Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6976 4 CHECK BOXES AS COMPLETED G� . ( ) Tape this form to outside of file ( )"Pull ZBA copy of ND c> o a � ( ) Check file boxes for CD CL CL ( ) Assign next number S" CO) w outside of file folder o ( ) Date stamp entire o file number 3 X 0 0 0 GD o Hole punch entire o �' z zr � ' ( ) o 0 0 (before sending to T CL C ( ) Create new index c� z ( •) Print contact info & < =r Q t ) Prepare transmittal CD ( .1 Send priginal appfic2. N .A to Town Clerk et cazt ( ) Note inside file folc Cr and tape to inside c' 0 � V. Q A ( ) Copy County Tax IV. .n Neighbors and AG ' ( } Make 7 copies and ( } Do mailing label CO �j 0,� i t of 9300 iV. 9--v /Y14,41 lk:�k ace of ro&m bpAzh 'p do 6 ' Pc� I�� J�� e�ct��. r�-1r �d � oxo ti BOARD MEMBERS ®��OF SO(/�yol Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer G Q Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning �p �O 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider Cum Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS R CEIVE® TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 EC - 2 2016 FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 1,2016 S thold Town Clerk ZBA FILE: #6976, Code Interpretation NAME OF APPLICANT: Southold Town Planning Board PROPERTY LOCATION: 9300 NYS Route 25, Mattituck,NY SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property, located on the south side of Main Road (NYS Route 25) is a conforming 20.8 acre vacant residential parcel located in the R- 80 Zoning District. The subject property has 600.96 feet of frontage along NYS Route 25 and measures 1,964.93 feet along the easterly property line, adjacent to residential properties. The subject property measures 1,487.19 feet along the westerly property line and 577.68 feet along the southerly property line, both boundaries being adjacent to a horse farm. BASIS OF APPLICATION: The Southold Town Planning Board has requested that the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals make a determination, pursuant to Article XXVI, § 280-146 (D)(1) of the Town Code, as to whether the use set forth in the Site Plan Application of Sports East, as applied for, meets the definition of a"Club, Membership, Country or Golf' as defined in § 280-4 Definitions of the Town Code or whether the proposed project meets the definition of a different use, such as a"Recreational Facility" or a"Commercial Recreational Facility". BACKGROUND: The Board of Appeals received a memorandum dated May 31, 2016 from Southold Town Planning Director, Heather Lanza, written on behalf of the Planning Board, related to an application that was pending before the Planning Board in which the applicant, Sports East, was seeking site plan approval for an"Annual Membership Club" for property located at 9300 New York State Route 25 in Mattituck(hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"). The subject property is located in an R-80 Residential Zoning District which allows "Annual Membership Clubs" by Special Exception Permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals, while a"Recreational Facility" or a"Commercial Recreational Facility" are not permitted uses in the R-80 Zoning District. Section 280-4 of the Town Code provides the following definitions: "Club, Membership or Country or Golf' - an entity established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, Page 2,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities, but not including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or motorboat racing. "Recreational Facilities"- Recreational uses characterized by predominately outdoor activities by patrons, including but not limited to stables and riding academies, regulation golf courses and golf-related activities, tennis and racquet sport clubs, platform sports, baseball batting and pitching cages and swimming pool facilities. It shall not include such activities as racing,jai alai and amusements parks. "Recreational Facility, Commercial" -An indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving playing fields, courts, arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational activities, such as billiards, bowling, dance halls, gymnasiums, health spas, skating rinks, shooting ranges, tennis courts and swimming pools In addition to the above-referenced application before the Planning Board, Sports East had previously made an application to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a Special Exception Permit (ZBA# 6914 SE) as required pursuant to § 280- 13 (13)(7), for an"Annual Membership Club" that is proposed to be located in an R-80 Residential Zoning District. This Board conducted a public hearing on that application on February 4, 2016 which was adjourned without a date subject to a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board, who assumed lead agency. Several months after the public hearing for the Special Exception Permit was held, Sports East completed its application to the Planning Board for site plan approval. Upon receipt of a completed application for site plan approval,the Planning Board scheduled and then held a public hearing on the site plan application on May 2, 2016. At a Planning Board work session prior to a Regular Meeting, the Planning Board indicated that it was going to issue a"positive declaration" for the project under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) as lead agency. At the Regular Meeting that followed, and subsequent to the Planning Board's request to this Board on May 31, 2016 for the aforementioned code interpretation, Sports East formally, on the record, withdrew its application for site plan approval, and the resolution adopting the positive declaration was not acted on by the Planning Board. The applicant did not withdraw his application for a Special Exception Permit, still pending before this Board. However, this Board is legally prohibited from rendering a final determination on the latter application without the Planning Board's SEQRA determination. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Sports East has proposed a multi-sport membership club on a 20.8 acre parcel in the R-80 Zoning District consisting of an outdoor 330 ft. x 195 ft. synthetic soccer field, five outdoor tennis courts, 240 parking spaces and an 82,500 square foot two story building, as shown on a"sketch plan"by BBV Civil Engineers, Surveyors, Planners, dated November 16, 2015. Proposed activities inside the building include a soccer field, four tennis courts, a 5,000 square foot gym, locker rooms, bathrooms and showers, a multi-use volley/basketball court, a rock wall, 2 classrooms for exercise classes, a kitchen, a 32-seat food Page 3,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 service area, a pro shop, storage and 3 offices, and pre and after school child care for the children of members. PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS: On October 6, 2016 the Board of Appeals held a public hearing to take testimony and other evidence related to the Planning Board's request for an interpretation as to whether the use as proposed by the applicant constituted a"Membership Club" as defined by section 280-4 of the Town Code. The Board first heard testimony from Sports East and its representatives and then from the members of the public. At the beginning of the hearing,the Chairperson of the Board read a description of the proposed project including an 82,500 square foot 2 story building. When asked for confirmation that this description was accurate, Paul Pawlowski, a principal of Sports East, stated that the application before the Planning Board was now for a single story 140,000 square foot building. Sports East, in support of its position that the proposed development met the definition of a "Membership Club"presented Joseph Pfaff,the general manager of Laurel Links Country Club and Fred Markham a real estate agent with Daniel Gale Sotheby in Cutchogue. Mr. Pfaff testified that Laurel Links received a Special Exception Permit from this Board that, in addition to the outdoor golf course, outdoor tennis court, and outdoor pool, included the country club building that contains a dining facility, locker rooms, pro shop and a pool house. Mr. Pfaff further opined that the proposed Sports East development was a use "very similar" to that of Laurel Links. Mr. Markham stated that he has followed this project for some time and to his knowledge there are no parcels located in a business district for sale within the Town of Southold that,could accommodate the uses proposed by Sports East. Paul Pawlowski also spoke on behalf of Sports East. Much of the testimony by Mr. Pawlowski did not address the issue of whether the proposed use met the definition of a"Membership Club." Rather, Mr. Pawlowski spoke of the process Sports East had engaged in and the merits and impacts of the proposed development. Mr. Pawlowski started his testimony by stating that he believed the role of the Zoning Board of Appeals was to improve the quality of life of the community, and that the Board could do so by determining that the project met the definition of a "Membership Club." Next, Mr. Pawlowski discussed his meeting with the Building Department and Planning Department staff and the process of going through the public hearings before this Board and the Planning Board. Mr. Pawlowski then discussed the merits of the application, stating that the project would not require any variances, and includes proposed buffers from residential properties, drainage that will prevent runoff, and a state of the art efficient septic system. Moreover,the project would encourage families to remain in the area; was consistent with the Town's Draft Comprehensive Plan, and was approved by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The only statement by Mr. Pawlowski that addressed whether the project, as proposed, met the definition of a"Membership Club"was his belief that since most of the sports proposed to be played indoors could also be played outdoors, the project satisfied the definition of a"Membership Club." Page 4,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 Many members of the public also spoke with regard to the project. Most, with few exceptions, addressed the merits or potential adverse impacts of the project instead of whether the application, as proposed, met the definition of a"Membership Club." Those who spoke in favor of the proposed project expressed the belief that there is a great need in the Town of Southold for the type of year `round sports activities being proposed by Sports East, especially for young people and seniors. Those who spoke in opposition to the project were concerned about the detrimental impacts of traffic, noise, and other problems a facility of this size would pose to the surrounding area. Charles Cuddy, Esq., attorney for Sports East, spoke at various times throughout the hearing. Initially, Mr. Cuddy argued that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to make the requested determination. With regard to whether the use as proposed met the definition of a"Membership Club,"Mr. Cuddy's argument to the Board did not focus on the various definitions in the code. Rather, Mr. Cuddy focused on the various use regulations for different zoning districts and essentially argued that based on the use regulations, the use as proposed would not be allowed in other