impacts can be partially mitigated through the use of landscape islands, retention of vegetated buffers and lighting restrictions,. as suggested in the initial NP&V review. Town code already prohibits the use of pennants, canvas banners and most temporary signs, and lighting within the General Business district is restricted to the front third of a lot with poles of. no more than 14 feet. The required vegetative buffer within the General Business zoning category is 25 feet, which is greater than the 15 foot buffer required within the Hamlet Business district. Covenants could also be placed on the number of cars which could be stored on the site and building design for any new structures. These measures should minimize the visual impact of the proposed project. NPS/ NELSON. POPE 6 VOORHIS. LLC FOIwvI AL • PL.onrwNG • CONSLA.TUNG Page 3 • Traffic Issues Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review Several traffic issues have been raised by local residents in response to the proposed change of zone, although these issues are largely the result of existing land uses in the area and are only indirectly related to the current proposal. Some of the problems identified include test driving by Mullen's Motors customers within adjacent neighborhoods and the partial obstruction of Cottage Place by cars awaiting service at Mullen Motors. Use of local roadways by large trucks has also been cited as a problem, although the majority of trucks probably originate from the existing Hamlet Business uses, particularly the adjacent 7-11 store. Mitigation of existing traffic problems on the Mullen Motors property can. be explored by the Town in conjunction with the applicant;. however, the focus of impact analysis should be on any additional traffic impacts which result from the change" of zone. In fact, it is likely that the proposed expansion would improve conditions along Cottage Place by providing additional parking areas on the property. A traffic/parking study would be useful in conjunction with the current application to address these issues. Cutting of Trees The preliminary review prepared by NP&V recommended that the existing street trees be retained in the southwestern portion of the site. Some of these trees, including large Norway spruce trees, were cut without authorization in July 1997. Although these trees were not 300 years old as stated by some local residents, they did provide an important visual buffer between the residential area to the south and the commercial strip along NYS Route 25. A subsequent site visit by NP&V staff showed that the large spruce were approximately 60 to 80 years in age, based on the number of growth rings present, with a maximum diameter of 32 inches at breast height. It is unclear whether the project sponsor is culpable, but the Town may wish to take action in response to the removal of the trees. Such an action would be separate from the SEQRA process; however, replanting of a vegetated buffer in this area should be made a condition of any site plan approval for a new commercial use. Use of transplanted older trees, rather than seedlings, would be preferable in order to provide immediate screening. Aesthetics and Noise The increase in intensity of use of the subject parcel would be expected to result in certain cultural impacts including aesthetics issues, light and noise. It is noted however, that many of these impacts are already present or sound be altered through commercial use of the HB zoned portion of the site. The operation of the facility will determine the level of impact, and the ability to control or limit such impacts. Barriers are effective in reducing off site transmission of noise, and site plan and zoning controls would be expected to limit impacts due to lighting. The general increase in activity may compromise aesthetic qualities of the nearby residential areas, if site use is not properly designed and controlled. Accordingly, operational as well as design issues are important considerations at this stage of review. NPS/ NELSON. POPE 6 VOORHIS. LLC ENMF ONMENTAL - PLAJWllNG - CONSULTING Page 4 • Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review Other issues raised by local residents include noise from car alarms and from the service area, and the possibility of toxic smells from the proposed project. These concerns relate to the proper management of the existing dealership, and would exist regardless of the intended use of the subject property. The change of zone review should address the potential for these impacts to increase or decrease with the expansion of the facility. The Town consideration of the pending zone change and the desire of the applicant to expand the subject facility to the adjacent site provides an opportunity to review the overall operations. Both Mullen Motors and the Town may be able to use this as an opportunity to improve compatibility with the existing operation, in an effort to have Mullen Motors "be a good neighbor". Based on this review it is clear that the issues involving the pending zone change are complex and should be carefully considered by the Town Board. As a result, additional environmental documentation is appropriate to explore these issues and provide a basis for a Determination of Significance under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as well as to assist in reaching an informed decision on the zone change. This should be in the form of a detailed Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) Part III Narrative to analyze key issues of the project. The Full EAF Part III (if required) should provide a detailed project description including project construction and operation. The Part III should be accompanied by a conceptual site plan that would depict the intended use of the change of zone parcel. The topics outlined in this correspondence should be used as a basis for further analysis in the Part III Narrative. The document can also serve as a means to seek input from groups or individuals as provided for under SEQRA Part 617.14(c) prior to issuance of a Determination. If Mullen Motors intends to expand the existing building or to demolish the existing center as well as add additional parking, these actions should be considered as part of the current application rather than under a separate SEQRA review. The EAF would then provide a basis for either a Negative Declaration if potential impacts are either not significant or are mitigated, or a Positive Declaration to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) if there are outstanding impacts that can not be mitigated. As an alternative, the Board could consider requiring an EIS at this time. Such a document could be scoped to include only those key impacts of the project, and would include discussion of mitigation and alternatives. In conclusion, the Town Board has three options for action on the proposed project. The Board could deny the project based on currently available information. The decision to deny the zone change should be subject to a Negative Declaration, allowing the Board to fulfill their legislative decision on the zone change. The Board could choose to issue a positive declaration and require additional environmental documentation through a Draft EIS with a limited scope addressing the potential traffic, visual, cultural and noise, and land use impacts of the proposed change of zone and expansion of Mullen Motors. Mitigation of these potential impacts should be discussed in detail, and alternative sites explored. Finally, the Board could require a Full EAF Part III Narrative to analyze key issues, and then utilize this as a basis for a Determination of Significance and/or decision on the zone change. The use of Part III EAF is our favored option, as this N" NELSON. PCPE 6 VOORHIS. LLC aWPZY V ENTAL • PLANN4+ • C NSLJLTWG Page 5 Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review provides the applicant with the opportunity to address key issues and impacts. The document can be used to solicit public input, and will provide a sound basis for the determination of significance. If there are one or more key impacts that are not mitigated, the Board would retain the option to seek a complete Draft EIS. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, VOORHIS, LLC Charles I Voorhis, CEP, AICP NPS/ NELSON. POPE 6 VOOPHIS. LLC EN ROMV1ENTAL • PLANNING • CONSULTING Page 6 ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR. OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-6145 Telephone (516) 765-1800 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD HELD ON MAY 11, 1999: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Nelson, Pope, & Voohris, LLC at a cost not to exceed $1,400.00, to review the Long Environmental Assessment Form with respect to the petition of Mullen Motors for a change of zone; said review to include applicant's Part III, drafting of a proposed declaration, including a field inspection; and also a review of the traffic memorandum. a4aljoazy�� Iffizabeth A. Neville Southold Town Clerk May 11, 1999 �.I �8 tIT MAY 18 1� Southold Town Planning Board ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT TO: The Planning Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner ��- RE: Petition of Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen to Rezone SCTM# 1000-62-03-22.1 and 23.1 From Residential -40 and Hamlet Business to Business DATE: December 1, 1999 Pursuant to your request, this addendum is designed to supplement the previous report on this matter, dated November 12, 1999. Specifically, the Planning Board asked for an examination of the subject petition relative to the several and various programs and policies that define the Town's planning efforts. Southold Town's "Vision", as stated in many documents and public meetings, some going back to the mid-1980s (prior to the adoption of the 1989 Zoning Map), is to preserve the small-town qualities that distinguish it. These qualities are a result of several factors, among them the distinction that is still evident between densely - developed hamlets and the countryside. Whereas most of the rest of Long Island is characterized as being a sprawl of development, Southold has managed to maintain the character of its individual hamlets and their respective business centers. These business centers are not purely business in nature. Rather, like most small towns, the business centers grew around and from a core of residential, municipal and religious structures. Within the hamlets there are some dissonant elements, businesses whose location once marked the outer limits of business development within a community, but which have become surrounded by a mix of other businesses and residences. Southold Town's hamlets are no different. However, since 1989, the Town has clearly stated that it will move to consolidate future retail business growth around existing business centers within its traditional hamlets. The following quote from the Final Report and Recommendations of the Southold Town Stewardship Task Force of June 1994 illustrates this Vision explicitly. The hamlets are the historic focus for residential and business activity in Southold Town. We consider this to be a desirable pattern of development, which should be encouraged by allowing appropriate new residential and commercial development in the existing centers. In order to facilitate this growth, careful planning should be undertaken by the Town, so that a rural, pedestrian oriented village quality, consistent with our history and traditional pattern of development, is fostered..... The blurring of the distinction between hamlet and countryside should be avoided as a priority. (Chapter S. P. 61.) The report goes on to note (in a discussion recommending against strip shopping centers): We believe that a better way of developing commercial properties is by multiple, small buildings in a campus -like settings. With good site planning and building design, this type of development would better fit the historic context of Southold. (Chapter 5. P. 63) The report went on to suggest that all business zoning on CR 48 be removed or at the least, confined to existing developed lots currently in business use. The Town Board recently retained a consultant, who studied the CR 48 corridor in conjunction with this and other Town vision statements or planning policies. In October of this year, a number of rezonings were undertaken which had the net effect of reducing the overall amount or intensity of business zoning on CR 48. The petition involves two lots with different zoning designations. The southernmost parcel is zoned for single family residential use. It has remained vacant these many years, no doubt because of the intensity of the adjoining business uses to the west, north and northeast. Its is fair to say that given how this hamlet has developed, its desirablity as a home -site has been compromised. The petitioner proposes to use the property as a parking and car storage lot, which properly buffered with sufficient landscaping, would put this land to productive use other than a vacant, litter -strewn lot. The Hamlet Business zone, which is the zoning of northernmost of the subject parcels, permits the most intensive of retail uses, including that of fast food restaurants, which are known high -traffic generators. This lot is already developed and in a manner which the Town wishes to encourage. The site contains a former residence and barn that were modified to contain small shops and professional offices. Additional small structures were added to form a small cluster of businesses that manage to retain the residential flavor of the original home. This particular business center complements the existing residences along Main Street, some of which are of noteworthy historical interest and value. The petition to the Town was quite specific in stated intent: to permit the continued expansion of an existing business dating to 1927. As noted in my earlier report, the Town has a long tradition of permitting this business to expand its operations and has granted that permission in a series of site plan approvals, variances and a use variance. The current petition represents a major expansion in terms of adding land and enhancing the growth potential of the Mullen Motors Company. Granting the petition may seem a contradiction in terms. Indeed, opponents have averred that allowing this business to expand would generate such negative impacts on the surrounding residential community as to destroy the very character and fabric of this part of the hamlet. If this petition involved vacant land and a proposal to construct a modern car dealership, then I would have to agree with that assessment. However, this petition involves a unique situation and circumstance. The site is mostly developed, albeit in a somewhat haphazard way. However, it contains elements of adaptive reuse which the Town wishes to encourage, and which can be used as a foundation for the continued expansion of this business. From a design standpoint, the petitioner's use of the site is less than optimal: there are alternative ways of using the existing parking fields and of landscaping the site that would work to mitigate and minimize some of the negative impacts the current operation has on the surrounding community. The addition of the two subject parcels to the equation, as it were, would make it easier to re -design the operational use of the overall site. Underscoring this analysis is my understanding that the petitioners are willing to work with the Planning Board during the site plan review to facilitate the best possible combination of operational, layout and landscaping changes so as to minimize the business' impact on the surrounding residential community. Also, that the petitioners are ready and willing to redress past violations of previous site plan and variance approvals; some of which seem to have come about in a desperate attempt to handle increased business within limited quarters. If such is the case, then the Town and the petitioners have a unique opportunity to guide this company's physical expansion in such a way as to redress some serious traffic, lighting and parking problems and ultimately to become an asset to the community. At the heart of this analysis and recommendation is a concept which bears some explanation. The opposition of the community is perceived to be based on two things: unhappiness with the decline in the quality of their residential neighborhood due to the way the business is being operated and fears that a physical expansion of that business will introduce a heightened level of intrusion. Their concerns are valid ones, but in this instance, they should not be perceived as insurmountable obstacles. To explain: for a decade now, the Town has worked to maintain its distinctive character through a series of actions, each designed to deal with a specific problem. For instance, it has eliminated strip shopping center designs from its zoning code; it has prohibited the construction of commercial buildings in excess of 60 feet in length parallel to the road in order to preserve vistas and encourage buildings of a mass and shape complimentary to its existing architectural heritage; it has eliminated the use of interior -lit signage from all but Hamlet Business districts. Several million dollars have been spent and are proposed yet to be spent to preserve the agricultural land around each hamlet. The Town has pursued this path knowing that the accommodation of future business growth within the existing hamlets was going to take a great deal of creative design and compromise. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TO: Jean Cochran, Supervisor FROM: RE: Update on Applications for Mullen Motors DATE: July 23, 1998 This in in response to your request for an up date on Mullen Motors. Mullen Motors has an approved site plan dated October 31, 1988. There is no application from Mullen Motors before this Board as of this date. JEAN W. COCHRAN c SUPERVISOR CA �? OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 -- Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1889 TO: PLANNING DEPT., BUILDING DEPT. 8 ZBA FROM: JEAN W. COCHRAN, SUPERVISOR RE: MULLEN MOTORS DATE: July 21, 1998 Please provide me with an update on any applications submitted to your departments by Mullen Motors as soon as possible. Thank you, Jean JUL 22 1998 Southold Town Planning Board 9 Gerard Goehringer Chairman of Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Rd, Southold, NY 11971 Re: Resurfacing of Mullen Motors property and Halogen Lights. page 1 of 2 July 13, 1998 1. Resurfacing occurred June 6th in front of bubble window & east side of Cottage Place. #s Violation of Site Plan, and violation of Area Variance granted by the Z.B.A. on Sept. 26, 1994. A. Both violations unsightly and environmentally damaging. B. Lacking buffer zone --no grass, trees, curbing or sidewalks! C. Macadam run-off drains into residential cellars and Town Creek on Hobart Road. Mullen Motors has totally monopolized and appropriated Cottage Place for their own benefit, NOT for the benefit of their neighbors and community. example: Chain-link fence --removed fence from right-of-way, but now park their cars there. No allowance for pedestrians, no grassy walk along right-of-way. Cars parked along street too, congested egress Solution: Macadam removal and restoration of grassy walkway, as done at Mitchell Park. 2. Halogen Lights shining into residential homes until Midnight. A. Mullen Motors --4 halogens on every post is excessive. B. In direct opposition to registered complaints from residents, Mullen Motors installed yet another halogen light above the roof line of repair garage, which shines directly through Adams' kitchen and on into Frederick's home (Letter of March 13, 1998). Solution: Mullen Motors follow example set by other Dealerships: Ford Lucas (lights dimmed and out by 9:00pm in response to neighborhood request). Michael Pontiac (lights no longer in use). • • page 2 of 2 We need solutions to these terrible conditions that residents are living with day and night. Not only has Mullen Motors failed to rectify existing violations, but has resurfaced their macadam and added yet another intrusive halogen light. Mullen Motors is outrightly breaking our codes and showing blatant disregard. This is unacceptable and wrong. Residents have waited a year— long enough for Mullen Motors to peel up their macadam, tone down their lights, and reduce the long hours they burn. Anything less is an insult and deliberate indifference to area homeowners and the governing body of the Town of Southold. Sincerely, Neighborhood Representatives r c.c.: Southold Town Board, Town Attorney --Greg Yakaboski, Town Clerk --Elizabeth Neville, Planning Board --Ben Orlowski, Town Planner --Valerie Scopaz, Code Enforcement/Bldg.--Ed Forrester, Code Committee --Bill Moore, Architectural Review Committee --Robert Brown & Garrett Strang, Highway Dept. --Ray Jacobs, Trustees -- Pres. Al Krupski, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis. Gerard Goehringer Chairman of Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 July 13, 1998 Dear Mr. Goehringer: Thank you for taking time out from your busy schedule to talk with area residents, June 18th, about Mullen Motors violations (please see attached list page 1 and 2 and photos). As was brought out in our meeting, when residents near Lucas Ford objected to the lighting problem there, immediate steps were taken to rectify the situation. Founders Estates neighbors would like the same consideration. This past year STOP -Watch has written countless letters to the Town Board, Planning Board, Z.B.A., and Code Enforcement Officer about these matters. Town Hall has received adequate information for all departments to act on the site plan violations and area variance violations and inconsiderations in general. Now that you are fully aware of the legitimate concerns of the neighborhood and the specific site plan violations of Mullen Motors, we anticipate the resolution of these collectively recognized infractions. PS: As we also discussed, 7 -Eleven shares many of these infractions and inconsiderations. Despite numerous letters: July 16; August 29; October 7; November 24; February 18; March 16; March 23; April 2; April 7, these business violations have yet to be corrected. As we reiterated at our meeting, the only option is rectification, not modification. Immediate attention is greatly appreciated and merited. JUL1117 2 0 1998 Southold Town Planning Board r exp LL . ;. � 1 � � , � ;f. r �, ��T� 1� ` �y 1 I � �,q, '�t�r�'� �r� , �:u�'; � � � .. . �' ,; �� a � �I �� (' h q�yy�, , �� 3 1i �� .�� ,. � � � I �,, ' _ : �. I I � a, ,, �.,� -__ �. - � ,� k _.. �:, �w ,,, �� 1 T, A1�" i4 ' �i4t�Mt+ N Hy.)b�"+'N`.� �� `^a... M:. r1 r u y -.. r �4 W111W.F ' 4 Halogens on each Towering Post --Excessive # of Lights, Wattage and Height ---Disturbs Neighbors & Drivers. Newly Installed Halogen above Roofline of Repair Garage Directly Pointed at Adams' Home Through to Frederick's. Mullen Motors' Intrusive Halogen Flood Lights shine into Homes and the eyes of passing Motorists— 11:30pm. 7 -Eleven Bright Lights attract Loiterers to congregate with their pals. i 1 1 y 6 Mr. Ray Jacobs Superintendent of Highway Dept. Peconic Lane Peconic, NY 11958 Dear Mr. Jacobs, RE�F,��D1 Southold Town Planning Board • Julie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 -7//3/9e We, on Locust Lane were wondering if you had had a chance to talk with your crew about not using the inner roads of Founders Landing Estates unnecessarily. It is not just once a week, it is everyday --sometimes several times a day. We have spoken to both of your secretaries about these matters on 3 occasions since our talk with you. After our call to you on Monday, June 29th about the Vac Con truck which was also parked in the 7 -Eleven No Parking Zone, the very next day, the Vac Con truck again came down Locust Lane, turned left onto L'Hommedieu, and then turned right onto Town. Harbor Lane. This is not a direct route. Besides the wear and tear on our street corners from this distructive pattern, it is also very dangerous and disturbing to have heavy trucks bearing down on our otherwise quiet roads. There are people walking in the neighborhood, children riding their bikes, and walking their dogs. We should not be bothered with needless truck traffic that is meandering through the neighborhood or frequenting 7 -Eleven. I would also like to bring to your attention the following incidents involving your Town Garbage truck: July 2-4:30am--Town Garbage truck drives down Locust Lane, turns left on L'Hommedieu, then right onto Town Harbor to pick up garbage at the Town Harbor Dead End. Later at 8:30 am, Garbage truck was seen coming up from the Town Harbor Dead End, across L'Hommedieu, and up Locust Lane, out onto the Main Rd. Makes no sense. Not a direct route. July 6-5:30am--Garbage truck uses Locust Lane, and L'Hommedieu to get to Town Harbor Dead End and this time shouts while passing Joe Blados' home. July 10-5:40am--Garbage truck takes same route, but this time beeps twice as he passes Joe Blados' home. Note: Every stop and turn is accompanied by screeching brakes. Until now we have never had Town Garbage trucks coming down Locust Lane, period. It comes to mind that the sudden reason for this 4:30am garbage truck on Locust Lane might be the newly -placed yellow garbage can at Colonial Corners. Why would Colonial Corners need a Garbage can? The only reason we can think of is 7 -Eleven, which is a private enterprise. Why. should the Town be carting 7 -Eleven garbage? Let 7 -Eleven be responsible for their own garbage. They have a 24-hour, all night operation and can send someone out at 4:30am to quietly do the job.. We residents all have to pay privately to have our garbage hauled away. When 7 -Eleven first opened, they agreed that they'd have a man go out and pick up P6 litter everyday. Since their patrons use Colonial Corners' parking lot, 7 -Eleven should clean it up as well as any surrounding litter-- not the Town and not at taxpayers expense. As it is, we are kept awake from 7 -Eleven noise and traffic many nights till 2:OOam or later! There are signs at Colonial Corners that read 'No Parking After 7pm' and there are 'No Loitering" signs at 7 -Eleven. If there was enforcement, there'd be no reason for a Colonial Corners Yellow Town Barrel. 7 -Eleven patrons can utilize 7 -Eleven Garbage Cans and if they litter, 7 -Eleven can pick it up. Please remove this Town barrel from the private property of Colonial Corners. It is adding to an already intollerable situation in our area. We do not need to be awakened at 4:30am by garbage trucks or their back-up beepers. Would you also please have your employees stay up in the business district, use the outter roads and discontinue meandering through our inner residential streets. We do not live in the Business District and would like to keep our residential area and streets as quiet and safe as any other neighborhood in Southold. Thank you for your consideration in resolving these problems that are affecting the quality of our neighborhood. Sincerely, ��Glie Sanford c.c.: Southold Town Board, Town Attorney --Greg Yakaboski, Town Clerk --Elizabeth Neville, Planning Board --Ben Orlowski, Town Planner --Valerie Scopaz, Code Enforcement/Bldg. Dept. --Ed Forrester, Z.B.A.--Gerard Goehringer PLANNING BOARD MEMBIUP BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMER.S KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD MEMORANDUM o y� ti at oy��l dap! PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To: Betty Neville, Town Clerk From: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner��/ Re: Mullen Motors Date: March 23, 1998 0 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 The attached letter is being forwarded to Mr. Frederick in response to his letter. CC: Bennett Orlowski Ed Forrester Gerard Goehringer William Moore PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS* 13ENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD March 23, 1998 Richard H. Frederick 385 Cottage Place Southold, NY 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Zoning change proposed by Mullen Motors Dear Mr. Frederick: 0 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 After reading your letter regarding Mullen Motors, I have sent it on to the Town Clerk's office, which is the office that handles change of zone applications. I trust you will receive a response from Mrs. Neville, Town Clerk, shortly. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Su -BF Td to ✓-j R.H. Frederick 385 Cottage Place Southold, N.Y. 11971 13 March, 1998 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski, Re. Zoning change proposed by Mullen Motors I would like to know why I did not receive a certified letter in June of 1997, as did many of my neighbors, informing me of the zone change request by Mullen Motors. I request a specific response to this question. My living conditions and property value are significantly affected by activities at Mullen Motors and will be more seriously affected if this zoning change is granted. I bought my property in Southold because of the bucolic character of the town and its residential neighborhoods. I would like to see that preserved rather than destroyed by turning Main Road in Southold (including Colonial Corners) into another Jericho Turnpike. The traffic on Cottage Place related to Mullen Motors is already bad enough with much of it (including the auto carrier trucks) cutting across the southwest corner of my lawn (come see for yourself). I can only envision it getting worse if this zoning change is granted. How many more high intensity lights will be installed to shine into my bedroom as another high intensity one recently installed at Mullen Motors currently does. I guess one could argue that it saves me electricity since it is so bright in that room that I don't need to turn my own lights on, but that argument is fallacious. Their light is an intrusion on my domain to the detriment of my privacy and my property value, and I could only expect that to get worse. hAR 20 1998 --)u+hold Town Page 1 of 2 Planning Board 0 • I am by no means anti -business, but believe that proper planning can address the needs of both business and residential segments of the community. In my opinion, this zoning change, if granted, would unfairly favor business to the detriment of the area residents and the character of the town of Southold. As an affected resident, a taxpayer, a voter, and a concerned citizen, I am unalterably opposed to this proposed zoning change, or to any other proposal for a zoning change that would adversely affect my property value, living conditions, or the character of the town of Southold and the Colonial Corners area. I hereby request that I please be informed by the cognizant Southold Town organization of the schedule for public hearings on the Mullen request for a zoning change or any other proposal for a zoning change that has potential impact on the quality of living as we know it in the town of Southold. Very truly yours, Richard . Frederick c.c. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Ed Forrester, Code Enforcer/Bldg Dept. Gerard Goeringer, ZBA William Moore, Code Committee Chairman Page 2 of 2 • R.H. Frederick 385 Cottage Place Southold, N.Y. 11971 13 March, 1998 Ms. Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz, Re. Zoning change proposed by Mullen Motors • I would like to know why I did not receive a certified letter in June of 1997, as did many of my neighbors, informing me of the zone change request by Mullen Motors. I request a specific response to this question. My living conditions and property value are significantly affected by activities at Mullen Motors and will be more seriously affected if this zoning change is granted. I bought my property in Southold because of the bucolic character of the town and its residential neighborhoods. I would like to see that preserved rather than destroyed by turning Main Road in Southold (including Colonial Corners) into another Jericho Turnpike. The traffic on Cottage Place related to Mullen Motors is already bad enough with much of it (including the auto carrier trucks) cutting across the southwest corner of my lawn (come see for yourself). I can only envision it getting worse if this zoning change is granted. How many more high intensity lights will be installed to shine into my bedroom as another high intensity one recently installed at Mullen Motors currently does. I guess one could argue that it saves me electricity since it is so bright in that room that i don't need to turn my own lights on, but that argument is fallacious. Their light is an intrusion on my domain to the detriment of my privacy and my property value, and I could only expect that to get worse. Page 1 of 2 I am by no means anti -business, but believe that proper planning can address the needs of both business and residential segments of the community. In my opinion, this zoning change, if granted, would unfairly favor business to the detriment of the area residents and the character of the town of Southold. As an affected resident, a taxpayer, a voter, and a concerned citizen, I am unalterably opposed to this proposed zoning change, or to any other proposal for a zoning change that would adversely affect my property value, living conditions, or the character of the town of Southold and the Colonial Corners area. I hereby request that I please be informed by the cognizant Southold Town organization of the schedule for public hearings on the Mullen request for a zoning change or any other proposal for a zoning change that has potential impact on the quality of living as we know it in the town of Southold. Very truly yours, Richard H. Frederick c.c. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Ed Forrester, Code Enforcer/Bldg Dept. Gerard Goeringer, ZBA William Moore, Code Committee Chairman Page 2 of 2 • � 5u.�: Mudlt..ti- Janice & David Szsaesny 340 Locust Lane, Southold fax: 727-8076 phone: 727-1150 January 30, 1998 Southold Town Board , Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 E , Dear Southold Town Board, 4 We feel it is most important to update you on the present living conditions of our Locust Lane home. Since the adjacent trees and vegetation have been removed, the noise, lights and activities from 7 -eleven and Mullen Motors have become increasingly disturbing. The street lights are no longer shielded by the tall street trees and the Mullen Motors interior -lit sign towers above the roof lines in full view. 7 -eleven has its' rear spot lights burning all night. Our residential privacy has been greatly compromised. In summer it was bad enough but now that it is winter, there is absolutely no buffer from these commercial intrusions. We can't imagine these operations getting any closer. Any more commercial encroachment toward our home is unacceptable. Again we express our strong opposition against extending this business zone into the heart of our neighborhood. We know from examining the unsightliness of Cottage Place that our property values will plummet and our safety and well being will be degraded. Juxtaposing one of the most heav , use -intensive business zones next to one of the lightest use zones, Residential, is deple and makes no sense. We bought our house next to Residential Property --not, a Car Dealership. Very truly yours, Janice J. Szczesny David R. Szczesny c.c. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Ed Forrester, Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer, ZBA sUj5F = P� Janice & David Szszesny 340 Locust Lane, Southold fax: 727-8076 phone: 727-1150 January 30, 1998 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Southold Town Board, We feel it is most important to update you on the present living conditions of our Locust Lane home. Since the adjacent trees and vegetation have been removed, the noise, lights and activities from 7 -eleven and Mullen Motors have become increasingly disturbing. The street lights are no longer shielded by the tall street trees and the Mullen Motors interior -lit sign towers above the roof lines in full view. 7 -eleven has its' rear spot lights burning all night. Our residential privacy has been greatly compromised. In summer it was bad enough but now that it is winter, there is absolutely no buffer from these commercial intrusions. We can't imagine these operations getting any closer. Any more commercial encroachment toward our home is unacceptable. Again we express our strong opposition against extending this business zone into the heart of our neighborhood. We know from examining the unsightliness of Cottage Place that our property values will plummet and our safety and well being will be degraded. Juxtaposing one of the most heavy, use -intensive business zones next to one of the lightest use zones, Residential, is de61orabie and makes no sense. We bought our house next to Residential Property --not, a Car Dealership. Very truly yours, Janice J. Szczesny David R. Szczesny c.c. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Ed Forrester, Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer, ZBA FEB 02 1998 Planning Board PIP C",, Southold T.Board/Code Comm. Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold NY, 11971 Julie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 Re: Public Hearing on Local Law to Revise Business Uses, HB District, Sec. 100-91B, Gasoline Service Stations & GB District, Sec. 100-101A, Auto Repair Shops To Southold Town Board & Code Committee, January 26, 1998 Contrary to recommendations to "liberalize" and "give latitude" to the business uses in our Hamlet Business District, I as a Locust Lane resident can tell you this is not a good idea. From first-hand experience, I know that the presence of a 24-hour convenience store and a use -intensive car dealership is reason enough to keep a tight rein on our Hamlet codes. These "liberal" uses in the Hamlet, near residences have already had serious ramifications. People should not be so quick to recommend "vibrancy" and "latitude" in places where they themselves don't have to live. We should all ask ourselves, "Could I live happily next to this? Could I look at this on a daily basis? Does it adversely affect property values? Could I sleep at night and past 6:30 in the morning?" To make a decision without these considerations would be unconscionable. As we all know, there are pockets of General Business along our Hamlet Stretch. Southold's 7 -Eleven was once a gas station. Mullen Motors was once a gas station too. So you see, inviting unregulated General Business into our Hamlet can lead to future problems, like the 7 -Eleven and the Mullen Motors car dealership we live with today. For this reason, we should not loosen our codes, but rather tighten them. A new proposal is to allow Auto Repair Shops in General Business as a Permitted Use. Are we forgetting the use -intensive elements of automobile repair? I think an historic town such as Southold should care about the negative aspects of automotive operations. It should remain Special Exception, subject to Z.B.A. review as well as site plan review. It should never become a permitted use without Board review. Please take all of these things into account when you draw up the codes and give special consideration to the residents in this community. Sincerely, 0*11_�_ cl� Julie Sanford cc: Ben Orlowski, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner Gerard Goehringer, ZBA Ed Forrester, Code Enforcement Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, N.Y. 11971 Southold T.Board/Code Comm. Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: Public Hearing on A Local Law to Revise Business Uses, HB District, Sec.. 100-91B, Gasoline Service Stations & GB District, Sec. 100-101A, Auto Repair Shops. To Southold Town Board & Code Committee, January 26, 1998 It has been said that the Eastern End of Long Island is one of the 10 most desirable places in the world to live. That makes it an awesome responsibility and top priority of our Town Officials to preserve this unique environment. We are not just anywhere U.S.A. We ask The Board to please not loosen any codes that protect the hamlet atmosphere, especially those regulating Gasoline Stations/Convenience stores and Auto Repair Shops. Automotive Repair and Gasoline Stations do not mix happily with Hamlet Business and Residential properties. Their location needs to be carefully monitored for the sake of the community. Noise, fumes, traffic flow and congestion, bright and late-night lighting, test driving destroy the integrity of a hamlet. These businesses, by their very nature, will always belong on the outskirts of town . . . not in the heart of the Hamlet and certainly not near Residential properties. We ask the Board that Auto Repair Shops be kept Special Exception-- subject to ZBA review-- and not made a permitted use in General Business. The concern here is that Automotive Repair will continue to creep into Business -zoned pockets of the Hamlet near Residential Neighborhoods and create land -use disturbances. With regard to Automotive Repair, we have a major conflict in our Hamlet already. To avoid future destruction and disturbance, there must be strict controls over anything that is use -intensive. Any powers of review the Board holds, must not be relinquished. Gasoline Service Stations and Automotive Repair Shops should only be allowed in the usiness Use ion Preserving the farm land is no more important than preserving our charming, welcoming, familiar Hamlet Districts. We do not only experience our town by looking at pretty vistas through car windows. We experience our town in our hamlets with its' historic landmark architecture. It is here, in our Hamlets, where we work and shop and interact with each other that we truly experience our town. When you drive up the island you will notice that the farms are all gone, but what has endured are the beautiful, old, historic hamlets . . . protected . . . and . . . preserved. Village greens, towering trees, shaded roads, early houses, shops, churches and graveyards are still there, undisturbed. The heavy use -intensive businesses are no where in sight. They are "somewhere else". . . not mixed in the hamlet. A town must not destroy its' historic hamlets with inappropriate, use -intensive businesses. M 0 If there is going to be a traffic corridor on Route 48, then Route 48 is the more logical place for these Automotive facilities and Convenience stores... not the hamlets. People passing through from the ferry would be better accommodated up there and it would also deter truck traffic away from our pedestrian -oriented Hamlet Districts. We have already lost too much. It is time to tighten our codes, not loosen them at the expense of our equally precious Hamlets. As you examine the codes of our town, please do not use the Hamlet as an alternative location for these use -intensive General Businesses Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jean A. Sanford cc: Ben Orlowski --Planning Board Valerie Scopaz--Town Planner Gerard Goehringer--ZBA Ed Forrester --Code Enforcement 0 Southold Town Planning Board Southold, N.Y. 11971 RE; Mullen Motor Expansion Proposal Dear Members; sir= Pb CLVC�a& R r-�/Ms January 12,1998 Southold Town Planning Board As the property owner of 315 Cottage Place, Southold, I am concerned with the devaluation of my property and that of my neighbors due to the planned expansion of Mullen Motors. The Locust Lane lot adjoining my property provided a buffer from Main Street noise and lighting. Since this property has been destroyed, so has our privacy. It has become a disgrace to the neighborhood and the town of Southold. Inrevious correspondence, I have made you aware of the steady flow of traffic and noise which now exist in front of my property on Cottage Place. I am sure that you will consider this unsafe problem of congestion, traffic ans pollution and not approve a zoning change in our neighborhood. Any change in zoning can only increase our existing problems and downgrade this area even further. With so much available land in undeveloped areas on the east end, I am hoping that an alternative site for the Mullen Motor expansion project will be suggested so that our community can maintain its integrity and rural setting. I join with my neighbors in looking forward to the restoration of the property on Locust Lane and the preservation of Colonial Corners. Sincerely, ,-- Barbara S. Adams FOB 1074 Shelter Island Hts., N.Y. 11965 - II '� r r , Wil. - •� � T •� awN �>i4hftev- Dear Southold Town Board, sof This is my response to Mr. James Murphy's letter supporting a Mullen Motor zone change application. Please add it to the Mullen Motor file. Thank you. Yours truly. - 2Z/'� Helen W. Prince cc: Southold Planning Board •SAN 2 3 t96�8 � 0 Helen W. Prince; Stopwatch P.O. Box 1445 Southold, N.Y. 11971 January 19, 1998 James L. Murphy P.O. Box 368 Mattituck. N.Y. 11952 Dear Mr. Murphy, Having read your letter of September 18 to the Town Board, I would like to have you hear (and maybe understand) the viewpoint of those opposing the Mullen expansion. This is not written with any animosity against the Mullen family. Everyone understands that they were hurt and then furious that anyone opposed their plan to expand. To residents near Mullen Motors and all over Southold Town, the day has come when everyone wants to put a stop to heedless, needless, unchanneled growth. The newspapers have been full of efforts to control Cell Towers, the use of beaches, traffic to and from the Orient Ferry, and much more. And yes - - - Mullen Motors. Mullen Motors was in business over 70 years ago. It was a gas station on the north side of Route 25. As it grew it expanded to both sides of Route 25 and began to gobble up houses around it that had been there in the last century, well over 70 years ago. It changed our quiet residential streets into a noisy industrial site. It has tentacles across the Main Road, across Cottage Place and now wishes to extend from its' unused exit on Hobart Road to one on Locust Lane. This mass destruction of what was all residential is what Southolders are opposed to. Besides the business being less than neighborly with its noise, fumes, run-off, bright lights, and clogged traffic, the street crossing is monopolized by salesmen, workmen, and customers who stand there on the road, doing business, impervious to the cars trying to pass, or maybe from long tenure, expecting the cars to detour around them. All of this is a nuisance for both the traffic flow and the customers who have to be shunted back and forth from salesroom to car lot. I'm sure customers and everyone else would be more comfortable with a self-contained business with no cars driving through its perimeters. This is definitely an issue of common sense. I don't mean to be picky, but your letter said, "The possible impact of one small parking lot on Southold Town would be far less than any other option the Mullens could choose." In fact, it would be one more and larger parking lot. And really! ". . . any other option open to him would have less impact on Southold" [than down -zoning and expansion would??] Any o tion would be preferrable to down -zoning. In the future I believe the Planning ff-o--ard wishes to put businesses on the north -south roads. The Town adopted a Zone Plan. Should the Town break their own laws? Weren't they made for the majority, not the few? And by the way, the present Mullen property would not stand empty. And that is our argument in a nut shell. There should be NO exceptions. Once you start down -zoning, every Tom. Dick, and Harry can open the door wide, and Southold would, in future generations, look like Route 25 west of Commack. Southold, settled in 1640 , is the oldest English settlement in New York State. Unless we • 0 preserve it with pride and foresight, future generations will curse us and know us as callous, near-sighted and self-serving. Thank you for reading this. It is written with the hope that Southold will live on in history ... not in infamy. Sincerely, Helen W. Prince Stop -watch member. c.c.: Southold Town Board Planning Board P.O. Box 368 . � Mattituc!c, LNY 11952 September 18, 1997 Mrs, Jean Cochran, Supervisor Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, Ny 11971 Dear -Supervisor Cochran: The issue of the proposed zoning change for the Colonial Corners property and the residential lot to the rear of it has been one of hot debate in recent weeks. as we all know, the problemboils down to a planning issue that should be decided in the test interest of Southold Town. It is also an issue of common sense. The village of Southold has an e.dsting business district that Mullen Motors has operated in fcr the past seventy years. The Mu.11ens have propose: to create a par:c_-zg lot on the parcel behind Colonial Corners in order to resolve their need or Wore space as their business grows. The possible impact of one scall parking lot on Southold Town would be far less than any other option the uulle^.s could choose. X small grcuo of neighbors who live on Locust Avenue, near the Colonial corners prcpe_rty, does not scree Frith this and have stated that Mullen Motors. is ruining Sout old Town. They have even gone so far as to suggest that wullens move up to tie North Rcad, away from the site that they have cccuoied for gene_raticns. Mcving to the North Road could only mean building on open farm fields. Now let's talk about ruining Southold Town! Gnnecessa_-y development on `:aids in a town that spends millions of tax dollars on open - space prese_riat:cn? i think not. It seems that the Locust Avenue group prefers the development of our iarmiands and the possibility of large, empty buildings and an even larger emDty par.,cing lot in the middle of a beautiful village. :s t, --.is -.hat is best Eor Southold Town? I think not. Canon sense would deem that the loss of one undesirable residential lot bordering on the business district would be a far bet;.er option than the loss of our --ie--more valuable ope-q spaces. Southold has an existing business district, one that was in place when all of the :ecust avenue reside -its freely chose to u --chase homes so near to it. It is my hope that smart, planning :.-u--chase by our town officials vil'_ accomodate the needs of our local businesses wit. --Ln this zone while still maintaining the beauty and the integrity of the whole of Southold Town. ,'^hank you for your consideration. c--: Mr. R_r'^.ard uu'__e_'l, ,:r. r- Sincerely yours, .L� , A aures L. ?�_ur'hy .• 22-= 0 )01116 REaIVED Please c.c. to: JAN 2 1 1998 Southold Town Board Gerard Goehringer: Z.B.A. soutWd Tow, Clfn* d Forrester: Building Dept. ennett Orlowski: Planning Board Dear M s . Neville: We are very upset and disappointed with the plans for a Mullen Motors parking lot across the street from our brand new home. Only three weeks after we settled in those beautiful trees were cut down. We were never informed by Century 21 that this was going to take place. I think what is disappointing also, is to have all traffic -wise trucks blocking our driveway, and it shouldn't be,,.At the beginning it was nice living here, looking at these beautiful trees, and now it just feels like a horrible thing. We thought we could deal with the troubles from Seven - Eleven, but Seven -Eleven and a parking lot are too much. Yours truly, Debra & Anthony Soto 165 Locust Lane, Po Box 1916 Southold, New York 11971 ��6r�a�n�D JAN2210 D t/ /f i sl • 10.• The Suffolk Times ! December 25,. 1997 . Lettersese Locust Lane Lament Southold An open letter to Bill Albertson: 'Thank you for "Mulling Mullen's" (Nov. 20, Suffolk Times). We're glad you reminded the public what Locust Lane was like before 7 -Eleven. It makes 49 us realize how much we've lost and how much more we are still being asked to relinquish. Why should we turn our streets and quiet living over to two general busi- nesses? Just look at what both business- es have done to the area. We now have 18 -wheeler trucks coming down Locust Lane and making three-point turns on L'Hommedieu. We have car carriers eroding our properties and endangering our streets. Just look at what this dealer- ship and 24-hour convenience store have done to Cottage Place and Route 25 — bright lights, no grass, no trees, no side- walks anymore. A factory town atmos- phere has been created in the heart of our hamlet. We shouldn't be mulling a one-way street, a dead-end street or any further inconvenience to accommodate these two general businesses. They've pushed their way into an area that's totally inap- propriate. In Southampton, they've solved the problem by moving the 7 -Eleven away from the residential area to Sunrise Highway — a major express route. Which made everybody, including 7 - Eleven, happy. [Car] dealerships, as a rule, are located away from residential areas out of con- cern for the peace and safety of the com- munity. Perhaps we should mull some alterna- tive options instead of the "potential compromises" you suggested. This time, all together — the town officials, the environmentalists and the neighbors. Jean Sanford • �Q.•.T�ie,$uffoll�Tjm�,ti iV�mk�� ;;199� 16ettem.. 4 Mulling Mullen's Southold Dear Troy: I try to keep my letters to the editor r� u short. This may be an exception. Prior to the opening of the 7 -Eleven the eastern part of the village was, for the most part, quiet. Locust Lane was hardly used. One would have thought the opposition to the 7 -Eleven with its 24- hour-a-day,seven-days-a-week op- eration would have been fierce. Environmentaiists, town officials joining neighbors in trying to block this noisy eyesore. You would expect a fight equal to the fracas over McDonald's. We, the neighbors fought alone. Now, years later, opposition has risen over a parking lot. The potential com- promises are numerous: 1. Mullen Motors put a six -foot -high fence around the proposed parking lot with no access onto Locust Lane. 2. The town close off Locust Lane behind the 7 -Eleven and Colonial Corners, making it a dead-end street. 3. Make Locust Lane a one-way street heading north onto Route 25. 4. Make all entries into the 7 -Eleven from Routs 25 and all exits onto Locust Lane. 5. Ascertain the uses Mullen's envi- sions for this parking area and restrict the use to these objectives. Lastly, why blame Dick Mullen for the destroyed trees? He, at this point, -doesn't own the property. Bill Albertson -fX " � jra.� -#V aAA-4L(� yy 6 10 ,cz-A-, Ao4 Walter J. Krupski, Jr. 315 Pat Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. Krupski, • Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 January 5, 1998 After reading your letter to Supervisor Cochran in support of a Mullen Motors down zone, I was very concerned that you hear the "other side" of this issue. You start off saying, "I believe that there are two sides to every issue and that both must receive equal consideration in order for an educated decision to be made." That's very true. So please give us equal time and try to understand why those who oppose the Mullen Motors down zone, feel their position is well taken. Mullen Motors started out as a small gas station on the edge of a residential neighborhood. As his success grew, so did his operation. But rather than find an appropriate location, he stayed in a residential area where expansion entailed the devaluation and destruction of a neighborhood. Most of this expansion took place in recent times. The car lots, the bubble show room, the chain link fences, the flood lights, the stretch of black macadam --not all this has been there for 70 years. Mullen Motors expanded south demolishing the Finne home on Cottage Place --we are talking about residentially zoned property downgraded for a car lot. With it came: 10 unit Car Carriers swinging up on private property and eroding our residential streets, flood lights shining into bedroom windows till 11 pm at night, macadam drain off, clogged and congested access to Rt. 25, test driving, car alarms, workers, salesmen and customers monopolizing our roads --This is what we live with on a daily basis! You say, the Mullens would not want "... to harm the beauty that is the North Fork." As you can see, they already have. Whatever has been "...given back to the community...", is no fair exchange for the damage and devaluation we have suffered in this area. Just look at Cottage Place. A residential area is an inappropriate location for a business that requires continual expansion. You say, "...the Mullens have to live in our community too," but they don't live next to their own car dealership. How would Mr. Mullen's neighbors feel if he chose the entrance of their neighborhood in Mill Colony for this operation? Mill Colony doesn't even have street lights! That's the way they like it. Founders Estates once had nice entrances too. Do you remember the two 18th century houses that were removed from our Village Main Street to make way for a Mullen Motors car lot? Both houses were exquisite examples of 18th century style architecture and part of Southold's Colonial heritage. Chain link fence, macadam, towering flood lights and signs replaced them. These "improvements" do not look like they have "...always belonged there," as you suggest in your letter. We all know what has been lost. Now, it looks more like Rt. 58 in Riverhead. Today, more than ever, we need to protect those things that add beauty and meaning to our lives. All over the country, Town Planners are trying to preserve and 0 reconstruct historic buildings and landscapes. Just take a look at the East End Edition in Newsday. Everyday, for the past few weeks, they have run articles on LI history. Articles featuring our historic train stations, museums, churches, custom houses, etc. We are part of that tradition too. So let's not blow it. Let's not destroy our 1640 Village. Colonial Corners deserves to be saved. The quaint hamlet shops, the majestic old trees, the 2 historic houses along Main Street --these should not suffer the fate of removal or demolition. Where Feather Hill has failed, Colonial Corners has succeeded in charm and full occupancy. It has been pointed out by Charles Voorhis in his environmental reporf fo the Town Board that: "The proposed expansion of the car dealership will present a conflict, particularly if the existing Colonial Corners Center were to be removed in the future. The center is traditional in design and is occupied by small businesses and would offer a visual buffer as long as it remains."--NP&V Report 9/1497, pp. 3. A change of zone for Mullen Motors will only ensure the loss of this charming little complex and the residential property adjacent to it. We find no compelling reason to eliminate residential property and hamlet shops for yet, another car lot. The growth of this facility is clearly "...out of proportion for the area. To render an educated decision, I join you in urging"...the members of the Town Board to look at how the past history of Mullen Motors has transformed into the present." Take a good hard look. It has been devastating. Yours truly, Jean A. Sanford STOP -Watch member cc: Southold Town Board Planning Board L?- . __J2 SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (1 violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (1 violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation) . 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O.P.--Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation --Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. August 5, 1997 MRS. JEAN COCHRAN, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 MAIN ROAD SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Dear Jean: SUPERVISOR 11971-4642 I have been following, with interest, the matter of the Mullen family's attempt to secure a zone change which would allow for the planned expansion of their business enterprise on the Main Road in Southold. After having tried to understand the pros and cons of this project, I feel that I should write to you to express my views. I believe that there are two sides to every issue, and that both must receive equal consideration in order for an educated decision to be made. We all know that Mullen Motors is one of the oldest business establishments in Southold Town. The Company has provided many families here with a good decent living. Its owners are a fine family of hard working individuals whose actions both in and away from their business have exemplified dignity and class. The Mullen's are lifelong residents of Southold. They have a proven track record of givinq back something to the community and would - want no more to harm the beauty that is the North Fork than anyone who truly cares about this area. If we looked back over the history of this business, we would see a much smaller operation in the beginning. However, due to hard work, the Company has succeeded and grown. Over time, improvements were needed and were made. This had to happen. Nothing ever stays the same. Yes, the facilities have grown, but the improvements do not strike one as being out of proportion for the area. They never have and probably never will. As I have said before, tthe Mullen's have to live in our community too l This is precisely why I feel that the Mullen family will do what they have to do to deal with their current space needs, but will also do it in such a way so that one would think that the improvements were always there or always be onged there. I urge you and the members of the Town Board to look at how the past history of Mullen Motors has transformed into the present and believe that the future will hold no greater harm to Southold Town should this zoning change be allowed to take place. Veru 1%r�uours , `Walter J. KrunsWi, Jr...' ( 516 ) 295--8026 �J Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 William J. Mills III P.O. Box 2126 Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Mr. Mills, January 5, 1998 We have read your letter to the Town Board in support of Mullen Motors. This application for a change of zone is not simply for "the rear section of the property known as Colonial Corners", but rather, the entire Colonial Corners complex, as well as a residential property. As residents of Locust Lane and Founders Estates, we find this objectionable given its proximity to our homes. The activities of a car dealership are incompatible with quaint Hamlet shops and densely populated, R-40 neighborhoods. You say this additional expansion will "reduce the amount of 'automobile clutter' on or near the Main Road." In truth, it will only serve to increase and expand this unsightliness. What makes you think it is acceptable for Locust a�and Founders residents to view chain-link fences, macadam, and a monotonous row of "automobile clutter" as we leave and enter our homes? And what will it look like when the old homes of Colonial Corners succumb? Mullen's past expansions included the removal of two 18th Century homes from the Main Road, as well as the demolition of another on Cottage Place. Now again, this area is expected to offer up another Residential property. There is no way for this dealership to expand without destroying and devaluing all that surrounds it. Car dealerships and residences are not meant to coexist. Our zoning codes do not allow it. Mullen Motors has been the exception to the rule and just look at the results. We live with test-driving on our streets, 18 wheeler car carriers eroding private property, clogged and dangerous access to Route 25, car alarms, bright flood lights, macadam and chain-link fence. Wm. J. Mills & Co. could not expand where they were. Suffolk Times couldn't expand in their neighborhood. They didn't demolish adjacent properties. Even the Southold Post Office had to relocate to expand. It did not become a community problem. I don't see why the Town Board and the neighbors should be faced with this unreasonable request. No one is disputing that Mr. Mullen is a good employer and a generous contributor of "government and charitable organizations." While all this may be true, these acts do not justify allowing him to be made the exception to the rule, allowing expansion after expansion. Especially because of his inappropriate location. The health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighbors has been compromised for years. From past experience, we already know it is not within the power of the Planning Board or anybody else to make this car dealership expansion workable within a Hamlet and Residential environment. Yours truly, Jean A. Sanford cc: Southold Town Board STOP -Watch member Planning Board SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations) . 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (1 violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (1 violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S. T.O. P. --Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation— Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. Tei. (516) 477-1500 Fax (516) 477-1504 Supervisor Jean Cochran Southold Town Board Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 0 J. Mills & Co. Sailmakers & Canvas Products Since 1880 A 125-127 MAIN STREET CORPORATION COMPANY August 4, 1997 Dear Supervisor Cochran and Board Members, 74100 WEST FRONT ST. P.O. BOX 2126 GREENPORT, N.Y. 11944 This letter is in support of the zone change application by Mullen Motors for the rear section of the property known as Colonial Corners. Mullen Motors has been providing services to the residents of the Town of Southold for seventy years. This company is an important employer of Southold Town residents. It's support of government and charitable organizations within the town is not AuTassed by many. One of the basic tenets of a business in a capitalist society is that it must grow or it will die. The town cannot afford to have an important asset such as Mullen Motors die. From a practical standpoint it is in my understanding that if Mullen Motors is able to utilize this site for parking it will reduce the amount of "automobile clutter" on or near the Main Road. I suggest it also will be a safety improvement. - From the standpoint of the neighbors I share their concerns. However, I trust the Planning Board wiU require appropriate controls and requirements such as screening and access placement to minimize the impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding neighbors. I again urge a positive disposition of this application. Sinc„rrecly, William J. Mills III WJi ,I/mtrn cc: Mr. Richard Mullen `� • William Lieblein Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Lieblein, 0 Melanie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 January 5, 1998 I understand from your letter to Jean Cochran, that you want "...to go on record as favoring the zone change being requested by Mullen Motors." Before you go on record, I hope you know the record. Car dealerships are only allowed in General Business zones under special exception. They are not allowed in Hamlet or Residential zones --the 2 zones Mr. Mullen wants to downgrade for his expansion. This request will not only devalue the surrounding homes 25%, but endanger the quaint little shops in Colonial Corners. Can you imagine what this will do to our Village Main Street? To eventually level Colonial Corners and have monotonous rows of cars, trucks and vans running from the video store to Seven -Eleven? Already, two historic houses have been removed from the Main Road to make way for a Mullen Motors car lot. Do we really want to do the same to Colonial Corners? As you well know, we are a town that relies on tourism and summer people to sustain our local economy. The reason they come here is to enjoy the scenic beauty, swimming, boating, shopping and to just experience our rural atmosphere. They do not want to see suburban sprawl --and neither do we! The general concensus is that a car dealership is sprawling, unattractive and use intensive. That is why, out of concern for the safety and well-being of the community, car dealerships are located away from Hamlet centers and residential areas. Many businesses, yours included, depend on Southold's beauty and charming vistas If the Town loses the quaint village shops in Colonial Corners, the grand trees, and two more historic houses along Route 25 to a car lot, it will be an aesthetic and architectural tragedy. This Colonial Corners complex buffers and mitigates the existing business intrusiveness that has already compromised the integrity of the area. The Finne home on Cottage Place was demolished for a car lot too. Obviously, this is not a good location for a business that requires continual expansion. The neighborhood has endured bright lights shining in bedroom windows till 11pm at night, car carriers unloading on residential streets and swinging up on private property, clogged and dangerous access to and from our homes, 6:30am hydrolic lifts, car alarms, test-driving etc. No other neighborhood in Southold is subjected to these dangers and indignities. You have a use intensive business, but you are not situated in the Hamlet on top of a Residential Neighborhood. If you were, you wouTd-have other people to consider -- other factors to take into account. I won't go into the woes of what Seven -Eleven has done to our neighborhood, but downzoning Colonial Corners and Residential property will not "...relieve the congestion at the corner by the Seven -Eleven," as you state. If anything, intensifying the use to General Business for Mullen Motors will only intensify the congestion and traffic hazards. What seems to be a harmless change of zone to a businessman, is an unacceptable act to those of us who will be living with all the negative aspects of this plan on a daily basis. You say, "granting the change will benefit the town..." But as you can see, it will not benefit the town, the hamlet or us --after all, we are the town too. Yours truly, Melanie Sanford STOP -Watch cc: Southold Town Board Planning Board 0 SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight.. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (1 violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (I violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation) . 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O.P.--Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation-- Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. 0 Port of Egypt Marine, Inc. MAIN ROAD / RCUTE 25 / SC•UTHOLD, LONG ISLAND, NEW YCRK 11971/ 516 765-L445_5__i r/1X.5ib 765 2542 Mr. Raymond W. Terry Jr. 610 Jockey Creek Drive Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Terry, E Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 December 11, 1997 In your August 5th letter to Supervisor Cochran and the Southold Town Board, you say, Mr. Mullen "...wouldn't do anything to harm the community." However, despite the concerns of local residents and the valid objections we have raised, Mr. Mullen is still pressing his application. Why would someone, well aware of the community's feelings, continue to do this? You say, "...I know their word is their bond...". But remember something very important. If the zoning amendment passes, the petitioner is not bound to honor any of the drawings or maps he presents or any verbal promises. He is only required to stay within the zoning classifications of General Business. Just look at the car lot on Cottage Place. That had a site plan too (please see enclosed site plan violations). No trees, no grass, no sidewalks anymore --all macadam and chain link fence. Can you remember the historic houses that graced our Main Road before they were removed for a Mullen Motors car lot? They were part of our achitectural heritage and beautified our Village Main Street. What town allows a car dealership and car lot to sprawl in the center of its hamlet, near residential homes? Colonial Corners and its magnificent trees is also endangered by this car dealership expansion. It has been .poin.ted out by Charles Voorhis in his environmental report that : "The proposed expansion of the car dealership will present a conflict, particularly if the existing Colonial Corners Center were to be removed in the future. The center is traditional in design and is occupied by several small businesses, and would offer a visual buffer as long as it remains."--NP&V Report 9/10/97, pp. 3. You wouldn't trade in your car for less than book value. Why should Founders Estates be asked to trade in residential property for commercial use? Any "...plan for screening and improving the aesthetics of this lot", could never compare to that which has been destroyed. The natural wooded buffer incTuded majestic sugar maples that lined our street, Norwegian spruce, mulberry, honey suckle, common choke cherry, grey birch, etc. This natural wooded buffer shielded us from the ugliness of a car lot, bright lights and repair activity. While we're on the subject of buffers, please observe Mullen's newly installed buffer along .Cottage Place behind his repair shop. It doesn't enhance or buffer a thing. Landscaping will never buffer the type of activities that are conducted in a car repair/dealership operation. No matter how you dress it up, let's face it, it's still a car lot. Yours truly, Jean A. Sanford cc: Southold Town Board JSTOP -Watch member Planning Board SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (l violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (I violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O.P.--Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation --Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. Raymond W. Terry Jr. 610 Jockey Creek Drive P.O. Box 983 Southold, New York 11971 Home Phone 516 765 2567 Honorable Jean W. Cochran, Super%isor Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, Vey York 11971 Dear Jean_ August 5, 199-, After reading Letters to the Editor objecting to Mullen Motors' request for a zone change on Locust Avenue 1 feel l must speak out on their behai£ Afar doing business with the NWIlens for fif% e --m I know their word is their bond and they wouldn't do am -thin; to harm the communirv. In speaking with Dick, he told me he has retained a landscape architect to provide a plan for screening and improving the esthetics of this plot. 1 recommend the Town Board approve the Mullen request for a zone change Sinr--.1y, � i ' Paul V .lurphy P.O. Box 735 Mattituck L.I., NY i,Rrs . Jean W. Cochran, Supervisor Southold Town Hall 0 Box 1179 Southold, LI , NY 11971 11952 August 4, 1997 Dear Supervisor Cochran, mrr family and I In -ave known 'Dick' Mullen for .many years; both socially and through business. We mow 'Dick' as a kind, honest and fair person--- "ivi n generously to mos al worthy cases that effect t e life and well being of Southold Town. Mullen and 'r_i s business, Mullen Motors have always been a true asset to Southold Town. Improvements and aCdi ti0 _:to the business have alws' been well thou *:' our►— for the Benefit of the town and his immediate r'eshbors. The enlargement of the Barking Areas ma es ,zoo sense ----less traffic on the roads, safer streets, tc, etc(it even might increase the Tax Base). =lease listen and heed to what Mullen Motors are re- auesting--its to everyones advantage. "'hank you for your considerations. Very tr y yours, Pau V Murphy =lease show to Town Board Members cc: Mullen Motors 0 Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 Paul V. Murphy PO Box 735 Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. Murphy, December 11, 1997 We read your letter to the Town Board supporting a Mullen Motors expansion into our neighborhood. In you letter, you say, Mr. Mullen is a "...kind, honest, and fair person." Why then is he pressing his application? Why is he causing anquish and forcing us to retain an attorney, when he knows how his immediate neighbors feel? In the Nelson, Pope and Voorhis environmental report it states: "While we understand that the project is for a change of zoning to General Business (B), the proximity of the site to the residential neighborhood is such that many uses allowed in General Business may be incompatible with the neighboring community."--NP&V Report 9/10/97, p. 2. No other town on the Eastend has a dealership in the hamlet near residential areas -- Not Greenport, Mattituck, Laurel... not even Riverhead. The fact that Mullen Motors has choosen to situate itself at the present site and apply for expansion after expansion shows a lack of planning and genuine consideration for the neighborhood. A neighborhood, by the way, that was here well before the 1927 gas station. Barbara Adam's house dates back to 1903 and all the other homes on Cottage Place go back to the 1800's. As for Locust Lane, every house, including the Soto residence, predates the June 4, 1997 application to expand east into our neighborhood. The enlargement of the parking area does not make good sense. It might "..increase the tax base", as you say, but it will decrease the value of all .the homes around it. This is not good for us --his immediate neighbors. If this application goes through, we are looking at a 25% reduction in the value of our homes. Is that fair? ...Giving generously to most all worthy causes..." is admirable, however, it does not mitigate all the negative aspects we are being asked to live with. I wonder if you know what it's like living near an expanding car dealership. Bright lights shine in your windows till 11 pm at night. Hydrolic lifts wake you up at 6:30 in the morning. Car Carriers unload in front of your home and swing dangerously up on property. Test drivers, workers, cars, trucks --everywhere. Please listen to us. It's not to everyone's advantage. Yours truly, J q Jean A. Sanford cc: Southold Town Board STOP -Watch member Planning Board • SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS 1. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 3.5 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (I violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (1 violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked. on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property line. Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the ZBA with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O. P. --Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation --Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 1971 Mr. Peter Coleman 2105 Deep Hole Drive Mattituck, NY 11952 Dear Mr. Coleman, December 11, 1997 I read your letter to Supervisor Cochran favoring the change of zone for Mullen Motors. You say in your letter, "...[Mullen] has always had the community at heart...". Let me just say, that as Mr. Mullen's business has expanded and flourished, it has negatively impacted our neighborhood in Founders Estates and the Main Road. 10 unit Car Carriers have worn away our streets and properties. Bright lights shine into bedroom windows till 11 pm at night. Car alarms, repair activity, test driving on our streets, clogged and dangerous roads, asphalt, chain link fence --this is what we live with on a daily basis. Any dealership placed next to residential, automatically devalues homes and diminishes the quality of life. Let's reflect on Mullen Motors' past expansions. These have included the removal of two 18th century homes from their rightful place on the Main Road and the demolition of the Finne home --which now places the adjacent Adam house in jeopardy. Other 18th century homes on Cottage Place are also in danger of this creeping, never ending expansion. The dealership and its proposed expansion, has even threatened to drive small businesses ( like the 9 in Colonial Corners) out of our pedestrian hamlet. Currently, the Board is working to keep retail shops in the hamlet centers. These are the kinds of businesses we want on our scenic Main Road and next to our residential properties. The center of our historic Village is not the place for a sprawling car dealership and car lot --for aesthetic and pragmatic reasons. Contrary to your statement, Mullen Motors expansions have not been "...in harmony with their Main Road business location." Out of concern for the peace and safety of a community, car dealerships are generally located away from residential areas. Our neighborhood on Cottage Place, Locust Lane and Hobart, should not be engulfed by destructive sprawl. We can not absorb anymore expansion and fear his next move toward our homes. It is at this point, Mullen Motors should be helped to go where expansion is possible, appropriate and benign. This is good business. Yours truly, Jean A. Sanford STOP -Watch member CC: Southold Town Board Planning Board SITE PLAN VIOLATIONS I. Parking Lot to the rear of Mullen Motors along Cottage Place was to be used for Employee Parking Only. Fact. There have been over 35 cars stored there overnight. (1 violation). 2. A 165 ft. long grass buffer, 10 ft. wide with 27 six ft. hemlock trees was supposed to separate the neighbor's valuable property from the car dealership. Fact. No 165 ft. long grassy buffer 10 ft. wide has been planted. No hemlocks trees have been planted either. (2 violations). 3. A 60 ft. long chain link fence along with 60 ft. of low growing shrubbery was to be installed and planted on the east side of Cottage Place to shield residents from dealership operations. Fact. The fence has been taken down and shrubbery ripped out, replaced by macadam and parked cars. (2 violations). 4. Two 12 foot wide gates were posted on either end of the Employee Parking Lot to control the ingress and egress of cars. Fact. The gates have been removed, replaced by multiple car access. (I violation). 5. "Employee Parking Only " signs were supposed to be installed in Employee Parking Lot. Fact. They have never been installed. (1 violation). 6. The chain link fence enclosing the Customer Parking Lot on the Main Road, should run from the video store to about one-third the distance to Cottage Place. Fact. The fence runs the whole length of the Main Road to Cottage Place and 7 feet beyond the property corner stone. Also, the lot designated for Customer Parking and Dealership Sales, only has Dealership cars parked on it. (1 violation). 7. No vehicles are allowed between the addition and forward to the north front property linea Fact. Vehicles have been parking in this prohibited zone. (1 violation). 8. Unshielded flood lights and glare visible from adjacent properties, not approved by Code. Fact. Dealership has insufficient shielding on flood lights creating glare and light disturbances. Town Code 100-239.5 states, " All outdoor lighting shall be shielded so that the source is not visible from adjacent properties and roadways. Lighting fixtures shall focus and direct the light in such a manner as to contain the light and glare within property boundaries." The Neighborhood currently tolerates excessive light and glare from these intrusive flood lights. (2 violations). 9. Bubble showroom at the front was to have grass only between it and the Main Road. Fact. Dealership added 2 concrete pads in 1989 violating the Site Plan. After getting a hindsight okay from the Z13A with a 1994 Area Variance, the entire front landscaped area was macadamed over. This action violated the Site Plan once again, as well as the Area Variance granted to the dealership on Sept. 26, 1994. To. date, neither violation has been addressed. (2 violations). 10. Sufficient visibility should not be adversely affected. Fact. String of cars parked on macadam in front of bubble showroom adversely affect the visibility of drivers exiting Cottage Place onto the Main Road-- an accident waiting to happen. (1 violation). Total Number of Violations=14 S.T.O.P.--Watch Southold Town Organization for Preservation-- Watch P.O. Box 1445, Southold, N.Y. 11971 Information PUBLIC DOMAIN gathered from Southold Town Planning Board and ZBA files. James H. Rich, Jr. Wells Avenue Southold, NY 11971 Dear Jim, T Ici Jean A. Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 December 8, 1997 lt� V -d i. I read with great pain, your letter of support to the Town Board for a Mullen Motors Car Dealership expansion --"...to the Locust Lane property in Southold Village." Locust Lane and Southold Village are hardly the place for a sprawling, expanding, car dealership. It is clearly out of keeping with the character of our 1640 Village, which so many people are working hard to beautify and preserve. The consensus is that a car dealership is sprawling, ugly and use intensive. That is why Lucas Ford is located on a north -south axis beyond Rt. 48 --so no one has to look at it when they're not buying a car. A westend salesman expressed surprise to even see a car dealership our here in this rural setting! Simply look at what Mullen Motors has already done to Cottage Place and our scenic Rt. 25. Endless macadam which drains into backyards and the nearby creek, no grass, no trees, no sidewalks anymore, chain link fence all the way, bright lights shining into bedroom windows till 11 pm. Car alarms, repair activity, test driving and monopolization of our streets including his operation on the opposite side of Rt. 25. The whole area has taken on a factory town scenario --workers, cars, trucks everywhere. Founders Estates (R-40) is the most densely populated residential area of Southold. The traffic generated by the residents alone, keeps our streets busy enough without the added burden of Main Rd. truck -intensive businesses like Mullen Motors and Seven -Eleven. Conditions have become unlivable. These businesses use our streets as shortcuts and turn -abouts for their Main Rd. deliveries. No other neighborhood in Southold is subjected to the danger and abuse that we endure here from the Mullen Motors and Seven -Eleven business. Any further General Business expansion or down zoning in this area is unacceptable! You ask in you letter, "What would happen to Mullen's location on the Main Road if Mullen were to relocate?". I can envision quaint shops in our hamlet like Colonial Corners that co -exist happily with our residential neighborhood. And that is what would be there today if historic homes had remained in their rightful place on Rt. 25. Instead, they were removed for a Mullen Motors parking lot. All over the country builders and Town Planners are striving to both recreate and preserve our historic architecture. Greeport's downtown is architecturally cohesive. We in Southold should not be obliterating our colonial heritage. Even Riverhead has not destroyed its downtown architecture. They do not situate their car dealerships in their hamlet and residential areas. In fact, there is a movement to relocate even FURTHER from their Main Road and into an Auto Mall on Mill Road. Mills ourgrew his location and had to move. The Suffolk Times had to relocate. And we are talking about old, historic, landmark businesses that go back to the 1800's. Even our post office had to make other arrangements in order to expand. They did not make it a community problem. There should not even be a "Mullen Motors Issue" In all fairness, the neighbors and Town Board shouldn't even have to be put in this position. A sprawling car dealership does not belong embedded in the hamlet, blighting our Main Village Street and cannibalizing any neighborhood. Sincerely, darn A. Sanford PS: I'm sorry to hear of your resignation from the Southold Town Preservation Committee. With Southold Town at such a strategic crossroad, you could have been a force for good. Now, more than ever, the decisions we make today will determine the look and character of Southold for always. cc: Southold Town Board Ben Orlowski --Planning Board Gerard Goehringer--ZBA Pg Bev) Or C� c��'� vs Southold Town Board 1 Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 To Southold Town Board, November 24, 1997 Once again, we are reporting to you another incident involving an 18 wheel Tractor Trailer Truck on Locust Lane. On Thursday afternoon, Nov. 20th, an 18 wheel delivery truck came rumbling down our road and made a 3 point turn onto L'hommedieu, then returned up Locust, swerving into the oncoming lane to avoid the parkedgarbage truck in front of the Schelin house, and then delivered its goods --in the No Parking zone (please see photos). The police were called at 12:45, but by the time Officer Gralton arrived, the truck had moved. Same scenario as last time --No Parking zone illegal, but the 3 point turn was permissible. Let me just mention that we have never had Tractor Trailer Trucks making 3 point turns on our streets until recently --and it seems to be catching on! They seem to think Locust and L'hommedieu is a Cul de Sac. I know of no other neighborhood in Southold--Yennecott, High Point Meadows, Jamine Lane, Mill Colony, etc --that has had to endure these dangers and indignities. Also, we are one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in Southold (R-40). There are towns like Setauket, East Hampton and Old Westbury that have taken steps to protect their neighborhoods by restricting the type of vehicles allowed on residential streets. This was achieved by posting signs prohibiting trucks over 2 tons (please see photo). The same could be done in Founders Estates. Although , I wonder how many signs Locustt Lane can bear to make these Main Road businesses behave. We are not talking about U.P.S. vans, Federal Express trucks, NYNEX service vans, LILCO service trucks, Oil delivery trucks or other service vehicles making legitimate local deliveries or repairs. We are talking about Heavy Oversized Commercial vehicles that use residential side streets as short cuts to their real destination. Both Seven -Eleven and Mullen Motors are Route 25 operations. However, the Tractor Trailer Trucks and 18 wheel Car Carriers delivering to these operations, routinely use residential side streets to make their Route 25 deliveries. The results of these "short cuts" have been serious: --damage to private property --congested and dangerous streets --high noise infractions --an overall decline in the quality of our lives The Heavy Commercial vehicles servicing these Main Road businesses, should keep their deliveries as such --on the Main Road. Their problems shouldn't be everybody's problems. We turn to you, our Town Board, to help rectify these "fallout" conditions from these Main Road General Businesses. They are embedded in the most inappropriate zones --Hamlet and Residential. 1" Yours truly, -r�� Melanie Sanford NOV 9 5 � • 18 Wheel Delivery Truck making 3 point turn on L'hommedieu & Locust Lane. 11/20/97. 18 Wheeler traveling north on Locust swerves around garbage truck & parks in No Parking zone for delivery. 11/20/97 Village of Old Westbury residential street sign reads: WEIGHT LIMIT 2 TON: Katherine Newell Mayne Rose Hill 860 Bayberry Road Cutchogue, NY 11935 November 11, 1997 To Southold Town Board, I wish to register my strong disapproval of any zoning change for the main street of Southold for its whole length, be it for Mullen Motors or any other business. Colonial Corners is in good taste and should not be altered in any way. Car dealerships, sprawling parking lots, gas stations and neon lights are a blot - an ugly blot - on our quiet village. Seven/Eleven should never have been allowed! Route 25 in Mattituck is a disgrace. Do we want to look like that? A thousand times "NO"!! Yours truly, Ko �=� �uz ; , uW yn — Katherine N. Mayne IRC rd.,.tO Colonial Times y 4 �low.it.-..,,..'ralzes--..possession o f Commonersµ lands < x By -rim Kelly F CUTCHOGUE-It didn'ttake.much,, only. a hand--' ' shake and a quick exchange,of papers, for a three { V and -a half=century-long chapter m the town's history to :come to. ;a close this week a� i — � -w s re Wednesday.:mght•Tommie Mayne a top n Q _A �,�, �� ,,�s �, ,On s sent the deeds to two -w -1 id'parcels held ut �c " tin , A•° ¢ � �k yf uaus'ownership ,by Southold's ".Commoners"::,since �k th t n's'fo ndin in.1640.to'To n resi-' e ow u w f _= � �-.•dentAl.Kru ski.;The Town Board reviousl 'a reed P P Y g .: z a .. ., n to pay one dollar:for;the wetlands:wluch'will remain " °in,public oyvnership in perpetuity :: � " , »: It s.kind of a bittersweet moment, Mr.-Krupski said arli6r this week.