zoning districts that allow"Recreational Facilities" or"Commercial Recreational Facilities." He also opined that there were insufficient lots available in other zoning districts to accommodate the project as proposed. Mr. Cuddy argued that the proposed use was a hybrid, combining activities that are included in what the Town Code defines as a"Membership Club," and what is allowed in the zoning districts that permit"Recreational Facilities," or"Commercial Recreational Facilities." Therefore, he concluded that the Board should find that the proposed use meets the definition of a"Membership Club." WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION: The Board also received numerous letters from the public, both in support and in opposition to the proposed project, At the end of the public hearing on October 6, 2016, the Board adjourned to the Special Meeting on October 20, 2016 to accept additional written comments from the public and applicant, at which time the hearing was closed. These letters are part of the Board's public record and, much like the verbal testimony described above, reflected support or opposition while failing to address the code interpretation that is the subject of this determination. LEGISLATIVE INTENT: The Board of Appeals reviewed the transcripts of the Southold Town Board's public hearings on November 24, 1998, and December 8, 1998, in relation to amendments to the definition of"Club, Membership or Country or Golf Course."No comments from the public or Board members are on record. The preamble states "WHEREAS the intent of the local law is to permit any entity,not just a not-for-profit corporation to own/operate a golf club and to remove pubic golf courses as a permitted use (by special exception)." Local Law No. 26-1998, amending Article I, Section 100-3 (Definitions) and Article III Section 100-31 (Use Regulations) accordingly, was adopted by unanimous resolution of the Town Board on December 8, 1998. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION 1. The limited issue before this Board is the Planning Board's request for a determination as to whether the use proposed by Sports East meets the definition of a"Club, Page 5,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 Membership or Country or Golf' as set forth in section 280-4 of the Town Code. Whether the Board agrees that the proposed use would be a benefit to the community or that the proposed use might have negative impacts on the community is irrelevant to the issue before the Board and cannot play a role in the determination ultimately made by this Board. 2. The Board received passionate testimony and written comments from the public both in support and in opposition to the proposed use. As stated above, most of the testimony and letters from the public in support of the proposed use focused on the need for such a facility in the Town of Southold and how it would be a benefit to the community. Those in opposition spoke of their concerns that the project would have a negative impact on the surrounding residential properties and on traffic in the area. Although this type of testimony would be persuasive in the Board's determination as to whether or not to grant a Special Exception Permit, it did little to address the limited issue before the Board in this code interpretation. 3. The testimony of those representing and appearing on behalf of Sports East also in large part failed to address the issue before the Board. Mr. Markham, a real estate agent, testified that, to his knowledge, there are no parcels within the Town of Southold in a business district that could accommodate the proposed use. However, he failed to address the issue before the Board. While such testimony may be persuasive in deciding whether a hardship use variance should be granted or whether the zoning of a certain parcel should be changed, it is irrelevant as to the limited issue of whether the proposed use meets the definition of a"Membership Club" as currently defined in the Town Code. Similarly, Mr. Pawlowski's testimony, although relevant as to a whether a Special Exception Permit should be granted or to a Board charged with making a SEQRA determination, was largely irrelevant as to the issue before this Board. The only relevant testimony offered by Mr. Pawlowski was that since the sports that were going to be played inside could also be played outside, the use should be considered a"Membership Club." 4. Mr. Pfaff, the general manager of Laurel Links Country Club, also testified on behalf of Sports East. His relevant testimony was that he believed the use proposed by Sports East was similar to that of the Laurel Links Country Club, and therefore the proposed use should be considered a"Membership Club." The Board finds this comparison unpersuasive. According to Town records, Laurel Links Country Club is located on a 154 acre parcel, the vast majority of which is dedicated to engaging in the sport of golf. Although the country club does have an accessory pool and tennis courts,they are also located outside. The country club does have a club house for accessory uses such as a dining facility, pro shop and locker rooms as well as a pool house. The remaining accessory structures are used for storage and maintenance equipment. However, the total square footage of all of the accessory buildings pales in comparison to the area used for golf. Furthermore, given the overall layout of the country club property and the activities conducted thereon, it is clear the Laurel Links Country Club is an entity established for the principal purpose of engaging in the outdoor sport of golf. 5. The same cannot be said of the use proposed by Sports East to build 5 outdoor tennis courts