+' ;Bitter'm.that:the`transfer severs the last unbroken . s � -�'PJink to the: town's colonial, past, but sweet in that the ` lands will -be preserved and the Commoners- recogs razed for:theu,sfewardship ;of the`land "The Commoneis" is actually the shortened, version of the narne of•the,successors.to'those first European +settlers fficially, they are known as :'`the ;proprietors 4 . lof-the. common -and undivided• laird and ineadows of Yt Southold Tbwn,,'v.:More than'a: century, before Lite. a,' " s =American'Revolution, the town's open - lands were '- '} . •�',:'�I I held .forthe common .use 'At, that :time, -the town ' Suffolk Times file photo by quay amens .extended from Plum Island to Wadmg River ;:END OF THE LINE=Tommie Mayne with her certificate of ownership. beside the Cutchogue wet- -The common. lands provided ,those early settlers; ` lands that have been held by the Commoners since the 1600s. - r, ' with salthay and seaweed for. .use' as mulch, at first_— r• ' < free -for. the taking Later on..the land` generated r ' � ` My ate mother -would probably be ready to shoot ".said _. I n r . t. income, but;earlier in.this, ce to y,tha ,, y me the former president of the Southold :His- I the Southold Historical Society. At Ms.. ' stopped"flowmg'in and so the'Commoners`started torical Society, who owns about' a third of the out- Mayne's suggestion, the town agreed to selling'off:land to,:coveraheir'expenses."The 'share- _[-standing shares:- Her mother was Rosalind Case ` I recognize the Commoners'. place in his= r holders.met on a'zegular basis into the 1960s " Buthey" of Newell, author of "A -Rose of the '90s," memories of j tory by naming` the acreage the "Com - tnever sold the 17 5 acres v�cetlands m . Laftle Creek or the 16 5 acres of marshy islands at ---- - `�_ From page 3 ' P g ! moners' Preserve" and installing mark- a long life on the North Fork. But ; ers bearing that description. "We } z i the, confluence of-Haywaters Cove, East Creek and thought we ought to make a there's nothing else to do," said; Ms. splash,". she said. "It's important." Mud .Creek.. Although unbuildable; hat acreage"went, _� Mayne. "The taxes have gone up, we i Mr. Krupski, whose board can track on ttie town's tax rolls in'the 1950s, withthe;Com-. ( need insurance and there's no money, its authority over the town's wetlands _. .: movers responsible for -both the taxes and liability left. back to colonial royal patents, said the insuranceThe Ms. Mayne said the decision to, relinquish owner- Commoner shares are held by 13 ''' Trustees are only too happy to accept the Southold families, including the Wick- "It's ship'of those parcels was'. not an.:easy one to make.` title. good for them, its good for us hams of Cutchogue. Another five fami- and its good for the town," he said. ___ __ .. - dies previously donated their interests to • Expansion Faces Fight in Southold man, to defeat the rezoning request - By MARJORIE KAUFMAN Ms. Zenk, general counsel for the,,. Group r'the South Fork, an envi- ETTLED in.1640, Southold' is ` ronmental group, has been practic- one of the earliest English ing on the East End for more than 15 stittlements'. on-. the North ' years. Fork Some'. residents now' Ms. Zenk has, submitted papers to fear., that their sense of place and. , the town `that oppose the rezoning -•;, qudlity of life are: in jeopardy. `' and : support anenvironmental-im- • ; -" The. Sanford family, in Southold for pact statement which she said the. - four generation's; lives in Founder's. State Environmental Quality Review,:. Landing, where.:- the; first settlers Law requires. from Connecticut arrived. They feel - - �-This is not just about a proposed " that a proposed expansion of a car ,; parking lot," Ms. Zenk said.: "The ; dealership threatened the "quaint;" application for a -,change of zone charm of the land," would permit numerous radical and,;, "We became involved after centu- dramatic changes to Southold. Gen-: ryold magnificent trees were eral business zone is one of the most", chopped down"along Locust Lane and intensive and impactful, allowing for 1. - the woods were cleared," a family fast-food restaurants, warehouses.:' member, Melanie Sanford, said. and light industry, including food - "That struck at the heart of the pang plants." whole community. Even now it is The car dealership is in an area," painful to see stumps, ,some a yard with a high residential Concentra-:' _ wide, at the entrance to our commu- tion. "Once the zoning changes," Ms.' nity." The dealership, owned by Richard. I Zenk said, "property values fall.. It's Mullen, has `been at, Route 25 and .' a domino effect." She has worked closely with plan= Cottage Place for 70 years. Mt. Mul- ning boards, adding that they had' len is negotiating to buy an adjacent reached similar conclusions. "It is one -and -a -quarter -acre residential, site that would be rezoned to general imperative to maintain the charm of'"' downtown hamlet areas on the East' business for his Chrysler dealership. End; ' Ms. Zenk said.:'Commerciar- The rezoning; which the:Town Board. sprawl is unanimously rejected as.' would decide,. involves ,two lots, one.. zoned for•hamlet business,.the site of bad for property values, community ' the Colonial Comers shopping area character and business. "Absent' some compelling reasonti , Mt. Mullensaid• he did not intend. to expand to than area; but that he had to rezone the property, besides the to buy the entire -parcel desire to grant the applicant a favor'; rezoning this property would be "I have .offered •10 -year leases to ,of.' zoning of the worst kind Spot ' .. Colonial -Comers" Mr Mullen said, in a teleplioae utterview :• ..spot zoning is illegal ' k ,. The ' empty' lot' is e. site:, for his - "There has to.be a way to alt- fof; proposed Parking lot, he'added. w businesses like Mullen Motors n ex -T1 'former -• and. timawl Town Sq The changes would not `harm the - P y'--� rvisor Thomas Ii. Wickham'said '� 1?I land esthetically or.envunrimentalty E Mr, Mullen said The. lot Would be,r7 think me.town should explore seri- . hiddea;z.well well ' - maintained - and add; `M ;Dusty helping- thein find an alte.ma', the "coin-; uve: location in the village already,, +� rather: than detract, from munity. Too many vehicles are now -' zoned for commercial use that Would parked around his business, causing suit their business needs better. ,.. 1,. In •1991 the- -Stewardship Task, congestion, he said;: adding:- "I have a petition with 1,500 names Force,, a . committee . sponsored by on it, people of Southold who think it "They Southold, along with a team of pros.• fessional consultants from England,, is a good idea," he said. think we should stay here and, be able to ,studied how to sustain development. expand to solve all the- problems we on the East End. The recommenda- tions indicated that historical and'. have with parking." To Ms. Sanford, who grew up in cultural assets played major roles in, Southold and returned in 1993 after having worked in publishing in Man- tourism. "We want to preserve the historic, hattan, preserving the landscape, no and scenic qualities of Southold;" Ms, matter how small a piece, is a priori- Sanford .said, "so they can .be..en- ; ty. Along with a group of residents joyed by everybody, resident and vis - she has retained a lawyer, Carolyn itor alike. We don't want to. becoM: Zenk, and a co -counsel, Adam Gross- Anywhere U.S.A." - ■; • PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. Chairman WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS GEORGE RITCHIE LATHAM, JR. RICHARD G. WARD October 27, 1997 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Carolyn A. Zenk, Esq. 121 Ponquogue Ave. Hampton Bays, NY 11946 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-3136 Telephone (516) 765-1938 Re: FOIL Request to Identify Documents Comprising the Southold Comprehensive Plan Dear Ms. Zenk: This is in response to your letter and telephone call regarding the above -noted FOIL request in which your client asked for all minutes, meeting notes and other documentation related to the Master Plan Update process in addition to the following documents which already were in her possession: Master Plan Summary 1985 Master Plan Background Studies Stewardship Task Force Recommendations - 1994 Planning & Zoning Committee files from 1994-1997 The additional documentation that was presented to your client consisted of boxes of other material containing minutes and meeting notes which were unsorted. I am unable to answer your request for a synopsis of the contents of these boxes because much of it predates my employment with the Town. I was hired in May of 1987 and was not privy to discussions and correspondence that took place prior to that time. The Town Board adopted the Zoning Code and Zoning Map by resolution in 1989. My understanding is that while these two documents are the only documents that were formally adopted by the Town Board, the Town has referred to the Stewardship Task Force Recommendations and its own resolutions regarding planning policy for Route 48 and the hamlets, both of which I believe are referred to in the Planning and Zoning Committee files. In September the Supervisor released the latest planning policy document, a copy of which is enclosed. The 1989 Zoning Code has been amended several times: with many of these revisions the statement of legisitive intent may be useful to you in your endeavor. Page 2 FOIL Request to Identify Documents Comprising the Southold Comprehensive Plan October 27. 1997 The subject properties of Mullen Motors have approved site plans. The Planning Board does not have any applications before it for an amended site plan for the Mullen Motors properties. The Planning Board will be conducting a review of the proposed zone change when the Town Board refers the matter to it for a report. This has not occurred yet since the Town Board is still conducting an environmental review of the proposal. Therefore it would be inappropriate of me to comment on this change of zone at this particular moment. Sincerely, Valerie Scopaz Town Planner enc. cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Laury P. Dowd, Town Attorney C ef Did you ever feel misunderstood? Or as though no one was listening? It's so frustrating! In the short run, my frustration is fearing the Town will rezone Colonial Corners allowing Mullen Motors, Inc. to get rid of nine small businesses and replace them with one big car dealership. In the long run, it is about how Southold's future unfolds for our young people. Will they be proud of the legacy we leave them? Or will we start allowing big business to intrude and spread into our hamlet, crowding out our homes? Shouldn't we retain our look of a hamlet of small businesses and a variety of many style homes? Southold was settled in 1640, the first English settlement in New York State. There are thousands of these settlers' descendants in this country, many of whom return to trace their roots at our Historical Societies. We love "The Peconic Bay Shopper" for its stories of life in Southold Town. Visitors love this place and have been lured for decades to come back and settle. By 1950 my husand "Hummer" was saddened by what was happening to Southold, the influx of people and houses. We moved to Founders Estates right after World War II during the Baby Boom. Southold was no longer the quiet hamlet where he was born in 1908, and where he sat playing out in the street as a small child. When we moved to Founders Estates, he went upstreet to Averette's gas station every evening after dinner. When Averette moved away Hummer went to the Fire House and to the Bay every night until shortly before his death in 1994. He would come home nights, shake his head and say, "I only saw one or two people that I knew." We were having a population explosion. That populaion explosion brought great changes to Southold. Hundreds and hundreds of homes were built and every home had at least one car. Mullen was in the right place at the right time to benefit from this booming economy. He grew and prospered. We bought all but one of our cars from him, starting • 2 with second hand cars. So did everyone else, and with his new affluence, Mullen gave some of his profits back to the communiy. But as a child outgrows his clothes, Mullen outgrew his small piece of Southold. His business grew so that the houses around him were not desirable places to live. But Mullen bought them, for they were worth a great deal to him as parking lots. Those sales put the next neighbors in jeopardy and, like dominoes, they too fell and were covered with macadam, making two large parking lots that control and dominate Cottage Place. With each expansion, the Town had granted Mullen a variance. Neither he nor the Town were farsighted. The Town Code was adoped for an imporant reason, to cope with the hundreds of new residents and to guide the Town's growth. Like a child begging for candy that wasn't good for him, the Town gave Mullen what he wanted. And everyone lost. The Town Board lost their integrity. Mullen lost chances to relocate. The residents lost their property values, and the Town Code lost its teeth. Everyone should know that past population explosions are nothing compared to the one bearing down on us now. It has already reached Wading River and is picking up speed through Riverhead. It is a time bomb and we should be terrified. Our summer traffic is now a leisurely Sunday drive compared to what it will be. Our beaches will be packed. All kinds of large businesses will move in.. Our farmland will be dotted with clusters of new homes. The dump itself will be big business! It is time the Town Board stopped trying to be all things to all people. Giving more to Mullen Motors will not preserve the scenic beauty of our Town --or revitalize the small businesses we need. In fact, the nine small fragile businesses in Colonial Corners will be forced to relocate at great expense, or even go out of business. For everyone's good, the Town Code should be enforced to the full extent of the LAW. Sincerely, Helen W. Prince c.c: Gerard Goehringer--ZBA 1165 Founders Path Valerie Scopaz--Planning Southold, NY 11971 Laurie Dowd --Town Atty. To Southold Town Board, October 30, 1997 Enclosed, please find a letter to the editor in response to John Romanelli's statements from the October 15th article (pp. 4) in The Suffolk Life which the paper did not print. Also enclosed, is a copy of the article. Sincerely, Julie Sanford Locust Lane Southold, NY 11971 C.0 Gerard Goehringer--ZBA Valerie Scopaz--Town Planner Laurie Dowd --Town Attorney - John Romanelli Julie Sanford Locust Lang Southold, NY 11971 Open Letter to the Editor, October 17, 1997 As a resident of Founders Estates in Southold, I would like to respond to Mr. Romanelli's statements (October 15, page 4) concerning Mullen Motors' request for a business downzone in our Hamlet and Residential neighborhood. We feel this request, to expand his parking and storage, is just too much. Not only would a General Business downzone allow for parking lots and warehouses, but commercial uses such as fast food restaurants like McDonald's, 7-11, car washes, bars, light industry uses and food packaging plants. Mr. Romanelli ought to know, that these are not the kinds of businesses that "should be encouraged" in a Hamlet and Residential zone. To say that Mullen Motors is subject to "overly harsh restrictions", just isn't true. He is already the beneficiary of numerous exceptions to our zoning code. The area can no longer bear anymore of this expansion. This operation has devalued homes in the immediate vicinity, as well as impacted the quality of our lives -bright lights, car alarms, congested streets to our homes, increased traffic, car carriers, test-driving ... This is not the kind of business we want near our neighborhoods or hamlet centers. The activities of this car dealership, seem more appropriate for an industrial zone. We want the kind of small businesses like Colonial Corners that mixap�i` pity `n our Hamlet. We love Colonial Corners with its 9 small businesses and quaint shops and fear it too is endangered by this proposed expansion. Contrary to Mr. Romanelli's claim, it is we the homeowners, not Mr. Mullen, who have been inconvenienced and harshly restricted. We can n6Twalk on Cottage Place, our children can not ride their bikes and the entrances to our community are clogged, dangerous and succumbing to ugly suburban sprawl. Now it is we, not Mr. Mullen who are "forced to spend [money] on attorneys". If Mullen Motors wis-fies to expand this time, it should not be at the expense of our small Hamlet businesses and anymore of our Residential neighborhood. Mr. Romanelli's remarks are a personal insult to the residents of Founders Estates and I would hope that his customers in this area would discontinue their patronage of Burt's Reliable. Your truly i Julie ford Locust Lane S.T.O.P.-Watch member SUFFOLK LIFE NEWSPAPERS 3 NF Wednesday, October 15, 1997 Taxes,,Ehvironment Areissues In South -old SixwWay R lems are best solved by creating "partnerships." "I've By Gwendolen Groocock been creating partnerships at all levels, As Joe Townsend, an incumbent running for local, county and state," she said. "For example, Southold Town- Board on the United Southold when we decided to rebuild the steps at Rocky and Democratic lines said, "The issues are the Point Beach in.East Marion, we needed a lot of same, it's how you approach them." input froni,the fishermen and the neighbors to Each of the six candidates in the race for -- find the best4olntion. It's very steep there; so the . three seats on the board, including the superv'i- builders also had to have a say. Everyone sat sor's position, had their own spin on'the,major down together and figured it out." issues, but those that came up repeatedly were -Her concept of partnerships' to town taxes, town management, land preservation, " halland she believes that taxes, "which are youth and recreation and the environment. always an issue, .can be kept down with effec- The November 4 ,election includes a tive management. "When people come in with an rematch between incumbent Supervisor Jean application, it should be easy and quick," Cochran, a Republican, and the man she unseat- " Cochran said: We, have anew manager in the ed two years ago, Tom Wickham. Wickham is building department with management skills, and heading the alliance of the local United Southold we have monthly meetings between the depart - Party and the Southold Democrats. Running with "ments; planning, building, community develop - Wickham are Townsend and incumbent. Ruth ment, to look at applications as a team." Oliva. Cochran's GOP running mates are John Cochran is also concerned with improving Romanelli and Brian Murphy. facilities for the youth of Southold. "Kids need Cochran, who recently released her pro- healthy, outdoor activities, she said. Its good posed bud for them to runaround in the fresh.air and expe- rience the bonding that team sports offer." ice For Three Seats Outlining her ideas on possible future recre- ational projects, she said, "I want to expand Tasker Park in Peconic. There are 13 acres the town could buy. More baseball diamonds, roller hockey, an ice rink, are all things I'd like to see." Citing recently`cwmpleted projects, she said, "We've just put in three new tennis courts. Also, we wo,rked together with young. moms to put in a playground; they raised funds and we matched them." On preservation, Cochran said she supports the Fariner's Billof Rights, the 2% Land Trans- fer Tax, and appreciates the input of the Peconic Land Trust and the Nature Conservancy. "I was very fortunate io be involved in the preservation of Fort Corchaug," she said. She summed up her comments with, "You don't have to scream and yell to get things done. Let's sit down and talk." For candidate Tom Wickham, the'key issue A is who can really get the job done. "Who can legitimately claim that?" he asked. "There's no question who initiated so many of the crucial management, environmental and preservation, and recreational projects, many of which have been Shelved during the past two years, just gath- ering dust. I. clearly see the need for an active town board. We're prepared to step up to the plate." On preservation, Wickham said, "Just buy- ing parcels of land is only a start in preserving our open spaces, it's not an adequate response in itself. More important is planning and zoning. When I was in office, we worked hard on plan- ning and zoning matters. We adopted many of the recommendations of the US/UK Stewardship Task Force." SEE Page 4 SUFFOLK LIFE NEWSPAPERS 4 NF Wednesday, October 15,1997 Southold Six -Way Race... FROM Page 3 _ low-interest loan for down payments," she said, aged by making present land more valuable by what can be privatized, and see how the same job Task Force." 'This attracted $200,000 ingrants.'Many young bringing town water onto the NorthFork. Suffolk can be•accomplished by -fewer people. We'd eval- Recalling an example of what he considers people have already benefited from it." County Water and the town;planpers could bring 'to date the 'serviceIas opposed to the personnel" "proactive leadership," Wickham continued, Home Rule for Southold and the East End is town water properties that are currently use - Moving on , environmental issues, "Remember when we reversed the zoning that something Oliva also strongly supports. "We pay less, thus inviting investors. "Waterfront and e Townsend said, "The issues here are of acquisi- Kontacosta had been given by the Penny -Harris 13% of our sales tax into the county coffers, and water view development'properties could open tion and bonds: Projects to buy open space, a administration to squeeze 175 houses onto his we get back no more than 8% in services" she up with the provision of good drinking water," h water.' management study. It continues property in Greenport? I took a lot of flack for said. "We're very different out here; we want to ld. major.'. ajor foods. The environment cannot be made e a e that, including fending off lawsuits and personal keep our farmland, protect our bay en and?o "I'.m not for no growth, F lor_slow resi- �----. subservient to short-term. issues. It is too critical attacks by his paper. The Traveller -Watchman rural character. We have so much history out growth and faster �d �strial and eenom- < the long run. Developers who want to take continues it's diatribe, but I'm pleased to here, why allow it to be destroyed? is what is rowth, Romanelli said.—We have more shortcuts or crowd in housing projects will not be announce that the courts have just thrown out his will happen if our fate stays in the hands of vacan stores in Southold than are occupied.'' accommodated.,' " lawsuits." Republicans to the west. We need control of our Romanejli would. also..like. to see the pro - Youth and recreation are other issues Wick- own destiny." posed takeover of LILCO by the Long Island Murphy, the third member of the Republi- ham wants discussed in the campaign. He wants Oliva said localwaters and the waterfront Power Authority (LIPA) turned down, to be can ticket, said the environment was also a nkiL Irunoff to revive the idea of a local YMCA. "I brought were also important political issues. "The envi- replaced by buying , electricity from other, concern of his. "IWAd is the iggest out a proposal for a YMCA for all ages, which ronment is our economy and the economy, is our "We sources, perhaps Greenport: "We have to find a lem" he said. "It even closes -off creeks to t e would have cost $1.5 million to build and a environment," she said. started the cam- way to lower our electric rates, but,'' he. said, "a men. We -have to preserve and restore the wet - $45,000 annual budget to maintain. I found fund- paign to clean up road runoff, which is ongoing. lot of study has to be done, and a lot of work is landsIt's our top priority." ing for this from all private sources. It wouldn't Runoff threatens our baymen's livelihood by needed." yam, J 11lurphy said he would like to. see more pro - have cost the town a penny. That's still an attrac- killing off marine'life. After a storm, sometimes Townsend.;,agreed .that Ioea1 businesses 'needed . jects that preserve Southold's ecological her- tive proposition and we need to make progress on the water is brown all the way out to Darniield more help.. "We,have to protect our -local itage. "The Moores Woods project, for example." this," he said. Point, nearly reaching Hallock's Bay (in Orient)- economy and this means economic encourage- he said, "It's an ecological haven for rape plants Wickham also mentioned that improving Clean water protects our tourism, our marine life, ment to our local businesses," he said, "We;have and animals. It's a freshwater wetland which relationships with Greenport could be achieved and our baymen," Oliva added. to figure out ways to strengthen our hamletsby' ,could be, ost forever. We need to acquire it and by approaching them with the YMCA idea. John Romanelli, one of two newcomers also ctrecting our efforts at the. hamlet centers." he -conserve it." On taxes, he said, "We enacted two policies; one, that taxes and spending will not rise. above seeking a seat on the board, had his own ideas on . the same issues. said. y ` 111 -strive to.oreate-a 'in ixed.use'.zonin For the preservation of land, Murphy wants the cost of living. We pledged that there will be "We have a great qualify of fife, that's wl y "But ihat�llows residents `and businesses to coexist hamlets to continue buying the development rights on fazmlaft'ds: � We need to buy the development no real growth. We're prepared to make good on e're all here," Romanelli said. there are no ha it in the a have to revise the 've certain commercial zones. I'd like to see that consistently, not just in an election ye obs for young people: ervices can't gro s s," lbwtt5end su , w0�rked on this-f6�btsdf development on Route 48 "as limited as possible. Two, we decided to bring only a fixed amount o beca o av _restrictions. The success ' some time. Allow.the big Yctonans to be two- of We need an east -west corridor that's not blocked leftover money from year to year to the new bud- businesses shod be given more flexibility so three-family. Allow shops to have residential by traffic'the way it is on [Route] 25; -where the get, without playing games." hey can expand." apartments above them. Exclude residents and tourists.all stop along�the rosd," he said. Preservation of the environment and farm Giving an example of an area business t you exclude shopping on foot,. a. lively atmos land are her top issues, Oliva said. "There is not as come up against.what he feels are overly phere and evening entertainment. We want"our 'On youth programs, Murphy said, "I enough being done for the farmers and no harsh restrictions; Romanelli 'said; " ullen hamlets alive and lived in." youngpeople hanging around We need to.devel- enough proper planning," she said. "If we don't Motors wants toe and and 'has their nei h On taxes, Townsend said, "There's no-secret----opprograms of interesMo theta Soinefitne`s older want to find ourselves in the middle of suburbia, born u with: rov to,reducilag taxeC-We need Wreduce the number people and ,parents. think they know what kids this needs to be done immediately. There is' no ' recur s m existin locations' no ` ` d of employees on the, municipal .payroll.and eval-.., $wapt,-buf it's not what they want. We have to ask time to waste." c an orced to spend on attorneys. They date the productivity of each department, see , them., Youth are our future" Also important to Oliva is ensuring that shod- encourage ,' he said: young people who have grown up on the North Along .wrt t easm u on restrictions, Next Year Budget.. Fork don't have to leave to afford to live. "We Romanelli wants to see controlled groTon�t to ■ want our own young people to be able to afford North Fork, FROM Page 3 graffiti,: vandalism, that kind of thing," she to live here;' Oliva said. Our priorities are f "We have to explore avenues of encourag- would have no increases: I will spend money said. The street crimes unit is to be partially _ to those who live and work here, before any oth- ing the farming community and economy," he "I'd as thriftily as,.possibie to keep taxes down. - funded by a grant frotti COPS, a federally ers. Before we encourage transplants, we need to e ns8fe our own kids have jobs and homes, and said. like to see more wineries and other spe- cialty a riculture attracted' to the area,. such as This year, our budget has come in at a lower rate." funded program allowing the subsidizing of don't have to leave the area because it's too Chinese vegetables, salad greens, small farms, Cochran said the proposed budget- called local police forces: The grant would partially expensive to rent or buy." and possibly cranberry ;bogs:They could take for salaries for seven new.policemen. "Four of fund their salaries for.three years, after which, Oliva cited the Home Program as a step advantage of the tax breaks already in place, -butthe positions are to replace officers nearing Cochran said, "the positions could be evaluat- towards ensuring this goal. "We started the Home we have to first draw them to the area." retirement, and three- are. for a special street ed. At that point I'm sure.we could slide them Program which assists first-time buyers with a Romanelli said this would also bek,e r ,. umt toydegi;;veith the problems of drugs, in." - Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Southold Town Board, . SCSI 5�,4k September 28, 1997 All members of the North Fork Bed & Breakfast Association, work very hard to preserve the warm and friendly quailty of our community. We all have invested heavily --with effort, heart and money --in our businesses which are totally dependent on the preservation of our historic setting. Keeping the identity and beauty of our Town for tomorrow, rests on planning decisions we make today. Currently, Colonial Corners and the adjacent Residential property are under review for possible downzoning to General Business. If this application is approved, what kind of precedent will it set for all of Southold Town and the Small Business Community? Once this property is downzoned, anything can and may happen. A Ueneralusiness downzone would allow the following --fast food restaurants, car washes, motorcycle repair shops, warehouses and food packaging plants. These would be in direct competition with the interests of small business owners like ourselves. Please do not permit General Business downzoning in our Hamlet and Residential zones that would be totally incompatible with our Small Businesses, Residential Properties, and the Historic character of Our Town. Supervisor Cochran held a very well -attended and informative Business Symposium this year, out of which came the consensus that Agriculture (Wineries) and Tourism are the major economies of the North Fork, and the stabilizing force to the area. Therefore, we the members of the North Fork Bed & Breakfast Association are asking our Town Officials, Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Enforcement Officers to enforce the codes and zoning that help to preserve and protect the Treasure we call Southold Town. The North Fork Bed & Breakfast Association White Lions Inn, Greenport The Sterling Harbor House, Greenport Fordham House, Greenport Bed & Breakfast The Hedges, Southold Shorecrest, Southold Goose Creek Guest House, Southold The Tern Inn, Southold Home Port, Peconic To The Point, Cutchogue c.c/Ben Orlowski --Chairman, Planning Board Valerie Scopaz--Town Planner Gerard Goehringer--Chairman, Z.B.A. Ed Forrester --Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Judith Terry --Town Clerk b Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 To Southold Town Board, October 7, 1997 On my way home from work Sunday evening (October 6), 1 turned onto Locust Lane and there was a 16 wheel McLane delivery truck. It was parked on the wrong side of the street, facing south, in the Seven -Eleven, No Parking zone delivering its goods. Sometimes this truck stretches across the road to Colonial Corners, completely blocking access on Locust Lane and forcing us to go to Town Harbor (see photos). Around 7:16 pm while we and other neighbors were enjoying Sunday evening peace and quiet, this truck came down our road, shaking all our homes with its weight and noise. It went to L'hommedieu and proceeded to make a 3 point turn. First, it turned left, stopped, backed up, stopped again, proceeded forward up onto an embankment and private property and then back onto Locust. Can you picture a 3 point turn on this corner? In the dark? After this sloppy and dangerous maneuver, the truck returned up Locust and parked once again, at the Seven -Eleven, No Parking zone. At 7:20 pm we called the police. When they arrived, the truck had already gone, but Sgt. Sinning said he had spoken with the driver earlier that evening and had told him not to park in that zone. Although Sgt. Sinning agreed it was wrong to make a 3 point turn, go up on private property and park in a No Parking zone, the general attitude was that these are Town roads and free to everyone. We hear so much about freedom, but freedom has always to be balanced with responsibility. The Constitution, with all its talk about freedom, was written primarily for an agrarian society where everyone valued and cared about the land --not for an industrialized one. This incident totally reinforces our resolve against anymore downzoning at the entrances to Founders Estates. It is not the place for this industrial complex. If the property on which Seven -Eleven now stands had not been previously downzoned Business for a gas station, we would not have Seven -Eleven and all the problems that go with it, today. Please consider the problems the residents of Founders Estates are already bearing by this Seven -Eleven decision and do not allow anymore business downzoning in our Hamlet and Residential area. Yours truly, Jean S4 Pord OCT P F Kal�t n3 � I 1 8 k+ 4� vcwr ,F 6Pp`t very �Doa , C� SfU�6;1 44e- ?R,oLL-f—, —IV-,) c. tv-k-v--O,N(Ncam, A -b baLk i n N �\,S cis civ T St O E E NTr,.-At4CE C- L-OLV)e- tvro ti. 111,-eac�l V -11c v`>�1 LLWS-� �`� a-+ ft N-2 , s E Re�e2sc' —RAOAP ANG-► IJE zDL-LiJcT- M `L -At Ti2�C.� siYp-- LC �d ci-Gc 055 re-L-C�,) view - rr�rti-� W�sr s i 7� o c= c oc c t5r 1 foot- c`f (-r- l JMT-V -- �let,�%-�-IEU2Vt r Southold Highway Dept. Raymond L. Jacobs, Supt. Peconic Lane Peconic, NY 11958 Dear Mr. Jacobs, Helen W. Prince 1165 Founders Path Southold, NY 11971 October 9, 1997 With regard to my letter dated September 17th, asking about the fence extending. beyond the corner stone on Mullen Motors' property, I wish to thank you for looking into the matter. I noticed on Monday, October 6th, that all of the fencing beyond the corner stone had been removed. It is a great improvement. Thank you for your prompt attention. Most Sincerely, / Helen W. Prince s Y Helen W. Prince 1165 Founders Path Southold, N.Y. 11971 Southold Highway Department Raymond L. Jacobs, Supt. Peconic Lane, Peconic NY 11958 Dear Mr. Jacobs, SeP�-` 19�t7 There is a cornerstone on the Main Road along Mullen Motors' fence on the west side of Cottage Place. The fence goes beyond this stone and encloses about seven feet of public domain along Cottage Place that should be left as a pedestrian walk for the public's use. Can this problem be looked into and addressed? Sincerely, ,�LA170 /'l . PAtl� Thank you. Helen W. Prince Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Dear Southold Town Board, October 8. 1997 Enclosed, please find the results of my Independant Survey with regard to restoring the southeast corner of my property. To prevent future damage from Tractor Trailer Trucks, Mullen Motor Car Carriers and Test Drivers-Trge the Town Board, Town Attorney and Highway Deptarment to implement the recommendations made by NYS licensed surveyor Marc Charest. If you will, please have the Highway Department notify me as to what date and approximate time the restoration will take place. I can be reached during the day via fax at 727-8076. My daytime phone number is 727-1150. Thank you for your cooperation on this project. Very truly yours, Janice J. Szczesny David R. Szczesny c.c. Mr. Ray Jacobs, Highway Dept. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board ✓ Valerie Scopaz, Planning Board Ed Forrester, Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer, ZBA Judith Terry, Town Clerk j$r r -r gr [97 tlq 'ryB" j Northstar Surveying, P.C. 94 West Montauk Highway Hampton Bays, NY 11946 (516) 728-5330 fax 728-6707 September 11, 1997 David & Jan Szczesny 340 Locust Lane Southold NY 11971 •0-�, _11565M MiElf - Dear Mr. & Mrs Szczesny, Enclosed are the surveys for the above referenced site. i would like to make a few suggestions for the Town of Southold to remedy the problem you have found on the site. First, the patched area at the southeasterly corner of the property should be removed and restored to a natural condition. That is, a grade gently sloping from the current grass area to the original edge of pavement location. Also, a sharper radius on the corner is warranted by the narrow right.of way on Locust Avenue. Although I am not a traffic engineer, it seems the volume of traffic the local residential streets have to carry is excessive. The narrow pavement and sharp corners were probably designed for cars and light trucks, not the heavier vehicles using the roadways currently. Indeed, the local streets surrounding this site were mapped in about 1870, even before the motor vehicle. Since then the character of the traffic has changed, placing a heavy burden on the local streets. The Town should engage in a restriction on heavy vehicles to remedy the congestion and damage to private property currently occurring. Northstar Surveying, PC /l. I iMarc E. Charest, L.S. ro V V.L . It -cords of Paul T. Canalizo, L.S. Robert A. Kart, L.S. Good Ground Surveyors, P.C. T A L.®CUS USE: 33CPW�� H� GHT VENUE OFNWAY 100.00' IRON PIN ; S22'21'20 -E _ _.___----- - n WOOD PORCH CONC. MON. 20.8' Z �W O I �W Cb a N� 10.6' 1 IA' 12.4' I I W R O V) N i f� I 2 P/0 L 0 T 25 IRON PIN SET. N17'10'10"W f // I /l 7- 11 b—, e DECK 11.6' 1 7.4' fJi�ya�i'6'» AREA TO NATURAL 'R O I � P/0 LOT 24 IRON 4' TO 6' S CKADE FENCE ON LINE PIN SET, r 99.78' POLOT 24 CERTIFIED TO: JAN & DAVID SZCZESNY EASEMENTS AND/OR SUBSURFACE STRUCTURES RECORDED OR UNRECORDED ARE NOT GUARANTEED UNLESS PHYSICALLY EVIDENT ON THE PREMISES AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY. GUARANTEES INDICATED HEREON SHALL RUN ONLY TO THE PERSON(S) FOR WHOM THE SURVEY IS PREPARED, AND ON HIS BEHALF TO THE TITLE COM- PANY, GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND LENDING INSTITUTIONS LISTED HEREON, AND TO THE ASSIGNEES OF THE LENDING INSTITUTION. GUARANTEES ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE TO ADDITIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR SUBSEQUENT OWNERS. THE OFFSETS (OR DIMENSIONS) SHOWN HEREON ,FROM THE STRUCTURES TO THE- PROPERTY LINES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE AND THERE- FORE ARE NOT INTENDED TO GUIDE THE ERECTION OF FENCES, RETAINING WALLS, POOLS, PATIOS, PLANTING AREAS, ADDITIONS TO BUILDINGS AND ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION. JOB NO. F860 IP �EOFrrEW MAP NO. 399 Q�� c °t. FILF_D 10/6/1870 REVISIONS: v�14) O.05'�A9�lpQ c qN 5u� r SURVEY OF Part of lots 24 &25 MAP OF JENNIE A. COCHRANE SITUATE AT SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SCALE 1" = 20' AUGUST 25, 1,997 S. C. T. M. DIST. 1000 SEC. 62 BLK. 03 LOT z 16Q pw-- --- -SUR EYING, -F C, P.O. Box 309 ontauk fY Sayville, N. Y. 2 H pt ton ays, N. Y. (516) 589— 637 (5 72 With the records of: Paul T. Conolizo, L. S. Robert A. Kart, CAROLYN A. ZENR ATTORNEY AT LAW 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Bays, Now York 11946 516723-2341 Valerie Scopaz Chief Planner Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, Now York 11971 ATTENTION: Judith Terry October 8th, 1997 BY FAX: 765-3136 765-1823 1 r�- Y�� FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR CHIEF p AJIIRER TO IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTS COMPRISING THE SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Dear Ms. Scopaz, please share the following latter with Judith T. Terry, Southold's Records Assess Officer under the Freedom of Information Law. I had the pleasure of talking to Laurie Dowd, Town Attorney this morning concerning an application for a change of zone which, if granted, would enable the Mullen Motors Corporation to expand near a residential neighborhood. I an the attorney of record for the Sanford family and a number of residents near that site. I am also the General Counsel for the Group for the South Fork in Bridgehampton,, a very well—respected professionally staffed environmental protection organization, and I occasionally represent the North Fork Environmental Council. Ms. Dowd informs me that you are among the most informed persons concerning the Town of Southold's planning documents. My cl ent% recently put in a Freedom of Information Request to the 5!on Clark asking for all materials related to your Comprehensive Plan. I am informed that the result of that request is two boxes of information. My clients have asked that I look at this information. However, given the volume of information, I would like to narrow this soarch further to save time and expense. I also wish to ensure that I have received all key punning documents bearing on this case. I aln pal^tl.culariy interested in information related to the Mullen Motors area and comprehensive planning as it relates to Mullen Motors, and Southold's business zonas, specifically the general business and hamlet business zones. Given your expertise, I am requesting that you help to identify the key planning documents. page 2 As you probably know, under New York law, zoning must be consistent with a comprehensive plan. Thus, zoning amendments must alaao be consistent with a comprehensive plan. Under New York law, At comprehensive plan consists of the zoning map, the zoning code, the master plan, studies conducted by the town, formal resolutions, and related material. In order to determine if the Mullen Motors change of zone is legal, one must compare it against these documents. The assessment I have seen to date fails to do this. Obviously, in order to ascertain whether the zone change for Mullen Motors is consistent with the comprehensive plan, one must clearly identify the documents that constitute the comprehensive plan. One should also ascertain which ones have been formally adopted,. Could you pleaaa identify the documents which comprise your Comprehensive Plan and send them to me by fax? Could you inform me as to whether they have been adopted by the Town Board? Could you also provide a► general discription of the status of your comprehensive planning efforts, including the documents currently used by your officials, and any efforts to update your plan? To date I have in my possession the following: 1) Masten Plan Summary 1985 2) Master Plan Background 1984 3) Stewardship Task Force 1994 4) Planning and Zoning Committee files 1994-1997 Have the three documents mentioned been formally adopted by the Town Board? What, if any, ars the proposed amendments to the Mullen Motors property and neighborhood? Could you also inform me as to whether the Planning Department will be conducting a review of your comprehensive planning documents to determine if the Mullen Motor Corporation's request for a zone change is consistent with same? My extensive planning with issues on the South Fork indicates that most of the Towns and Villages receiving professional advice are beginning to restrict more commercial, car - oriented businesses from their down -town areas as they increase suburban sprawl, are unattractive, and are destructive to a business climate dependent on tourism. I appreciate your expertise in these matters. You can call mte at the number above if you have any questions or simply fax a list of key documents and the answers to the above questions to me. Thunk you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincere , Caprowl y Attorn at aw cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk /zl 5/ice I°16 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 To Southold Town Board,- October 5, 1997 I reside at 315 Cottage Place, the property adjacent to Mullen Motors' Employee Parking Lot. This lot is used for more than just Employee Parking. Very often, car repair activity takes place in this lot as well as overnight storage. Car deliveries are made in front of my house, blocking my driveway and causing noise and inconvenience. At night, the lights shine in our windows. It's ridiculous in a Residential Area! Early in the morning, hydrolic car lifts wake us up at 6:30am. I can't imagine being surrounded on two sides by this operation. Devon and I love this house. It dates back to the early 1900's. This house would be adversely affected by any zone change. The neighborhood cannot stand anymore. Please refuse any downzoning and "exceptions" to our zoning code. Yours truly, 09 David Liss Devon Massar C.C. Ben Orlowski --Planning Board` Valerie Scopaz--Planning Board Ed Forrester --Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer--Z.B.A. Judith Terry --Town Clerk ` . OCT 8: ��) z Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Richard F. Mullen III and William H. Mullen Zone Change Application SCTM No. 1000-62-03-22.1 & 24.1 To Southold Town Board, October 7, 1997 Please find letters from concerned residents and highlighted and annotated newsclippings in regard to the Mullen Motors change of zone application. Sincerely, t;l � Julie Samford S.T.O.P.-Watch Member c.c: Ben Orlowski --Planning Board Valerie Scopaz--Planning Board Ed Forrester --Code Enforcer/Bldg. Dept. Gerard Goehringer--Z.B.A. Judith Terry -Town Clerk r -4- 0- 0- (n 0 More Study Urged�� For Mullen Move/,, By Tim Kelly SOUTHOLD—Citing several poten- tial conflicts -with neighbors. a town con- sultant has recommended an additional environmental study on Mullen Motors' request for a zone change on two lots adjacent to the Main Road dealership. In its report to the Town Board, the Nelson, Pope and Voorhis firm of Melville stopped short of recommending the completion of a full environmental impact statement, but said the board may demand such a detailed analysis. Mullen Motors is in contract to pur- chase a 1.25 -acre parcel that includes the Colonial Corners store complex and a smaller vacant property immediately to the south. Colonial Corners is in the Hamlet Business (HB) zone and the open parcel is residential. Mullen is ask- ing for a switch to General Business (B) order to permit eventual exp rasion -of the dealership. e co any said_it has no immediate plans to raze the Colonial Comers stores but is looking to convert the residential site to parking. The zone change appli- cation generated no public opposition until a professional. tree trimming com- pany cut down several mature trees along the Locust Avenue side of the res- idential lot. That angered neighboring residents and prompted the town to order the Voorhis firm to reconsider its initial environmental assessment. The trees removed are between 60 and -80 years old, the consultant said in rec- ommending that the town order a re- planting project as a condition of site plan approval. "Use of transplanted older trees, rather than seedlings, would be preferable in order to provide imme- diate screening," the report said. Consistency Questioned That document said the Mullen -re- quest poses some basic planning prob- 2�lems. Since it incIudec a resic&44 a -oat, the company said, "... the encroachMcat that the zone residential use areas The report adds that the expansion "willpresent a conflictparticularly ifs existing Colonial Corners center were to -be removed in the future. The center is businesses a v_ is�_buffer as 1w& as it remains." An increase in business activity, the reportsaid, `would be expected to result in certain cultural impacts, including aes- thetics issues, lights and noise." It adds, however, that the existing Colonial Cor- ners shops now present such impacts. It adds: "The general increase in activity may compromise aesthetic qualities of the nearby residential area, if site use is not properly designed and controlled." The Voorhis company did not rec- ommend against the zone change, but did say "mitigation as well as altema- tives should be explored in order to en- sure that land use incompatibility is minimized." The impacts could be soft- ened through plantings and lighting re- strictions, the report stated.. Thecompany said the application gives the town and Mullen the chance to review the business's overall operations. "Both Mullen Motors and the town may be able to use this as anopportunity to improve compatibility with the existing operations, in an effort to have Mullen Motors be a good neighbor," the com- pany said. Julie Sanford, one of a group of resi- dents actively opposing the zone change, said the report "gives us new hope." Councilman Bill Moore said the Town Board has yet to discuss the findings and is expected to do so during its meeting next -Tuesday. "If ,he's recommending more -analysis, I suspect that more analy- sis it shall be," he said. Rich Mullen of Mullen Motors de- clined to comment.. sl'o I he Mullen Expansion OpnawuL AN OPEN LETTER TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD: I am a resident of Locust Lane and former employee of Mullen Motors. I have had a long association with the Mullen family both personally and professionally. Over the years, Mullen Motors grew from a small family operation to a corporate car dealership. This change has presented problems to residents that ini- tially were no cause for alarm. However, recent years have proven that conditions have become unaccept- able. The destruction of homes, trees, increased traf- fic, car repairs, car carriers, test-driving, etc... demon- strate the inappropriateness of any more expansion. As a homeowner on Locust Lane, I am totally aeainst Mullen' -"fans_ for future narking and storage on -Locust and Main Road. f only say tnts out of con- cern for the devaluation of my home and those -of my neighbors. Any further expansion should take place on prop- erty already zoned for General Business. Harry J. Mitchell, S.T.O.P.-Watch member, Southold Continued on Next Page STOP THIS, PLEASE Trees are down, property paved Traffic congested on Locust Lane Colonial Corners crowded out A big car salesroom, lots of clout The houses nearby can't sell as homes Completely de -valued stand empty and lone No trees, no grass, no neighbors, it's SAD Not enough people had spunk and' got MAD Don't let this happen to our community Get MAD! Get INVOLVED C 20 • The Suffolk Times September 11. 1997 r "A Colonial Corners crowded out _ A. big car salesroom, lots of clout. The -houses nearby ,can't sellas homes Completely de -valued, stand empty and lone. ..No trees, no grass, no neighbors; `it's SAD �1- Not enough people had spunk and got MAD. .R Southold Town Organization for Preservation - Watch (STONWATCNj Ms. Sanford Mr. Martin Mrs. Prince 765-5426 765::M ; = 765-3006 To. Stop Downgrading, write Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, 11971 or fax 765-1823 PW IN by STOP WATCH SO Zkn s Wrong, Editor: If there's any doubt to the fact that something is wrong with the future planning, not only of Riverhead Town, but the entire Island. take a ride to Iron Pier Beach in Northville, N.Y. It will definitely firm up your suspicions that something's wrong. , It's hard to believe that any agency, state, county, town, would allow the "almost" complete stripping of a piece of property, especially on the shoreline! It took letters to the local paper to open your eyes to this de- struction? Are there any guidelines to be followed? Apparently not! Just come in and destroy what's there. We'11 replant later. Why not work with what you have? I guess that's how it's done in Manhattan. And the stop work order, what good is it now, the damage is done! In reference to the "acceptable resto- ration plan," as stated in the News -Review article on page 3, August 14, 1997. What can that include? Do we have a couple hundred years to see that happen? I'm not an environmentalist and do not belong to any environmental groups, but you don't have to be a sci- entist to know that this area is ruined forever. The town might as well let them finish the assault! I guess the disadvantage of having been born and raised here, is watching the utter destruction of our town, by projects such as this one, which must be important, otherwise it never would have gone this far. It really is disgusting. I really wonder if my children will grow up, live here and enjoy this town as I have, or will it just be one of those places that they remember living! Bob Andruszkiewicz Aquebogue Y,S. Tom_ eottle in Southold Town thatlost the trees near Mullen Motors lake a_ride un to Iron Pier. A real eye opener, complete with tears. Please Don't Do It Editor — Open Lette Dick Mull Upon return from my tour of duty in WWII, I came home to Southold town and purchased my first car from Mullen Motors. It was a Plymouth Business Coup 1941— jet black with chrome grill, 6 cylinders in mint condition. We shook hands and I drove away. Fifty years later, my most recent purchase is again a Mullen Motors car. It's nice to have a family business with continuity where the important things don't change. It's also nice to have a neighborhood with continuity where the im- portant things don't change— safe and quiet streets, yards to play in and good neighbors who have mutual concern for the well-being of others. When you live in a small town, you work beside each other—you live beside each other. The Sanfords and the Mullens go back to the Brickyard days. Just as your family contributed to the success of our family business then, loyal employees and customers like myself contribute to the success of Mullen Motors today. Change comes to all of us, to everything —but it must not sacrifice "the quality of life." We must not destroy our residential neighborhoods by allowing the encroachment of commercial business. Nor should the character of our historic town' be diminished by the downing of old homes which currently serve small' hamlet businessmen. In other words, let us keep Southold Town looking like a town and our neighbor- hoods a place in which we feel safe and proud to live. I respectfully ask you to withdraw your applica- tion to expand Mullen Motors' commercial car dealership into our residential and hamlet community, a community that should retain its integrity. Walter H. Sanford Southold U Pine Trees' Lament To the Editor: Cutchogue What did we do wrong? Something bo be' 2sj� Iq?7- , a utmg too close to the center of the E little road. But that road and we have 4V existed happily together for years! What did we do wrong? Nothing.that we know of. We lived as we were in- Seers(�- Letters, next page Io L6ft6tS... From previous page tended to live — giving shade and shel- ter to our friends the birds, and Milkto the eye of thosew o passed by and loo ce un at us. _ �— What did we do wrong that someone should dedicate his vacation to taking our lives? The woodcutter could not be stopped; he had the letter of tholman his side the sip–iftit-DER law could not rev So now we lie by the side of the road — tossed there along with the wild rose that bloomed so sweetly this spring and our companions the maple saplings, and Queen Anne's lace. What did we do wrong? We did not scratch anyone's car, nor did we obstruct anyone's view. For some reason, known only to the woodcutter, our lives were ended and now we await the clearance' team who will pick us up this fall and have us shredded for mulch. But we shall have the last laugh, for we shall return to the earth as nourish- ment for other living things. What will become of the woodcutter? We hope he will meet a kinder fate. Rest in peace, dear trees. Marilyn Flynn 3 NF Deba'te ver O Tree Tri'mming. in, Southold By Michael P. Conroy Impact Study (EIS) be provided for consideration. sometime in the next few weeks. The Mullen fam- _ • t Residents of the area h tied sere -cal y has stated at board meetings that if an EIS is board meetings each time requesting the change of require , tTie project, which is—Uesigned to help The ongoing controversy over tree cutting T along Locust Avenue in Southold could be moving zone application be denied. Voorhis said the plant -.improve the business, could take several years to ----- forward, but still remains a question. ing of additional shrubbery and bushes along -the complete and could force the company, which has The Southold Town environmental consul- Locust Avenue side of the property could take care been in operation in Southold for over 70 years, to tant, Charles Voorhis, has revisited the site along of the situation. He added the new glantinas would relocate. Locust Avenue where several trees were cut back not be the same as the mature tress thafovtrshad- Th Locust which were scheduled -to-be com- to the trunk earlier this summer to once again., o_w�the stye t for so manv wears. , pletely remoyed, have remained barefo the he 1 a_st review the situation. A final recommendation from the Voorhis' few months while the decision by the board is put firm is expected to be handed to the town. board ' on hold for further review. I The Mullen Mullenfamily, owner of.Mullen Motors _ along Route 25, has applied for a change of zone from Hamlet Business and low=density residential . to:..�peral Business B. The change of zone „ approval will allow. the Mullen family to purchase the properties just east"of the dealership in order to provide additional parking for its customers. Opce; the current'owner, Albert Albertson Jr., receivhis assessment for the property, he hired a tocal'tree cutting company tog he bran�hPsc from several trees located along Locust Avenue. The tree -cutting outraged local residents who called the trees historic. Albertson's decision to cut y the trees was found to: be within town codes, said town officials. However, Voorhis said the applicant's change of zone request was questioned by area residents and town officials who asked him to reevaluate the �. situation. Voorhis said the application could either be denied, or the town could ask for additional information to be provided regarding impacts or the town could require that a full Environmental CONTROVERSY CONTINUES --These old trees are the center of an ongoing debate at Southold Town Hall. File photo. (NFA120F) • i P.O. Box 368 Mattituck, NY 11952 September 26, 1997 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Chairman Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed please find a copy of a letter that I recently sent to Supervisor Cochran. I would appreciate it if you would consider my thoughts regarding the proposed zoning change for the Colonial Corners property in Southold. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely yours, kes L. Murphy PT SSSi 1I«d �z� i 0 Mrs, Jean Cochran, Supervisor Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Cochran: P.O. Box 368 Mattituck, NY 11952 September 18, 1997 The issue of the proposed zoning change for the Colonial Corners property and the residential lot to the rear of it has been one of hot debate in•.recent weeks. As we all know, the problem boils down to a planning issue that should be decided in the best interest of SoutHold Town. It is also an issue of common sense. The village of Southold has an existing business district that Mullen Motors has operated in for the past seventy years. The Mullens have proposed to create a parking lot on the parcel behind Colonial Corners in order to resolve their need.for more space as their business grows. The possible impact of one small parking lot on Southold Town would be far less than any other option the Mullens could choose. A small group of neighbors who live on Locust Avenue, near the Colonial Corners property, does not agree with this and have stated that Mullen Motors is ruining Southold Town. They have even gone so far as to suggest that the Mullens move up to the North Road, away from the site that they have occupied for generations. Moving to the North Road could only mean building on open farm fields. Now let's talk about ruining Southold Town! Unnecessary development on fields in a town that spends millions of tax dollars on open - space preservation? I think not. It seems that the Locust Avenue group prefers the development of our farmlands and the possibility of large, empty buildings and an even larger empty parking lot in the middle of a beautiful village. Is this what is best for Southold Town? I think not. Common sense would deem that the loss of one undesirable residential lot bordering on the business district would be a far better option than the loss of our evermore valuable open spaces. Southold has an existing business district, one that was in place when all of thb Locust Avenue residents freely chose to purchase homes so near to it. It is my hope that smart planning by our town officials will accomodate the needs of our local businesses within this zone while still maintaining the beauty and the integrity of the whole of Southold Town. Thank you for your consideration. cc: Mr. Richard Mullen, Jr. Sincerely yours, &� aures L. Murphy Southold, NY August 12, 1997 RECEIVED AUG 14 1997 Southold Town Clerk Regarding one of Mullen Motors' site violations: We wish to see the insurance company's communication to Mullen Motors stating that grass in front of their building, in accordance with the site plan, would be a liability. Signed: P2 i ❑ SUPERVISOR JEAN COCHRAN SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK JUDITH TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN BLDG. DEPT. ATTN: ED FORRESTER ❑ CHAIRMAN ZBA GERARD GOEHRINGER ❑ TOWN ATTORNEY LAURY L. DOWD 6 AUG 81997 Mr. Gerard P. Goehringer Toning Board Southold. Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold NY 11971 Dear Mr. Goehrirger: 800 Town Harbor Lane Southold NY 11971 July 27, 1997 P& S PPd" MS Pt Since purchasing a house in Southold last February, we have been imn_ressed with the concern of residents of the North Fork to ward off development pressures that would compromise the rural character of the area. Recently, however, the trees on Locust Lane were butchered without a concern for the impact that would have on the environment and local residents. Having lived in Bayside, Queens, for many years, we have faced a constant struggle to keep automobile dealerships from intruding in residential neighborhoods. Once in, they require more and more space, powerful lighting for security purposes, then high fencing. After a while, the parking space expands to include more repair facilities. This generally leads to test driving on residentt�l streets and is certainly a safety concern that puts the elderly and young children at risk. We do not want Southold to look like automobile row in Riverhead. We hope the Southold Planning Board will deny the zoning change proposed by Mullen Motors and thereby protect the interests of the hamlet districts and local residents. Sincerely, Caro -1 A . Owens James A. Owens T Q . Ms. Judith Terry, Town Clerk Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road PO Bos 1179 Southold, NY 11971 NELSON, PORE & VOORHIS, e_�e E NVI R O N M E N T A L PLANN ING CONSULTING NCENT G. CHARLES j. VOORHIS. CE BERT. PE. JOSEPH RR. EP FAN AEP.EERROBERTIG.NELSON.OJR. PE.PE. • CHRISTOPHER W. ROBINSON. PE REMM W JUL 9 1997 Southold Town Clerk July 8, 1997 Re: Review of EAFChange Application Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen Zone SCTM No. 1000-62-03-22.1 & 24.1 4 ,101 2 3 1997 :. i SOUTri i... fj T{ilr", N 1 P1,A !IivG 1.s At?� ___._....! Dear Ms. Terry: Asper your request, we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced zone change. Tasks and completed activities are as follows: I Review Part I LEAF by NP&V, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as The parcel has been field inspected necessary. A copy of the same is attached. 2. Prepare part 9 LEAF The Part II LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3, Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been insp ected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 1.2484 acres of to Route s and a Southold e T,Ihe own � Southold. The subject site is located at the corner has approximately 199 feet of frontage along the south side ��e located on CTM frontage along the west side of Locust Avenue. 'There are - as "Colonial Lot 22.1 which are used for various commercial purp oses and are collectively known Corners". Tax map Lot 24.1 located just south of 22.1 is currently vacant and serves as overflow parking for the stores to the north. The area of the site is zoned Hamlet Business (lam) on tax map Lot 22.1 and Low Density R—t0) on tax map Lot 24.1. The proposed action involves changing the zoning of Residential 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD. MELVILLE. NY -1747-21 BB =AX (516) 427-5620 [51 61 427-5665 Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review these lots to a General Business (B) district. This will give Mullen Motors (located adjacent to both lots on the west side) the opportunity to construct parking facilities on these lots in the future. The project sponsor currently owns approximately 0.83 acres to the west, contiguous with the subject site and encompassing tax map Lots 19 and 20. The subject site is flat, and there are no wetlands or other significant landforms in the vicinity. The soil on the site is entirely Haven Loam, slopes 0-2 percent. The soil series is suitable for development, with good leaching potential. Although Haven soils with shallow slopes are not classified within groups 14 of the NYS Agriculture Land Classification System, they are fertile agricultural soils. The project site is rather small and the soils are disturbed, therefore, agricultural use of soils is not viable on the subject site. Water to the property is supplied by the Greenport municipal system. The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is 0-3 feet above mean sea level (msl) according to the 1995 SCDHS Water Table map. The topographic elevation is approximately 25 feet above msl. Therefore, the minimum depth to groundwater is 22 feet, which provides a sufficient depth for a future parking lot or other potential commercial uses. If a parking lot is constructed in the future, storm water would be recharged through the use of dry wells. The subject site is located within the Water Budget Area as mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The Water Budget Area includes locations where the potential for large public water supply wells exists. The subject site is located within the SCDHS Groundwater Management Zone IV and according to the North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM -Northeast, Camp Dresser & McKee, 1983), the area has been significantly impacted by_aldicarb (concentrations over 7_... ug/1). This should not posea constraint to site use as public water will be extended to the site. Approximately 0.87 acres of the subject site is developed, comprising 0.6 acre of roads and buildings and approximately 0 2 acres of landscape vegetation such as grasses, shrubs, Norway spruce, and grav birch. The r;n;n$ 0.38 acres is densely _f�_cong species such as sugar maple, sumac, mulberry, common chokecherry, box elder, hon Ugarbage andivil�'ro'se: Scattered household was also present in this area. The land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly Hamlet Business (HB) to the north and east, Low density residential (R40) to the south, and General Business (B) to the west. The small tow character of Southold should be considered if a parking lot is proposed in the future. There may be someOon,pertaining to the loss of aesthetic resources (the forested portion ofthe lan located rimarily on tax map Lot 24.1 , and the local residential community to the south and southwest. Currently,t,)le,farested�ortion of the site provides a screen for many residents to the activities of the__j car dealership. The forested portion lies adjacent to fax neap Lots 17, 18, 19, 25, and 26, where dwelling units already exist. Across Locust Avenue, to the east, tax map Lots 35 and 36 have frontage directly opposite of the forested area. Th�ninin. the R40portion.of.ihS�,,. #p is an intrusion into be th retenti f sc landse eer � and the neighborhood and should rrutigated through a ono vegetation, capmng, maintenance of so -m,, eset6ack between the residential -and c6mniercial use. Also, if a new P040 used to store dealer cars, sitiliglidng may mtru~ &-o"n ifie cominunnv"during nighttime hours and should ' be limited to reduce potential impact. 0 Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review In summary-, there is limited potential impact be changing the zoning of tax map Lot 22.1 from Hamlet Business to General Business which can be minimized through setbacks, landscaping, lighting restrictions, and proper site planning. The primacy concern j s the,p _totential land use disparit _ and loss``" of aesthetic ources��in d� residential area south of the Main Road. If the Town is favorable to this j -.•-- w zone change there are some common mitigation practices recommended. First, an adequate buffer should be maintained between proposed site use and existing residences. Also the use of evergreen vegetation (dor example Nom -ay srace, which is already resem on the parcel) for landscaping PmPo a screen,, evea_durmg winter mo—rths. Finally, lighting restrictions should be considered in order to reduce intrusion is the neighborhood. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly Charles I Voorhis, CEP, AICP Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC enc: Long EAF Parts I & II . 2. How much natural materiai0. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed fron* site? tons/cubic yards 3. will disturbed areas be reclaimed? Xes ONo ON/A a. If yes, for what intend_.: purpose is the site being reclaimed? 5i7t= USCZ A-20 IA 1f)Li*4/-- b. _b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONO c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo A;Ci Kil:c°WIV .'d7 77, 5 17,1/C �. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other local) important vegetation be removed by this project? OYes )(No .,�.,.�..,;...,,.. icy . 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). -" 7. If multi -phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated r (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes ONO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? . OYes *0 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction ,1157 ; after project is complete r :3 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project _�_ . (),)Y�(f Qbot* 0-0bNal . \_(jmc c��lO�S 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes 1X10 If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? OYes ANO 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? GYes ONO Type''%"'ter 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Oyes NO Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Oyes o 16. Will the project venerate solid waste? OYes i to a. If ves, what is ,he amount per month tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes ONO c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? OYes ONO e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? -OYes a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. if yes, what is the anticipated site life? ��yy/ears. (di 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? OYes la >l0 tonsimonth. 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Oyes MA 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes ^o 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? OYes �N0 If yes ,indicate ripe(s) - 2'. if water suopiv is :rom weds. indicate pumping capacity ! /Al gallonsiminute. Totai anac.oatea water _sage per -ailons/day. _oes crolec: :nvclve Loc=.. Mate or `_'r'erai �undmgi e5 xiN. Yes. excialn I i • 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 Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • 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 i field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.20, Appendix BJ �- Examples that would apply to column 2 +t. 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. f Other impacts: i n-irvsioh ;r)10-e1i'c4ey%4i'c.l IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of his °ric, pre- historic or paleontological importance? 2NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 r` • 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. • Other impacts: 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 19'Kb I]YES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: 9 9 X ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No 2fe—s. . ❑ No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes []No I Yes —No 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9 X ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No 2fe—s. . ❑ No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes ❑No ❑Yes []No I Yes —No = ! _ Yes No — — _Yes No C��.v� also San�-L Lrz-� 4-�-L a ci.a�-� eotad 6.L- cL�(-L)ia�!-edur No q)av- (Aj also nt, rctrz.�e i vt �af tc.l� ��ll c6Yo4 preb�Ce�rv�.a � N � VtciSe +�L I Own ( E.O0.r� A4.t'��m�r�ciicale.� 1 +D G.tr�rx.i I �-1�.i s �e err ale i n� i ►� �v�', `j4uamk ��, oma. cca�n `�r Tor -�rne, and (31�"41or� . -7 to5-S�ta-� Buses Will Be Excluded •_ From'Town Back'Road.` 13y Bret Begun STAFF WNrrh:a That's 100 cars an hour from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. about the traffic. "It's just part of living here." Instead of having to pave these secondary roads "This in no way deals with the bigger issue: conges- Halsey said this year-round ban does not target the every 10 years because commercial vehicles use them, tion. This sends the message that buses are bad, cars Hampton Jitney; however, the company moves abou the town might be able to pave them every 16 to 20 are good," Neely said, adding that Hampton Jitney 60 percent of its 400,000 yearly riders between mi years now, said Bill Masterson, Southampton super- hncl iicen voluntarily telling its drivers to stay off the May and mid-September, mostly between Manhattan intendent of highways. It costs about $80,000 to pave P ", „ .— 1 01•.. iL;nmf nr - n mile of road, he aald. 000 a ICOM 'I'IIEIR m 10-rooEast End home, John and Dorothy Daly spent 16 years enjoying the idyllic serenity of Lumber Lane in Bridgehampton. Then, two years ago, they found they .were paying more attention to the roar of bus diesel engines on the two -lana road than the slowly darkening shingles on their 1868 gothic farmhouse. . "it destroyed the ambiance of the neighborhood, having such large builes pass through," said .John Duly, 68, a semiretired arbiter, This summer should be different. The big green and silver Hampton Jitney buses and other motor coaches soon will be banned from that street — and 36 other local roads In the Town of Southampton. Other large vehicles, such as trucks, are alrea—y disallowed. A er years- of complaints from residents along back ' roads about the noise and pollution, the Southampton Town Board voted June 20 to keep buses from using those roads to avoid the seemingly endless summer traffic jams on Montauk Highway. The local law will take effect after it is filed with the state. "We live in what is supposed to be the country," . said Miles Jaffe, who works as a design consultant'out of life home on Corwith Avenue, Bridgehampton, also Newsday Photo/John It: Comes Jr. a newly banned road. "We have the right to pursue Ocean Road north of Silver Lane In Bridgehampton Is one of the roads from which buses will be prohibited to preserve quiet. pence and quiet. We don't need loud fast commercial traffic routed throw our ac roe s." to use those shortcuts.'' Although It has given its support to the law, ilia Although t ue an w nge a Hampton The law, sponsored by Town Councilman Steven Businesa Alliance of the Town of Southampton — Iitney plane its trips, Hampton Jitney a marketing director, Tom Neely,•said it was too soon to tell what Halsey, bans buses in excess of 10,000 pounds, Belsey which represents about 200 businesses — has not alterations might be needed. He declined to comment said, adding that thio was the first ban of its kind he done so wholeheartedly. had seen. "Keeping the buses off' the back roads is like put- on whether the company would appeal the law, and he didn't know Buses that need to travel on those roads for a pri- ting a Band-Aid on a major artery," said Ann LaWall said whether schedule changes would 11111•t business. vete charter, or to meet the requirements of a Metro- executive director of the alliance and a 26 -year town Other local businesses say' they will not fight the politan Transportation Authority contract — as the resident. "Sooner or later, we're going to have to ad - road closings, but warn that they may make traffic on Jitney does -with the LIRR at the Bridgehampton stop dress the problem: We have minor roads for major Imck roads worse, not better. In a presentation to the will be allowed. to do so, Halsey sold. traffic. y lown board in March, Neely said one'fully loaded rno. We do need buses,' Halsey said. Our summer"It's going to play havoc with thbir [Hampton Jit - tor conch takes the place of 20 to 26 care. On a typical Friday or Sunday in August, Jitney buses replace traffic is horrendous. We just have to welcome them ney sl scheduling, she added. She said she did not on main roads and thoroughfares, not side streets." expect the ban to have a major impact on its busines- about 1 200 cars on Southampton's roads he said. "It's just part of any tourist town," Halsey..sald see. That's 100 cars an hour from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. about the traffic. "It's just part of living here." Instead of having to pave these secondary roads "This in no way deals with the bigger issue: conges- Halsey said this year-round ban does not target the every 10 years because commercial vehicles use them, tion. This sends the message that buses are bad, cars Hampton Jitney; however, the company moves abou the town might be able to pave them every 16 to 20 are good," Neely said, adding that Hampton Jitney 60 percent of its 400,000 yearly riders between mi years now, said Bill Masterson, Southampton super- hncl iicen voluntarily telling its drivers to stay off the May and mid-September, mostly between Manhattan intendent of highways. It costs about $80,000 to pave P ", „ .— 1 01•.. iL;nmf nr - n mile of road, he aald. 000 a 122 • The Suffolk Times • August 21, 1997 FROM Town Weighs Options For Mull e*n Ys Review. SOUTHOLD—Here are the town's options on the environmental review of the controversial Mullen Motors change of zone request: Just say no or we need to know more. Called to take a second look at the re- quest after a professional crew cut down several mature trees on one of the prop- erties involved, Charles Voorhis, the town's environmental consultant, this week stopped just short of saying which step he'll recommend. Mi. Voorhis told the officials that they infor- or its Tuesday morning work session, he said his firm may or may not recommend any of those options in its final report due within the next few weeks. He did say he could not recommend an immediate denial because that would cut off the debate without allowing either side to be heard. - Following standard. procedure, the town hired Mr. Voorhis's firm to com- plete the initial assessment on Mullen 's request for a zone change -on both the Colonial Comers shopping area on the Main Road in Southold and asmaller vacant residential lot to the south. The' Mullen family's�ntr80 to huy thnce lots is dependent on a zone switch from Hamlet Business and low-density resi- dential toGeneral Business__QB .. The Mullens plan an immediate conversion of the vacant parcel into a par ung lof an . y say they'll hold the Cnlnnial nrnPr� ��rP as is pending a future dealership exaan- sion. The zoning change drew little local opposition until a professional tree trim- ming company removed several of the large trees from the Locust Avenue side • of the residential lot several weeks ago. Angered by that move, area residents have anoeared at every Town Board meetin since then to ur e a no vote on t e Chan e of zoge. The tree wor , on land owneby Albert Albertson Jr., did not violate any town codes. The tLee cutting came after Mr." Voorhis completed his initial assessment, which found that the potential impact on the neighborhood could be reduced by planting additional trees or shrubs. In response to the public outcry, the board asked the firm to review its findings. Mr. Voorhis aid_ Ian n, tin new trees or shrubs could rovide a buffer between that lot an nearby homes, but that "you +L can't just put the (mature trees back � '�Tlm c�elly �ca;r1 in-I��,Sz . f-rt�sS ku0 re Bridge Results iJ� I�Sh h,t l Mattituck Bridge Club,�r .� w August 13 Results North-South: 1. Jim -Stella Manos; 2. U (� Al Barbanel -Marie Lipetz; 3. Helen -John Regan; 4. Audre Kornblue-Buella Wolff.M�i East-West: 1. Ted Ferguson -Ann Driscoll; 2. Marion Gibson -Jane Torrey; 3. Bette Rightor-Lind Ward; 4. Frank Spoerr-Ham Andon. Call Helen Wolff at 722-4436. Open letter to Dick Mullen Dear Dick, August 24, 1997 Upon return from my tour of duty in WWII, I came home to Southold town and purchased my 1st car from Mullen Motors. It was a Plymouth Business Coup 1941 -- jet black with chrome grill, 6 cylinders in mint condition. We shook hands and I drove away. Fifty years later, my most recent purchase is again a Mullen Motors car. It's nice to have a family business with continuity where the important things don't change. It's also nice to have a neighborhood with continuity where the important things don't change --safe and quiet streets, yards to play in and good neighbors who have mutual concern for the well-being of others. When you live in a small town, you work beside each other --you live beside each other. The Sanfords and the Mullens go back to the Brickyard days. Just as your family contributed to the success of our family business then, loyal employees and customers like myself contribute to the success of Mullen Motors today. Change comes to all of us, to everything --but it must not sacrifice "the quality of life". We must not destroy our residential neighborhoods by allowing the encroachment of commercial business. Nor should the character of our historic town be diminished by the downing of old homes which currently serve small hamlet businessmen. In other words, let us keep Southold town looking like a town and our neighborhoods a place in which we feel safe and proud to live. I respectfully ask you to withdraw your application to expand Mullen Motors' commercial car dealership into our residential and hamlet community. A community that shoud retain its integrity. Sincerely, Walter H. Sanford RECOGNITION SERVICES Carolyn Zenk's work has been recognized by: Vice President Al Gore Long Island Monthly Magazine which featured Ms. Zenk in a article entitled "Local Heroes." Suffolk County Legislature by Proclamation. Colgate University, which designated her an Alumni Memorial Scholar. The Long Island Pine Barrens Society, which awarded her a "Friend of the Court" Award, for her work related to the historic Pine Barrens litigation. LITIGATION LEGAL ADVICE LEGAL RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS BEFORE TOWN BOARDS, PLANNING BOARD AND ZONING BOARDS OF APPEAL GRASSROOTS ORGANIZING REVIEW OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS PUBLIC SPEAKING GENERAL PRACTICE FOR A CONSULTATION Write: Carolyn A. Zenk Attorney at Law 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Bays, New York 11946 Call: (516) 723-2341 (516) 537-1400 CAROLYN ZENK Attorney -at -Law GROUP FOR THE SOUTH FORK P.O. Box 569/117 Main Street Bridgehampto4 NY 11932 516-537-1400/FAX 516-537-2201 A not- or -profit or nization protxtmgg the ntoironment and rural rJwracter of Southampton, East Hampton and Shdter Island Towns. Founded in 1972. CAROLYN A. ZENK ATTORNEY AT LAW r DEFENDING THE ENVIRONMENT 1980 TO PRESENT...... "There is another kind of hero — the local hero who is defined not by individual acts, but by hope, strength, and caring. Local heroes face the poverty and injustice that others ignore. They battle to preserve the environment... Theirs is an unqualified commitment to making a difference in other people's lives." . Long Island Monthly Magazine December 1991 "Zenk has been a staunch supporter of, and has worked diligently for, the preservation of open spaces, wetlands preservation, and clean water for the people of Long Island and for future generations, her dedication, expertise and personal involvement have contributed significantly to the conservation and protection of the environment. Through her energy and W l, CAROLYN ZENK has also been an piration to and influence on the lawmakers of Suffolk County and their decisions. " Proclamation of the Suffolk County Legislature ENVIRONMENTAL LAW Laws that affect the environment grow increasingly complex with each passing year. As the volume of legal statutes and regulations grows annually by leaps and bounds, so too does the need for dedicated practitioners knowledgeable in the field. EXPERIENCE Since 1989, Carolyn Zenk has served as the General Counsel to Group for the South Fork, a leading Long Island environmental protection organization. Prior to law school, from 1980 to 1985, she worked as an Environmental Planner and Environmental Analyst. Ms. Zenk has earned a Natural Resource Law certificate and Ocean and Coastal Law certificate from the University of Oregon's School of Law. She is a graduate of Colgate University, where she majored in both Biology and English. VICTORY The mark of the solid practitioner. Zenk took local government to task after they approved a defective environmental impact statement and preliminary subdivision design for the 1400 acre Hampton Hills. The suit, along with her grassroots organizing, resulted in one of the largest purchases of public land ever made by Suffolk County government. This spectacular piece of land boasts a pristine 70 -acre lake, open pine barrens atop a clean drinking water supply, a rare archeological site, globally rare Dwarf Pine Plains and threatened species such as the Marsh Hawk. Other victories include preserving the Long Pond Greenbelt in Bridgehampton, successfully tackling Union Carbide in a pesticide case, and stopping Robins Island from going into the hands of a development corporation. Puo 60TH "-AR 0- 1980 �*!!'W CJd SN£10NG 3SSADlfl f£vISDAPfR SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of William Mullen and RICHARD F. MULLEN III ATTORNEY AFFIRMATION IN OPPOSITION TO for a CHANGE OF ZONE from Residential CHANGE OF ZONE AND/OR IN SUPPORT OF 40,000 and Hamlet Business to General Business, AN ENVIRONMENTAL IM- PACT STATEMENT Tax Map Numbers: 1000-62-03-22.1 and 24.1,,,„ :.. . STATE OF NEW YORK. ;n :ss: SES' 3 0 �« COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: CAROLYN A. ZENK, being duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in New York. Adam. Grossman, Esq. and I represent Melanie Sanford, Julie Sanford, and a number of neighbors living near Mullen Motors, the site of the proposed change of zone. I have earned a certificate in Natural Resources Law from the University of Oregon's School of Law. I have been the General Counsel to the Group for the South Fork, a well respected leading environmental protection organization, located on the South Fork, for eight years, since 1988. I have also worked as an Environmental Planner and Analyst for five years prior to that time.. 2. For over fifteen years, I have worked in the field of environmental law, land use, and zoning and planning. During that time, I have reviewed hundreds of projects in the Towns of Southampton, East Hampton, and Riverhead, including changes of zone, subdivisions, variance requests, and master plan updates. I have also been involved in more than a dozen Article 78s during that time. Because many of these projects, and much of this litigation, have involved the State Environmental Quality Review Act, I am extremely familiar with that statute, its regulations, and the cases pertaining thereto. 3. I submit this attorney affirmation, which has the same force and effect as an affidavit, duly sworn, and notarized, in opposition to the change of zone request by Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen for a change of zone. I also submit this affirmation in support of an environmental impact statement and to establish the fact that a "hard look" at the areas of "environmental concern" involved in this application has not been taken to date as required under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. • page 1 I) THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS INADEQUATE AS A MATTER OF LAW A) THE TOWN BOARD IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE WRONG ACTION 4. Counsel respectfully requests that your consultant, Nelson, Pope and Voorhis prepare a supplement to the environmental assessment form. The present EAF is inadequate as a matter of law for three reasons. First, it is fundamentally flawed because it assesses the wrong action. Second, it neglects to analyze the most important area of environmental concern, namely consistency with the Southold Comprehensive Plan. Third, several other key areas of environmental concern have been neglected. The material which follows will elaborate on these points. 5. The parcel at issue is a 1.25 acre parcel in the hamlet of Southold, located at the southwest corner of .NYS Route 25 and Locust Avenue. There are five existing retail structures on the northern HB portion of the site, along the highway, known as "Colonial Corners." The southern R-40 portion of the site is currently vacant . The northern portion of the site which.fronts on NYS Route 25 is zoned Hamlet Business (HB),*and the southern portion of the site is zoned Low Density Residential (R-40). The current application is for a change of zoning designation on these two lots to General Business. 6. Mullen Motors, the project sponsor, operates an existing car dealership on the two parcels to the west of the site.. He wishes to expand his commercial operation. He is the contract vendee of both this parcel and the parcel containing "Colonial Corners." The sponsor has represented to officials that the change of zone is desired so that the applicant can expand his commercial business onto the southern residentially zoned property by building a parking lot. Neither the Hamlet Business Zone or the Residential Zone would allow a commercial parking lot related.to a car dealership. Thus, it is the applicant's position that a change of zone to General Business, which would allow the construction of this parking lot is needed if he is to expand. ' 7.The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires that the lead agency, in this case the Southold Town Board, determine whether or not an environmental impact statement is required as a matter of law. To properly make this determination, an environmental assessment form is required which adequately describes the proposed action and its purpose. Actions that require assessment would include both changes of zone and site plans according to the definition of "action" in the law. page 2 8. Specifically, the State Environmental Quality Review Act and regulations require that: All agencies (or the applicant as hereinafter provided) shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract or otherwise an environmental impact statement on any action they propose or approve which may have a significant effect on the environmental. ECL 8-0109.(Emphasis added) To make the assessment of whether or not an environmental impact statement is legally required; state law requires that an environmental assessment be completed: Environmental assessment form (EAF) means a form used by an agency to assist it in determining the environmental significance or nonsignificance of actions. A properly completed EAF must contain enough information to describe the proposed action, its location, its purpose and its potential impacts on the environment. 6 NYCRR 617.2(m). (Emphasis added). According to the SEQRA regulations: Actions include: (1) projects or physical activities, such as construction or other activities that may affect the environmental by changing the use, appearance or condition of any natural resource or structure, that: ...(iii) require one or more new or modified approvals from an agency or agencies; (2) agency planning and policy making activities that may affect the environment and commit the agency to a definite course of future decisions; (3) adoption of agency rules, regulations and procedures, including local laws, codes, ordinances, executive orders and resolutions that may affect the environment: and (4) any combinations of the above. 6 NYCRR 617,2, (Emphasis added). 9. The fundamental mistake made by the Voorhis report is that it assesses the wrong action. The EAF assumes, without any basis in law, that the proposal before the board is simply for the construction of a parking lot. Indeed, the consultant, specifically requests that "a concept plan be submitted" for same. While the Voorhis report hints at the broader impacts of the action before the Southold Town Board, it. fails to analyze them. It deals primarily with.the impacts related to page 3 a proposed parking lot. However, the implications of this proposal are far wider. It fails to deal with the wider possible environmental impacts. In essence, the Voorhes report treats the application before the board as one for site plan review, dealing with one specific proposal. However, the application is for a change of zone which would permit numerous, radical, and dramatic changes to Southold as a matter of law and by special exception use. 10. The most glaring contradiction in the record is the fact that, on information and belief, the applicant has represented to the board that he only intends to build a parking lot on the southern, residentially zoned parcel: However, if this was the case, why is a zone change sought for an entirely separate parcel to the north - namely "Colonial Corners?" 