and an outdoor soccer field. A regulation tennis court is 78 feet long and 36 feet wide for a total square footage of 2,808 square feet and therefore five tennis courts would Page 6,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 cover 14,040 square feet. The average size of a soccer field is 54,000 square feet. Therefore, the Sports East proposal dedicates 68, 040 square feet for the playing of sports outside and, according to the testimony of Mr. Pawlowski, proposes 140,000 square feet for indoor activities, which is more than twice the size of the area dedicated to outdoor sports. (The site plan application originally submitted to the Planning Board and the Special Exception Permit application submitted to the ZBA by Sports East proposed an 82,500 sq. ft. building, which is still larger than the area proposed for outdoor sports). The use of the outdoor courts and field will be limited by weather and daylight, while the indoor facility will be able to be used in all weather and at night. Additionally, while the outdoor activities will be limited to tennis and soccer, the vast majority of the activities proposed to be taking place at Sports East would occur inside the building, according to the applicant's testimony and architectural plans Based on the foregoing, it cannot be determined that the use proposed by Sports East is one that is being established for the "principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities." In fact, Sports East conceded as much at the public hearing and described its proposed use as a"hybrid" of different uses. 6. The Board finds the proposition unpersuasive that the proposed use meets the definition of a"Membership Club" because many of the sports that are proposed to be played indoors could be played outdoors. If the only relevant definition in section 280-4 was "Club, Membership or Country or Golf'that argument may be more compelling. However, when examining the other relevant definitions, "Recreational Facilities" and "Recreational Facility, Commercial"the Board finds that the proposed use more closely meets the definition of a"Recreational Facility, Commercial"rather than a"Club, Membership or Country or Golf."As stated above, a"Recreational Facility, Commercial" is defined as "an indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving playing fields, courts, arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational activities, such as billiards, bowling, dance halls, gymnasiums, health spas, skating rinks, shooting ranges, tennis courts and swimming pools." A "Recreational Facility, Commercial"may contain numerous different activities and there is no requirement to engage primarily in a specific type of sport. This is exactly what Sports East has proposed; a privately owned facility that will contain different fields and courts that will accommodate various sports and recreational activities. 7. Based on the determination made herein,the Board will be unable to approve Sports East's application for a Special Exception Permit as proposed. However, the Board notes that Sports East does have options that it may pursue. Among other things, Sports East may amend its application to meet the definition of a"Membership Club" or it may pursue a change of zone to that of a zoning district that will allow the proposed use. 8. Section 280-146 D)(1) of the Town Code states that the Zoning Board of Appeals may determine the meaning of any provision contained in Chapter 280 upon the request of any Town officer, board or agency. Therefore, the Board finds that, pursuant to Section 280- 146(D)(1), the Board has jurisdiction to make the interpretation requested by the Planning Board as to whether the use proposed by Sports East met the definition of a "Club, Membership or Country or Golf." Page 7,December 1,2016 #6976,Town of Southold Planning Board—(Sports East Fitness Club) SCTM No. 1000-122-7-9 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, motion was offered by Member Weisman (Chairperson), seconded by Member Schneider, and duly carried to determine that: THE USE AS PROPOSED BY SPORTS EAST DOES NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A "CLUB, MEMBERSHIP OR COUNTRY OR GOLF" RATHER; THE PROPOSED USE MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A "RECREATIONAL FACILITY, COMMERCIAL." Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dantes, Horning, Schneider (Member Goehringer re sed). This Resolution was duly adopted(4-0). r Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing /a / /2016 y __ MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ®f S0 P.O.Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSKI ®V� ®�® Southold, NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY G ® Q 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III �®1 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR �`'®U �� Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director Date: August 25, 2016 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9300 Route 25, ±141' s/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 As requested, please let this memorandum serve to reaffirm that although the site plan application was withdrawn on July 11, the Planning Board continues to request a code interpretation of Section 280-13 relating to the proposed application referenced above, and the Special 'Exception use of"annual membership club." Please refer to the Planning Board's memo,of May 31, 2016 for the details of this request. Please call with any questions. Thank you. MAILING ADDRESS:- ANNING BOARD MEMBERS ®a®F ®�� P.O. Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSKI ® ®�® Southold, NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION- WI L-LIAM OCATION:WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY 9z 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR �Ouff E f�� ;' Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED JUN 17 20166 MEMORANDUM ` ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman Members of the Planning Board Date: June 17, 2016 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9300 Route 25, ±141' s/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 \ The Planning Board hereby requests a code interpretation of Section 280-13 relating to the proposed application-referenced above, and the Special Exception use of"annual membership club." Please refer to the Planning Board's memo of May 31, 2016 for the details of this request. Please call with any questions. Thank you. Fuentes, Kim From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Friday,June 17, 2016 3:02 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: RE:ZBA - Sports East memo The Planning Board hereby requests a code interpretation of Section 280-13 relating to the proposed application referenced above, and the Special Exception use of"annual membership club." Please refer to the Planning Board's memo of May 31, 2016 for the details of this request. Please call with any questions. Thank you. From: Fuentes, Kim Sent: Friday,June 17, 2016 2:06 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.nv.us> Subject:ZBA-Sports East memo Hi Heather, Please see attached memo. I will deliver the original hardcopy later today. Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 631-765-1809, Ex.5011 1 J MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ®F S®fjr',VSo P.O. Box 1 179 11971 � ,�VDONALD J.WILCENSKI ®�O Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY G ® Q 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III '�� (cor. Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR COUNTY Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 www.southoldtow-nny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 4 MEMORANDUM MAY To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson ZONING BeAaa Of APp�AtS, Members ofthe Zoning Board of Appeals From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman `�Ji k Members of the Planning Board Date: May 31, 2016 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9300 Route 25, ±141' s/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 The-Planning Board has been reviewing the-Site-Plan-application-referenced-above:On May 2, 2016, the Board conducted the public hearing, and during that hearing heard concerns about whether the use, as proposed, is permitted as a Special Exception on this parcel. The Board would like to avoid having the applicant invest any more funds into this application until that question is answered definitively by the Zoning Board of Appeals. To that end, we would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience. In the Planning Board's record are questions from the public about whether the use, as described by the applicant, is truly a membership club. Several people asked how such an apparently intense commercial use could be allowed in a residential zone, and if the intent of the annual membership club was to allow something like the project being proposed. They also questioned some of the finer points of how the club would work, including whether a day care or childcare was allowed, and whether soccer teams that weren't members would be allowed to play on the fields. For your convenience, we have attached a copy of the draft minutes from the Planning Board's hearing. The Planning Board, after reviewing the Town Code, and various definitions in the"code, questioned whether the use, as proposed, could be considered an annual membership club. They are concerned about tournaments or special events that bring in a lot of non- members as participants and spectators, for example a soccer tournament with teams that aren't members, or a regional tennis tournament with outside teams. Would this then make the facility public and not an annual membership club? Also,-if the public is allowed to,pay for a membership that is less than a full.year (a daily,,weekly or monthly membership), should that be allowed when the use is listed in 280-13 B (7) as an r Southold Town Planning Boarci-' Page 2 May 31, 2016 "annual membership club"? The Town Code sections reviewed by the Board are &- included below. l� § 280-13 B states that a Special Exception use includes: (7) Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs and annual membership clubs and accessory playgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and maintenance buildings catering exclusively to members and their guests, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located within 100 feet of any street line or within 50 feet of any lot line. (b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. (c) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three acres. In § 280-4 Definitions, there is this definition for a membership club: CLUB, MEMBERSHIP OR COUNTRY OR GOLF An entity established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities, but not including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or motorboat racing. There are also in § 280-4 these definitions, neither of which appear as uses permitted in the R-80 zoning-district: RECREATIONAL FACILITIES Recreational uses characterized by predominately outdoor activities by patrons, including but not limited to stables and riding academies, regulation golf courses and golf-related activities, tennis and racquet sport clubs, platform sports, baseball batting and pitching cages and swimming pool facilities. It shall not include such