11. It bears emphasis that once the zoning is changed on these properties, numerous uses are allowed by right and by special exception which were not allowed before. It also bears emphasis, that unlike a use variance, which is specific to a given use and proposal, a zoning change allows numerous uses and numerous proposals. A zone change also runs with -the land, so that should Mr. Mullen sell or grant the property, numerous applicants would have the right to the uses allowed in the new zones. Thus, even assuming arguendo that Mr. Mullen plans to restrict himself to building a parking lot, other applicants would not have to do so. It is from this perspective that the environmental assessment form must be written to be legally adequate. It is shocking that both officials and the Voorhis report have restricted their review to a proposal -for a parking lot based upon the oral representations of the applicant. A thorough review of all records before the Town Board, Planning Board, and Zoning Board of Appeals reveal that there is no contract binding Mr. Mullen to the construction of a parking lot alone. 12. It also bears emphasis that the change from a Residential Zone, one of the least impactful, and benign zones in the Town of Southold, to General Business Zone, one of the most intensive and impactful in the Town of Southold is sought. The residential zone allows for such uses as one family residences(P), farms(P), horse farms(P), vineyards(P), churches(SE), libraries(SE), art galleries(SE), and museums(SE), and generally prohibits commercial and industrial uses. 13. In sharp contrast, the General Business Zone would allow commercial uses including fast food restaurants like 7-11, Arbys, and McDonalds(SE), warehouses(P), gas stations( SE), car washes(SE), bars(SE), wholesale beverage distributors(P), and industrial uses including light industry (SE), building(P), electrical(P), and plumbing (P)contractors, and food processing(P) and food packaging plants(P). 0 page 4 14. A review of the Southold Zoning Map reveals that the zoning in the neighborhood proposed for the zone change includes a lot of residential zoning including R-40 and R-80 to both the north and south of Route 25. The southern lot proposed for the zone change immediately borders a residential neighborhood. Indeed, the property proposed for rezoning is located in an area of Southold which contains some of the highest concentration of residential properties. 15. Since a change of zone allows numerous uses as of right and other uses by special exception once specified conditions are met, despite the fact that only a parking lot is proposed now, the other uses which are both legal and possible must be examined and their environmental impact. Since the items listed in paragraph 13 are some of the uses that would be most intrusive to this neighborhood, they should be examined in detail. 16. Likewise, although the developer may not have immediate plans to develop or level "Colonial Corners," since a change of zone allows certain uses as of right and others by special exception, this possibility must be considered in an environmental review. There is no legal guarantee that this developer will keep the property or stick to casual verbal agreements. The Hamlet Business Zone is much less intense than the General Business Zone. The uses listed in paragraph 13 are not allowed in Hamlet Business, but they are allowed in General Business. Thus, a thorough review must consider the possibility that "Colonial Corners" could be completely leveled and used in numerous ways. For example, if the zone is changed, the center could be torn down, and a strip of fast food joints, commercial parking lots, gas stations, car washes, and contractor yards strewn with plumbing, electrical, or building supplies could replace the existing structures. 17. In sum, the Town Board must consider the correct action and the issues raised herein, within its environmental review before making its determination of significance. At a minimum, your consultant should revise his environmental assessment. As a matter of law, an environmental impact statement may be required. B) THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FAILS TO PERFORM A THOROUGH ANALYSIS OF A NUMBER OF AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN, INCLUDING IN PARTICULAR, CONSISTENCY WITH SOUTHOLD'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FULL IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, SUBURBAN SPRAWL, AND TRAFFIC. 18. The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires that before a lead agency renders a determination of significance, it must "thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse 0 page 5 impact on the environment." The environmental review to date fails to meet this legal test in that it has completely neglected a review of the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Before you render your determination you must prove that you have reviewed that plan. Yet, there is no evidence in the record, or the Voorhis Report that that plan has even been consulted. 19. SEQRA provides: For all Type I and Unlisted actions the lead agency making a determination of significance must: (1) -consider the action as defined in sections 617.2(b) and 617.3(g) of this Part; (2) review the EAF, the criteria contained in subdivision (c) of this section and any other supporting information to identify the relevant areas of environmental concern; (3) thoroughly analyze the identified relevant areas of environmental concern to determine if the action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment; and (4) set forth its determination of significance in a written form containing a reasoned elaboration and providing•reference to any supporting documentation. 6 NYCRR 617.7(b). (Emphasis added). 20. SEQRA requires that the board thoroughly analyze the following relevant criteria for determining significance, before making its determination: To determine whether a proposed Type I or Unlisted action may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, the impacts that may be reasonably expected to result from the proposed action must be compared against the criteria in this subdivision. The following list is illustrative, not exhaustive. These criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impacts on the environmental: (i) a substantial adverse change in existing ...traffic or noise levels;... (iv) the creation of a material conflict with a community's current plans or goals as officially approved or adopted; (v) the impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character; i page 6 0 (x) the creation of a material demand for other actions that would result in one of the above consequences; (6 NYCRR 617.7(c)(1). (Emphasis added). 21. Based upon these legal criteria, it is clear that the board's legal obligations have not been met. With regard to criteria (i), no traffic analysis has been prepared based upon the potential conversion of a major thoroughfare into higher intensity business use. It is well-recognized that County Route 25 poses serious traffic and safety hazards especially during the summer months. Analysis is required. 22. The record to date has absolutely failed to consider whether the zoning change is consistent with Southold's Comprehensive Plan. As your counsel will inform you, it is illegal for you to "spot zone" or grant zoning requests based upon favoritism. In addition, the Town Law requires that "zoning shall be consistent with the comprehensive plan." It is fundamental to a zoning decision to analyze what your comprehensive plan says. Yet, nowhere in the record does this analysis exist. As counsel will also inform you, a comprehensive plan consists of the Town's -zoning map, zoning code, master planning documents, and various plans. This proposal is at odds with the zoning map and zoning code. These documents were based upon the best judgements of Town Boards in the past. They cannot simply be ignored without good reason or as a favor to an individual applicant. 23. The following components of your Comprehensive Plan have been brought to my attention: Master Plan Update Summary, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Raymond, Parish, Pine, and Weiner, Inc.. Planning Consultants, 1985, Master Plan Update Background Studies, Town of Southold, New York, Raymond, Parish, Pie, and Weiner, Inc. Planning Consultants. March 1984, Final Report and Recommendations, Southold Town Stewardship Task Force, Southold New York -June 1994. Additional portions of your comprehensive plan may also merit analysis. 24. Criteria (iv) also merits further analysis. The changes to the community character must be explored considering the full implications of the zone change rather than limiting the analysis to the question of whether or not permission should be granted to build a parking lot. What will it mean to the community if "Colonial Corners" is lost and converted to tacky fast food restaurants and warehouses? What impact would a bar or car wash imposed upon the residential community have? 25. A full analysis of criteria (x) is also lacking. Your environmental assessment should consider the domino effect that commercial sprawl often has upon a hamlet. Where commercial uses are especially intense, as in the case of a car dealership with its lights, traffic, visual blight, and lack of charm, residents often page 7 relocate to other neighborhoods. The general business zone allows particularly tacky, uses that often lower property values, and the desirability of neighborhoods. III) AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IS PROBABLY REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW. 26. obviously, until the Town Board meets its legal requirement to take a hard look at the areas of environmental concern, it cannot make a determination of significance. However, the board should recognize that by law the project presently carries with it a presumption of significance. The action is presently classified as TYPE I. According to the State Environmental Quality Review Act: However, the fact that an action or project has been listed as a type I action carries with it the presumption that it is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and may require an environmental impact statement." 6 NYCRR 617.4. Black's Law Dictionary defines a presumption as, "a rule of law which requires the assumption of a fact from another fact or set of facts. The term "presumption" indicates that certain weight is accorded by law to a given evidentiary -fact, which weight is heavy enough to require the production of further evidence to overcome the assumption thereby established." A commonly understood presumption is that a person is held innocent until proven guilty. 27. Thus, it is presumed that an environmental impact statement should be prepared, if the board goes forward with this action, especially in light of the considerable public opposition to the project. This should weigh heavily in the board's deliberations. IV) THE ZONE CHANGE SHOULD BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF SOLID PLANNING PRINCIPALS. 28. The Town Board has no legal obligation to grant the change of zone before it. once its SEQRA obligations are complied with, it can simply deny the request for a zone change. It is interesting to note that the applicant is not even the owner of the property. Certainly, there are many persons in town who would like to enhance the value of property they plan to purchase. However, nothing in the record indicates that a zoning change is warranted in this case. Absent, some compelling reason to rezone the property, besides the desire to grant the applicant a favor, rezoning the property would simply be spot zoning of the worst kind. Spot zoning is illegal. page 8 29. As I emphasized to the board at the beginning of this affirmation, I have been involved in planning issues for over ten years on the East End. I have reviewed the comprehensive plans of Southampton Town, East Hampton Town, Southampton Village, and East Hampton Village. All of the professional planners have reached a similar conclusion: that it is imperative to maintain the charm of the downtown hamlet areas on the East End. There is a consensus that commercial development in the hamlets should be concentrated, pedestrian -oriented, modestly scaled, and historic in its architectural design. Commercial sprawl is unanimously rejected as bad for property values, community character, and business. 30. It is ironic that some have argued that weakening the zoning in this downtown business area would be good for business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Superstores abound in this country, often gobbling up former quaint neighborhoods. National chains are replacing Mom and Pop family-owned businesses. These huge conglomerates are contributing to suburban sprawl of the worst kind. One town bleeds into the next, and the traveler is greeted by an endless commercial desert of asphalt, glass, and parking lots. 31. The quaint villages and hamlets of the East End will never be able to match the low prices offered by superstores given their corporate character and the economies of scale available to them. Our business strategy must be different. Our hamlets need to exude charm and small- town character to attract shoppers. We must offer a small town shopping experience. 32. We are already seeing the effects of oversized enterprises on small East End businesses locally. In Riverhead, the downtown business people have organized to fight further expansion of the Tanger Mall. Many feel it is negatively affecting their business. 33. In Southampton, at least one long-standing outdoor mens clothing store has been driven out of business by Bridgehampton Commons, a large shopping center. 34. In East Hampton, the Town Board voted to oppose a superstore outside the hamlet center in part because they believed it would hurt down -town businesses. Several hundred persons spoke in favor of a ('Superstore law" that would prohibit unduly large businesses in the hamlet centers. 35. Expansion of a car dealership in the heart of a hamlet on the East End is the epitome of bad planning. One cannot imagine a use that is more car -intensive, or symbolic of modern commercial sprawl, with its glaring lights, chain-link fences, extensive parking areas, rotating page 9 displays, and pennants. Such businesses contribute nothing to downtown charm. Indeed, they destroy it. A trip along the congested Sunrise Highway to the west reveals that shopping malls and car dealerships are two heavy contributors to the ugly neighborhoods characteristic there. 36. The applicant already appears to be the beneficiary of numerous exceptions to your zoning code. He has already obtained permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals in 1987 to use a parking lot for commercial uses in a residential neighborhood. He received special permission to erect an ugly, suburban, six foot chain -linked fence, when the zoning code required four feet. He received permission to encroach upon the usual 35 foot setback from the road, adding a sense of crowding to the road. According to Planning Board records, this business paved over the front of the building illegally at one time, and also built ugly display pads. Now the applicant requests a complete change of zone, and special permission to build a parking lot within that zone for parcels of land he doesn't even own. When does it all stop? Either the zoning code you enacted makes sense or it does not. Exception to exception renders your code meaningless. 37. In summary, a more thorough analysis of this project is warranted before a determination of significance can be made, an environmental impact statement is probably required, and it is clear that a change of zone in this location will negatively impact the community without cause, and should be denied. 38. Counsel respectfully suggests that if parking is the applicant's problem, that a special study be commissioned to help solve that difficulty, rather than down -grading the entire neighborhood. The present approach seems akin to trying to kill a mouse with an atom bomb rather than a mouse trap. Respectfully Submitted, This 29th day of September 1997, Carolyn A. Zenk Attorney at Law 121 Ponquogue Avenue Hampton Bays, New York 11946 516-723-2341 cc: Planning Board Southold Town Attorney Nelson, Pope and Voorhis rp. u1Cc, �� ho_Z��o�s �_� Pax -It croki-Arv-1 CAY) even, C) W-tcic-v- C2 Cr: Cc L Voio-c- "-<Ln V,-�OLLt\ "IC -11 AV re - - loua ,� d� auk z4 e low r 4i�-ne-s o ecT D6 r IGR iix.� �x� ,[�f• t IVA* i i a j Malta ld + o\p2e) letot e)cqmple--, � - h bu,51 ees-(� S hmld �e 6n,,W-�J, e:e ru. -4-vulrn Q Cu+C" V E. tvbu'r� 1. ness -� �h 7 1 �•� `ti n+ •�` 1 i �� .'L�/' �L,.. 1 � ,:«_ •_ ... .. .�! ;a.rt "�► > _ � � � `— ..--� ' � �'!'�"=sa �� . • • Sic .43 PI b (fo �- h E t� 5) ..r`J•- cr ,.. @@t . , �({�' /-� .fir .. 'il�r'.,t Y` �� C' � � - '�-� �•�- f ..r`J•- cr ,.. • MEMORIAL TREE PROGRAM I hese 300 ra-r c Id 5 � rE ei- -'re-p-,5 u -)e c E. lowns �6w Cov Id 4h S �a E�cC1E1�1� o cmi^>jEr C� I s FOR DISCUSSION JULY 22, 1997 RICHARD F. MULLEN III and WILLIAM MULLEN CHANGE OF ZONE PETITION. REVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR BY NELSON, POPE VOORHIS, LLC. TOWN BOARD DECLARATION - NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE. NELSON, OPE & VOORHIS, LL C"' ti E N V I R O N M E N T A L PLANNING • CONSULTING CHARLES J. VOORHIS. CEP. AICP • ARTHUR J. KOERBER. P.E. • VINCENT G. DONNELLY. P.E. • VICTOR BERT. P.E. • JOSEPH R. EPIFANIA. P.E. • R08ERT G. NELSON. JR. P.E. • CHRISTOPHER W. ROBINSON. P.E. JUL 9 1997 Sout6ord Town Clerk July 8, 1997 Ms. Judith Tent', Town Clerk Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main.Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of EAF Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen Zone Change Application SCTM No. 1000-62-03-22.1 & 24.1 Dear Ms. Tenv- As per your request, we have completed a preliminary review of The above referenced zone change. Tasks and completed activities are as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by NP&V, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of the same is attached. 2. Prepare partII LEAF The Part U LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted The site consists of 1.2484 acres of land m the hamlet of Southold in the Town of Southold. The subject site is located at the comer of NYS Route 25 and Locust Avenue. The site has approximately 199 feet of frontage along the south side of 'NYS Route 25 and 285 feet of frontage along the west side of Locust Avenue. There are cun=dy 5 structures located on SCTM Lot 22.1 which are used for various dommercial purposes and are collectively known as "Colonial Comers". Tax map Lot 24.1 looted just south of 22.1 is currently vacant and serves as overflow parking for the stores to the north. The area of the site is zoned Hamlet Business (HB) -on tax map Lot 22.1 and Low Density _ Residential (R-40) on tax map Lot 24.1. 'The proposed action involves Changi Ib. _ of . 72:w,I►». aniarwaTt:��aa;:nn=vn� ► = ntir%r�a: IS.2ELL _427=58$Wy _ FAXY$Sffi4�T • C� Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review these lots to a General Business (B) district. This will give Mullen Motors (located adjacent to both lots on the west side) the opporamitY to construct parking facilities on these lots in the future. The project sponsor currently owns approximately 0.83 acres to the west, contiguous with the subject site and encompassing tax, map Lots 19 and 20. The subject site is flat, and there are no wetlands or other significant landforms in the vicinity. The soil on. the site is entirely Haven Loam, slopes 0-2 percent. The soil series is suitable for development, with good leaching potential. Although Haven soils with -shallow slopes are not classified within groups 1-4 of the NYS Agriculture Land Classification System, they are fertile agricultival soils. The project site is rather small and the sols are disturbed, therefore, agricultural use of soils is not viable on the subject site. Water to the property is supplied by the Greenport municipal system- The elevation of groundwater beneath the subject site is 0-3 feet above mean sea level (msl) according to the 1995 SCDHS Water Table map. The topographic elevation is. approsmiddy 25 feet above msl. Therefore, the mmhmim depth to groundwater is 22 feet, which provides a sufficient depth for a future pawing lot or other potential commercial Uses. If a parking lot is constructed in the future, storm water would be recharged through the use of dry wells. The subject site is located within the Water Budget Area as mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). The Water Budget Area includes locations where the potential. for large public water supply wells emsts. The subject site is located within the SCD Groundwater Management Zone N and according to the North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM -Northeast, Camp Dresser & McKee, 1983), the area has been significantly impacted by aldicarb (concentrations over 7 ug/1). This should not pose a constraint to site use as public water will be extended to the site. Approximately 0.87 acres of the subject site is developed, comprising 0.6 acre of roads and buildings and approximately 0.27 acres of landscape vegetation such as grasses, shrubs, Norway spin ale. gray birch. The remaining 0.38 acres is densely forested containing species such as sugar maple, sumac, mulberry, common chokecherry, box elder, honeysuckle, and wild rose. Scattered household garbage was also present in this area. The land use in the vicinity of the site is predominantly Hamlet Business (HB) to the north and east, Low density residential (R-40) to the south, and General Business (B) to the west. -The small town character of Southold should be considered if a parking lot is proposed in the fim ire. There may be some conflict pertaining to the loss of aesthetic resources (the forested portion of the land, locate primarily on tam map Lot 24. 1), and the local residential community to the south and southwest. Currently, the forested portion of the site provides a screen for many residents to the activities of the car dealership. The forested portion lies adjacent to ta-. map Lots 17, 18, 19, 25, and 26, where dwelling units already e.Yist. Across Locust Avenue, to the east tax map Lou 35 and 36 have frontage directly opposite of the forested area. The rezoning of the R-40 portion of the site is an inmmm into the neighborhood and should be mitigated through the retention of vegetation, landscape s== -.and maintenance of some setback between the residential and commercial use. Also, if a new pariang lot is used to store dealer cars, site lighting may intrude on the Community during nighttime hours and should be limited to reduce potential impact- • Mullen Change of Zone EAF Review In summary, there is limited potential impact by changing the zoning of tax map Lot 22.1 from Hamlet Business to General Business which can be minimized through setbacks, lands capingrestrictions, and proper site lighting planning. The primary concern is the potential land use disparity and loss Of aesthetic resources, in the residential area south of the Main Road. If the Town is favorable to this zone change there are some common mitigation practices recommended. First, an adequate buffer should be maintained between proposed site use and e.-ristiing residences. Also the use of evergreen vegetation (for example Norway spruce, which is already present on the parcel) for lands mg Purposes would create a screen, even �P �g winter months. Finally; lighting restrictions should be considered in order to reduce intrusion in the neighborhood. If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to call. . Very truly , Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Nelson. Pope & Voorhis, LLC enc: Long EAF Parts I & H Mullen Motors @ Southold Change Of Zone Application Southold, New York Town of Southold Project Description: This project involves a change of zow from Hamlet Business (HB) on tax map Lot 22.1 and Low Density Residential (R-40) on tax map Lot 24.1 to General Business (B). Lot 22.1 already has 5 =sting structures that are collectively known as "Colonial Commons". Lot 24.1 is c urreatlp vacant and is serving as overflow parking for the stores on Lot 22.1. The total acreage of the project is 1.2484 acres. The subject site has approxim2t6iy 199-fwt of frontage along the south side of NYS Route 25 and appmsnately 285 feet along the west side of Locust Avenue in Southold Due to the uncertainty of future land use on this property, flys LEAF was completed. considering only the zone change_ If any new structures are proposed on the project site in the firtcme, a new LEAF should be fled containing specific site plan information for use and evaluation by the lead agency in issuing a determination of significance. • 617.21 • Appendix A State Environmental Duality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM 'SEER Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project sf nfficant The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent - or action may oe g ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may 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 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 -r 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 imoact is actually important DE T ERMINA T 1ON OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions identify the ?ortions of EAF comoieted for this project: C, Part 1 0 Part 2 CPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on ;his i:,.\F (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supoorting information, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact., it is reasonably determined by the lead agency :hat: The project will not result in any lar;e and important impact(s) and, therefore. is one which will not nave a significant impact on the environment therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. O 3. Although the rroject 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 ne;ative declaration will be prepared.' C3 C. The project may result in one or more large and imoortant 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 C '`�/^ — `'• ,r. ti i. }� 7 - y i^ 1(',t` r: Mtn•. Name of Action Name of Lead agency Print or r yce Name of Resconsibie Officer in Lead Agenct Title of Responsible Officer :igna-vire of Responsible Officer in Le_a Agenc/=ignarure of Precarer(it different from responsibie officers i 1 Cate f 4 PART 1--PROJECTINFOR ATION • Prepared by Project 5 Sor ,NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant eff on the environment. Please complete the entire form. Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be conside as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additic 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 invc new studies. research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spec each instance. NAME OF ACTION acre Richard F. Mullen III & William 3. Mullen Zone Chane Application LOCATION OF ACTION pnctude Street Address, uutnciPatity and County) SCTM Vs 1000-62-3-22.11x24.1 Main Road, Southold, TLf 11971 Town of Southold, Couuc3r of Suffolk NAME OF APPUCANMPONSOR BUSINESS TEL: --PHONE Richard F. Mullen III & William g. Kullen (516),,65-3964 ADDRESS c/o Mullen Motors, Inc. P.O. Bos 1408 - STATE ZIP CODE CrTYlPO - - Southold, rx jR ( 7 NY .11971 BUSINESS i s�<PHONE NAME OF OWNER Of dllfetantl Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. :tatz 15161 ' ADDRESS 23275 Water Circle, Boca Raton, FL 33486 AWA 23275 STATEI ZIP CODE C1TYlPO Ferry Road , Sas; Harbor QTY 11963 (DBK) ' DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Appiican=s request zone change bf subject premises from HB and R- to B co ?erste use of said premises by qullen 'Motors, Inc., an automobile i dealership and se:-;_ce center. I - Please Complete Each Question— Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project. both deveiooed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: `-Urban C; Industrial FuCommercial OResidendal (suburbans CForest C'Agriculture GOther 2. Total acreage of project area: • 768/1 acres. APPROXLNtATE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orc;:ards. cropland. pasture. etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per .articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface area Unvegetated (Rock. earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other Paved surfaces Other (indicate typel =``'' PRESENTLY acres �- acres =Rural (non-fz AFTER COMPLETiOr acre .) acre - acres acre acres acre acres acr= acres aDDros acres acres J - acre acre acr e 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on oroject site? -cf. i �'"' a. Soil drainage: MWeil drained 00 % of site Clvtoderately well drained % of site CPooriy drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involver. how manv acres of soil are classified :vtthin soil group 1 through •t of the Land Classification System? _ acres. (See 1 ,NYCRR 3701. NIA -1 Are there bedrocc outcr000ings on _retett site? =Yes No a. What is depth to bedrock? 4M. tin feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer?Yes . ZINo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 0Yes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? (]Yes ®No According to N P 11 tU-SPGCT7 QU Identify each species 12. Are. there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) GYes ENO Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation, area? GYes ENO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? GYes G�No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or c :ntiguous to project area: a. Name zone 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? GYes QNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) IMYes CNo ❑Yes eNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and 1viarkes Lav, Article 25 -AA. Section 303 and 304?• =Yes 'riNo 19. Is the site located in or ;ubstantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 3 of the ECL, and 6 NYCR.R 6M [Yes SNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the diseosal of solid or hazardous wastes? GYes �;"No E3. Project Description - no immediate changes to site, see attached sheet -Informational i 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initially: acres uitimateiy. c. Project acreage to remain undeve±oeed acres. d. Length of project. in miles: (If aporooriate) e. If the project is an -ispansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 4a. f. ,Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed a ,Maximum vehicular taps generated oer hour (upon comoietion of project;? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: Cne Famiiv Two Family-Multioie Family C--ndcminium Initially 1"Itimateiv i. Dimensions lin feetl ci largest pr-oseo strucarre neighr- wictn: j. Linear fe-.of fronta� along -a a uhiic._srcroughiare :rrse^_ w1il cc=;;c:..s; a ength. Approximate percentage of proed project site with slopes: K10-10% so 010-15','0 (]154'0 or greater "a t 6. Is proiec. substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or distric., listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? ❑Yes R 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ❑Yes ;QNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? = — (in feet) unknown -water provided by Greenport municipa_ 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer?Yes . ZINo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 0Yes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? (]Yes ®No According to N P 11 tU-SPGCT7 QU Identify each species 12. Are. there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) GYes ENO Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation, area? GYes ENO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? GYes G�No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or c :ntiguous to project area: a. Name zone 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? GYes QNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? b. Size (In acres) IMYes CNo ❑Yes eNo 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and 1viarkes Lav, Article 25 -AA. Section 303 and 304?• =Yes 'riNo 19. Is the site located in or ;ubstantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 3 of the ECL, and 6 NYCR.R 6M [Yes SNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the diseosal of solid or hazardous wastes? GYes �;"No E3. Project Description - no immediate changes to site, see attached sheet -Informational i 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initially: acres uitimateiy. c. Project acreage to remain undeve±oeed acres. d. Length of project. in miles: (If aporooriate) e. If the project is an -ispansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed 4a. f. ,Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed a ,Maximum vehicular taps generated oer hour (upon comoietion of project;? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: Cne Famiiv Two Family-Multioie Family C--ndcminium Initially 1"Itimateiv i. Dimensions lin feetl ci largest pr-oseo strucarre neighr- wictn: j. Linear fe-.of fronta� along -a a uhiic._srcroughiare :rrse^_ w1il cc=;;c:..s; a ength. .. �, Howmuch natural material (i.e., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? tonslcubic yards -* 3, bVill disturbed areas be reclaimed? X ONO CNIA ? <=-- !SSC 14"r /dr�!►SC�(.o/1V/ a. If yes, for what intend_.: purpose is the site being reclaimed. b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? CYes ONO /7774 c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? CYes ONO �tJCT CA:Cc.''tl °'r5 AMC -t. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? CYes XNo 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi -phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated - (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). year. c. Approximate completion date of final phase month _ d. Is phase 1 functionally• dependent on subsequent phases? CYes ONO 8, Will blasting occur during construction? CYes° 3�17MY 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? CYes Flo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? CYes XN o a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged Yps ONO Type r"—r?�o.,+� •,s-•.�Z rR(� P��;� 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved.? ,� 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? CYes No Expiain;y If e 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? s ° 16. Will the project generate solid waste? CYes 'L O a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes. will an existing solid waste facility be used? CYes ONO location c. If yes, give name ry landfill? CYes .'No d. Will any wastes not go inco a sewage disposal system or into a sanita e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? CYes Io - • • a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? CYes X° 19. WillP roject routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? CYes rl° 20, Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? CYes ° ?1. Will project result in an increase in energy use? CYes N0 ! '� ,\ r If yes , indicate type(s) r 1 n/1�' allonsiminute. =. If water supply is from •veils, indicate pumping��apacity g water usage per days -. gailonsiday. __. Total anticipated' Does :,roject :nvoive Local. =tate or Federal funding? CYes ° J Yes. explain 3. Approvals Required: . Submittal i ; Type Date :_;cAt.rr•. E*4Y- Town,4:iilage Board Yes ONO �11� t,��F- oP c�.r'► nr— W / 7 ' r Town. %L4llase PlanningBoard /e City, Town Zoning Board OYes ONO City, County Health Department OYes ONO Other Local Agencies vYes ONO Other Regional Agencies OYes ONO State Agencies OYes ONo Federal Agencies OYes ONO C. Zoning and Planning information 1 . Does proposed -action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ONO ? If Yes. indic4te decision. required. Qzoning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit Osubdivision Osite plan Onew/revision of master plan Oresource management plan Uother �nPr; a 1 alwdenti n„ 2. What is the zoning ciassification(s)of the site? HB and R-40 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? conctr-art;nn of three (3) addirional ginala family dw-Pl-lllingg Or traranr R-40 int- 4. nt•t. What is the proposed zoning of the site? General Rusinpgg �;grr;rr 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? no additional development planned with the exception of oossible improvement of o. Is the proposed actio coonsis lot on he recommenced uses in adopted local land use pians? r - i . What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a 1A mile radius of proposed action? General 3us; _ness Distr.ct Hamlet Business District, R-40 District 3. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoin ingjsurrounding land uses within a % mile? :c7Yes C ?. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? n/a a. what is the minimum lot size pr000sed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorizations) for the formation of sewer or water districts? vYes 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, po fire protection)? vYes ENO a. if yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? vYes ONO 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above ocesent levels? vYes . a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? vYes ENO - D. Informational Details Attach anv additional information as may be needed to clarify your proiect. if there are or may be anv adv impacts associated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures •.vnich you propose to mitigat avoid them. See attached. E Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my -knowledge. AopiicantlSoonsor Nameg_ ? c�lar� - Vii 1 7a" TTT a T , j{ %t„ 7 Date �:, " Z CI ! Signature�� .% T ' »(i�. , r /. /•t'�me CACI • ca YµS If the action is in the Coasul area. and pau are a state agencce. compiete the Coastal assessment Form before protea with this zssessntessL Part* -PROJECT IMPACTS AND THE*MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential. Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The. number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • In identifying .impacts, consider long term, short term and cumiative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 20 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of'the Impact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If Impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. Identifying that an impact 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. e. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. f. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in 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. IMPACT ON LAND 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to .th project site? NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15°x6 or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. • Construction in a designated floodway. • Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect to any unique or unusual land forms found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)QNO OYES • Specific land forms: L 1 Small to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 No ❑ ❑ Ci- Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C3 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON WATER 3. Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmental Consery t' Law, ECL) ;rO OYES 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. • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. • Other impacts: 4. Will proposed action affect any non -protected existing new body of water? (N0 OYES Examples that would 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. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. • Other impacts: 5. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater / quality or quantity? O OYES 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 will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. • Other impacts: 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns or or surface � water runoff? 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would change flood water.fiows. 7 1 Smal� Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be' Mitigated By Project Change ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ Cl ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ 11 Yes El No ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Cl ❑ ❑Yes 11 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ []Yes* 0 N ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 7 N ❑ ❑ ❑Yes E-1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N Cl ❑ ❑Yes 7 N ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ r__1 Yes ❑No • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality?O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will -induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endanto d species? ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non -threatened or non -endangered species? 0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land ressourpes? COO ❑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.) 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ [--]Yes C1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑Yes El No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Cl ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ -DYes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ LJYes ❑No • 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 Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • 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: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources? ONO OYES (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. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant screening of scenic views known to be important to.the area. • Other impacts: 1 i n'SYLiSi o n C 3,el''C 1 �Jh mi T'IJa-:e�, IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of his�ric, pre- historic or paleontological importance? 2NO DYES 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. • Other impacts: 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 @40 CIYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. • A major reduction of an open space important to the community. • Other impacts: M All to Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ C1 Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ []Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑� ❑ 0 N ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C-1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ r []Yes []No ❑ ❑ []Yes []No UPACT ON CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS 14. Will. Proposed Action impact the exceptional or unique character- istics of a critical environmental area (CEA) established d¢ursu�YES t to subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.14(0) ? �((yyO List the environmental_characteristics that caused the designation of the CEA. Examples that would apply to column 2 • ProposedAction 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: IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION 15. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? LYES Examples that would apply to coiumn 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. • Other impacts: 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change IMPACT ON ENERGY 16. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO LYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 546 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: 10 Cl ❑ ❑Yes (D No ❑ Cl []Yes []No [1 ❑ ❑Yes ONO ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑Yes ONo O ❑ !JYes ❑ []Yes ONO _ _ rYes ❑ ❑Yes No [j ❑ 0 -Yes ONO O ❑ !JYes ONO ❑ []Yes ONo _ _ rYes ONo NOISE AND A IMPACTS 17. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration/as a result of the Proposed Action? Gj.NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 18. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safe2/0 OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • 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 low 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 liquified natural gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. • Other impacts: IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 19. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing ommunity? NO DYES 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.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. • Other impacts: 1 Small ,o Moderate Impact 2 Potential Large Impact 3 Can Impact Be Mitigated By Project Change ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C1 No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes L7 NO ❑ ❑ Dyes D. No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ 11 Yes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No J ❑ 11 Yes ❑No J n ❑Yes [:'No J Cl ❑Yes -:!No J ❑ ❑Yes []No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 0 N 20. Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impa ONO 12YES If any action in Part 2 Is idsaBHadaa-a pohmai lags iiaipaet or if ym cumOtdataradoa *6 arab of 10113act, ptocsad to Part 3 11 Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 • July 21, 1997 Re: Counter Zone variance Richard F. Mullen III and William Mullen Zone Change Applicat-fon To Southold Town Board, This is a counter zone application filed against the June 4, 1997 Mullen Motors' change of zone application for Locust Lane and Main Road. Locust Lane is a residential area and our. property values and quality of life are threatened by this down -zoning request. In total disregard of the N.V.P. advisory report, the wooded buffer zone has been deliberately, prematurely and presumptuously removed. This action further exposes us to the disruptive commercial activities from Seven -Eleven, Colonial Corners, and Mullen Motors and should not be rewarded. We ask the Town Board to reject this down -zoning application. Over the years, the residents of the Founders Landing area have been so very tolerant and accomodating of Mullen Motors' intrusion into the quality of our lives: -Depreciation of property values -Unloading cars onto residential streets -Car alarms -Blocking driveways -Obstructing area access to main road thoroughfare -Toxic smells -Constant routing of 8 -wheeler delivery trucks through residential streets � �. � _ _ �,- -. . � � - � `,}1_, .t It . !�._'' _ moi+ . _,y;� � �./r.^ AJ t .� �� ,�� . - ;;,;� _��. r �� , y t . `. �, _� � � ;� ��} .f. �� t , � � � - � :�. r � ' - � l , � _ �� +f ' r ' f - ` ,� - �- . -� r - - - � 11 ,y( �y ' ai. - ��. �1� 1 [" ZVL.� � . =�� .� • JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER 4'�00'1111FF01Ir y� O C* Z o -*1 • o�� OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 11, 1997 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Richard F. Mullen III and William H. Mullen for a change of zone on certain property located on the south side NYS Route 25 and west side of Locust Avenue, Southold, N.Y. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommendation, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Attachments cc: Jennifer B. Gould, Esq. ��►;' 13 1997 ' TOWN BOARD JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER �o��g�fFO��coG COD Z oA • OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 10, 1997 Lead Agency Coordinator Request Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6NYCRR 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 which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and a complete Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: Richard F. Mullen III and William H. Mullen Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone from Hamlet Business (HB) District and Low Density Residential (R-40) District to General Business (B) District on certain property located on the south side of NYS Route 25 and west side of Locust Avenue, Southold, N.Y. SEQRA Classification: Type I Contact Person: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Page 2. Aclency Position: The Southold Town Board wishes to assume lead agency status for .this action. Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry 0 Southold Town Clerk Attachments Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Cahill, NYS-DEC, Albany Robert Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook Southold Town Planning Boardl/' Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health SErvices Jennifer Gould, Esq. for the applicants (without attachments) Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) • • RECEIVED PETITION NO. JUN 5 1997 PETITION STATE OF NEW YORK Southold Town Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF RICHARD F. MULLEN III and WILLIAM 9. MULLEN FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDING ZONE ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: Richard. Mullen III and 1. ,We, William H. Mullen , residing at r10 Mul1an Mntnrc P_n_Rnx 1AW Petitioner Southold, NY 11971 Suffolk County, New York, the undersigned, nares the ter- of certain real property are contract vendees situated at Main Road, Southold, NY , and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Property is presently owned by Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz. SCTM Vs 1000-062.00-03.00-022.001 & 024.001. See attached Schedule A for metes and bounds description of premises. 2. We do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: change of zone of the above described premises from Hamlet Business District (HB) and R-40 district to General Business District (B) 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: Change of zone to General Business District (B) with Special Exception would permit use of premises by Mullen Motors, Inc., an automobile dealership and service center, which presently operates on an adjacent parcel. Richard F. Mullen, III Signature William A. Mullen STATE OF NEW YORK)ss: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Richard F. Mullen III and William V. Mullen BEING DULY SWORN, deposes and says that we In A uQ- that he has read e foregoing Petition and the r w + the he as petition 'in the within action; knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to OLS his (hF*r) own knowledge, except as to the matter therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters he believe$ it to be true. Signature Sworn to before me this 2 day of �Ju kw— 199-7 ota�y. P ublic JENNIFER S. GOULD Notary I'u-', auto of New Yak No. 62GO5024640 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires March 14. 199 SCHEDULE A ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Southold, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of: New York, known and designated on a diagram of lots belonging to Jane A. Cochran, dated October 1867 and duly filed in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk as Lots 1 & 2 and lots 26, 27 & 28 and described property, more particularly bounded and described as follows: BEGINNING at a point at the intersection formed by the southerly line of Main Road (NYS Rt. 25) and the westerly line of Locust Avenue; RUNNING THENCE from said point and place of beginning along the westerly line of Locust Avenue South 22 degrees 21 minutes 20 seconds East a distance of 285.39 feet to a point and the northerly line of lands now or formerly 'of David & ,Janice J. Szczesny; TIIENCE along said lands of David & Janice J. Szczesny and lands now or formerly of William Corbett South 73 degrees 21 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 162.66 feet to a point and lands now or formerly of Barbara S. Adams; THENCE along said lands of Barbara S. Adams and lands now or formerly of Richard F. Mullen, Jr. North 17 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 48.95 feet to a point; THENCE North 18 degrees 05 minutes 50 seconds West a distance of 109.47 feet to a point; THENCE South 71 degrees 55 minutes 40 seconds West a distance of 59.69 feet to a point; THENCE North 15 degrees 32 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 171.74 feet to a point and the southerly line of Main Road (NYS Rt 25); THENCE along the southerly line of Main Road (NYS Rt 25) North 87 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 100.00 feet to a point; THENCE North 85 degrees 37 minutes 00 seconds East a distance of 98.92 feet to the point and place of BEGINNING: 14-16-2 (2/87)-7c 617.21 SEAR Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may 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 to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially - large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially -large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: ❑ Part 1 ❑ Part 2 OPart 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 magitude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: ❑ A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. O 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.` O C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. " A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Name of Action Name of Lead Agency Print or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) Date 1 -i PART 1—PROJECT INFOR#TION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effec', on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be consideree as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION 11.. TTT f_ 7.74114..... n M-11 7--- rl}» n Annl4r.at4nn LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address, Municipality and County) SCTM Vs 1000-62-3-22.1&24.1 Main Road, Southold, NY 11971 Town of Southold, County of Suffolk NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE Richard F. Mullen III & William V. Mullen (516)765-3564 516)– ADDRESS ADDRESS acres c/o Mullen Motors, Inc. P.O. Box 1408 acres CITY/PO acres STATE ZIP CODE Southold, acres 11971 NAME OF OWNER (If different) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Albert W. Albertson, Jr. and Donald B. Katz (516) ADDRESS 23275 Water Circle, Boca Raton FL 33486 AWA CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE Ferry Road , Sag Harbor ,NY 11963 DBK DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Applicants request zone change of subject premises from HB and R-40 to B to permit use of said premises by Mullen Motors, Inc., an automobile dealership and service center. Please Complete Each Question— Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ❑Urban ❑Industrial KlCommercial ❑Residential (suburban) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 1.2484 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate type) ❑Rural (non-farm PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres acres approx .9 acres _ 9 acres acres acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? asphalt, gravel and to soil a. Soil drainage: QWell drained 1_0— % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly 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 NYE Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? a. What is depth to bedrock? []Yes ®No _ (in feet) 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 80-10% 0 /o ❑10-15% % 015% or greater % 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes EINo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? Dyes AQNo 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) unknown —water provided by Greenport municipality 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? Dyes :E1No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Dyes Ek4o 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes ®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) Dyes ®No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation' area? Dyes ®No If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes No 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: non 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 none b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? aYes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? X❑Yes ❑No b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? Dyes ®No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25 -AA, Section 303 and 304?' Dyes CRNo 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 617? Dyes ®No 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes ONo B. Project Description - no immediate changes to site, see attached sheet—Informational Detaile 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: acres initially; acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure height; width; length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? ft. 3 2. How much natural materia., rock, earth, etc.) will be removed froae site? tons/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? OYes ONo ❑N/A a. If yes, for what intend..,: purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes ONo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally -important vegetation be removed by this project? OYes ONo - 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, (including demolition). 7. If multi -phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? OYes ONo 8. Will blasting occur during construction? OYes ONo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? OYes ONo If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ONo 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? OYes ONo Type 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? OYes ONo Pv�lni� r ... 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? OYes 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ❑Yes ONo a. If yes, what is the amount per month tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? OYes ONo c. If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? OYes ONo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes ONo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? OYes ONo ❑No OYes ❑No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? OYes ONo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? OYes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? OYes ONo If Yes, explain 4 25. Approvals Required: ! Submittal Type Date City, Town, Village Board OYes ONo City, Town, Village Planning Board OYes ONo City, Town Zoning Board OYes ONo City, County Health Department OYes ONo Other Local Agencies OYes ONo Other Regional Agencies OYes ONo State Agencies OYes ONo Federal Agencies OYes ONo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? ®Yes ONo _ If Yes, indicate decision required: (2zoning amendment ❑zoning variance ❑special use permit ❑subdivision❑site plan ❑new/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan f]other special a 2. What is the zoning class ification(s)of the site? HB and R-40 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? construction of three (3) additional sin„gla family d_ww11inga on vacant R -4n 1etc 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? General Business District 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? % a,, ; ? no additional development planned with the exception of possible improvement of 6. Is the propose ac ion conn tent on vacant recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? A]Yes ❑Nc 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a Y. mile radius of proposed action? General Business District, Hamlet Business District, R-40 District 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/, mile? Eyes ONo 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? 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? OYes 11K]No 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? OYes ®No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? OYes ONo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? OYes @No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? OYes ❑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 them. See attached. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. / Applicant/Sponsor Name Rirhard F_ Mnllnn TTT C, William 6 X. Mrnllan Date -Z—cl 7 Signature�.�L�a.b� " /'�tu_(.�•3 �` �� "tAr%—Tttle QA21, (Q Al S If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 9 Addendum to Full Environmental Assessment Form - Application of Richard F. Mullen, III and William F. Mullen's Application for Zone Change (SCTM #'s 1000-62-3-22.1 &24.1) D. Informational Details As stated in their petition, applicants seek a zone change from HB and R-40 Districts to B District in order to permit use of the subject premises by Mullen Motors, Inc., an automobile dealership and service center, presently operating on adjoining premises. Applicants have no plans to change the configuration of existing buildings on the site. In the future, Mullen Motors may use one or more of the buildings on tax map lot 22.1 (commonly known as "Colonial Corners") as additional office space for its sales, clerical and inventory control operations. The subject premises also includes vacant land, identified on the tax map as lot 24.1. While the existing zoning of this lot is R-40, the property has been used as an overflow parking lot for Colonial Corners patrons and employees for many years. In the future, Mullen Motors may seek to screen and improve the parking facilities on this lot. � �— - ■ �-� � � — M rs r,� mal h 0 0 11 -4M MV loop 17; ioll WAO AN IN 9" , � r