activities as racing, jai alai and amusements parks. RECREATION FACILITY, COMMERCIAL An indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving playing fields, courts, arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational activities, such as billiards, bowling, dance halls, gymnasiums, health spas, skating rinks, shooting ranges, tennis courts and swimming pools. Does the use as proposed meet the definition of a membership club, and fit the described use in 280-13 of an annual membership club? Prior to any further review of this Site Plan application, the Planning Board is requesting this question be answered by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. We look forward to your response. Please call with any questions. Southold Town Planning Board Page 18 May 2, 2016 map entitled "Minor Subdivision of Robert T. Bayley", dated May 20, 1976. The property is located on the.s/s/o Soundview Avenue, 854' w/o.Kenney's Road, Southold. SCTM#1000-59-7-29..5 Chairman Wilcenski: At this time I would like to ask anyone from the audience if they would like to.address the Board, please step to one of the podiums, state your name, speak as you will, direct your comments to the Board and before you leave sign your name on the sheet. .The floor is open to any podium. Anyone? Seeing and hearing none. James H. Rich 111: I make a motion to close the hearing. William Cremers: Second,. Chairman an Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Bill. Any discussion?All in favor? Ayes., Motion carries. Chairman Wilcenski: 6:02 p.m. -'East End Tick & Mosquito Pest Control -This Site Plan is for the proposed conversion.-of an existing building to a single family dwelling with an attached business office with'four(4) parking stalls on 0.25 acres in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District. The property is located at.36570 Route 25, ±420' s/w/o of Skunk Lane & Main Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-97-3-2 Chairman Wilcenski: At this time if anyone would like to address the Board on East End Tick & Mosquito Pest Control please step to one of the podiums, state your name and address the Board. Anyone? Seeing and hearing none. James H. Rich III:'I make a motion to close the hearing. William Cremers: Second'. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim,,seconded by Bill. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Motion carries. Chairman Wilcenski: 6:03 p.m. Sports East Fitness Club -This Site Plan is for a proposed multi-sport membership club consisting of an outdoor soccer field and five (5) tennis courts, a 150' x 550' (82,500 sq. ft.) building to include a pool, basketball court, soccer field and space for physical fitness activities with 224 parking spaces on 20.8 ' Southold Town Planning Board P e 117 May 2, 2016 property is located at 10765 CR 48, 1,400' s1w10 Wick m venue and CR 48, Mattituck. SCTM#1 000-108-1-1.1 Williark Cremers: WHEREA , this oposed gricultural Site afor the proposed c truction of a 120' x 60' (7, 0 q. ft.) fr me barn for agricul al storaDi, e on Su Tol Co ty Development Ri la ; 19.9 acres in the C oning strict; an WHEREAS, the Sou Id wn Planning ard, pur ant to St Environmen� I Quality Review Act SE ) NYCRR, art 617, has\\etermi ed that the prop o d action is a Type 11 ction rsu t to § 7.5(c)(3) and, th\ref e, not subject to revs w, bec use the pro osed cons cti n is or an existing agricu ral site; be it therefore RESOL ED, at the Southold ri Planning Board has ete \ ined that this propo d \ action is a y e Il Action under S as described ab e. \` °l Martin Sid r: econd. Chairm Wilce ki: Motio made by Bill, conde by Martin. Any di us on?All in favor? Ayes. \� \ Moti carries. Will am Cremers: d be it furt r ESOLVED, that e Southold Town Ian ng Board sets o ay, June 6, 2016 at :03 p.m. for a P blic Hearing regar ' the Site Plan sho the survey for TM#1000-10 -1-1.1, prepared by Lis cQuilkin, L.S., da tober 17, 2015 and las evised Ma ch 30, 2016. Martin 'dor Second. Chairman ' censki: Motion mad by Bill, secon ed b Martin. Any di u ion?All in favor? Ayes. \ Motion ca '-ies. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Wilcenski: 6:01 p.m. - Boccio Michael & Jennifer -This proposal is to remove a 50' right-of-way n Cation from\Lot.4 of the previously approved subdivision Southold Town Planning Board Page 119 May 2, 2016 acres in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 9300 NYS Route 25, ±141's/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 Chairman Wilcenski: Before I ask anyone to step to the podium I just want to make a notation to let everybody know that this application is also before the Zoning Board of Appeals and they are waiting on our SEQRA determination. We will go through that SEQRA determination by answering and addressing all the questions that are addressed tonight and also that we have received by mail. With that I will open up the floor to anyone that would like to speak. To keep things moving along we can use both microphones, please state your name and write your name after you finish. Denise Geis: My name is Denise Geis and 1 live on Sigsbee Road in Mattituck. This proposed complex will definitely exponentially create more traffic in the already busy spot. I believe in the Site Plan it states that the traffic from the proposed'complex most easterly driveway will be a right turn only, which means the traffic wanting to go west will then have to go down Sigsbee Road, which is an already busy street because of the street light there, and then down Peconic Bay Boulevard to go West. Or have to cut across traffic, which is very dangerous, to use the light to go down Factory Avenue to go west. Or the various local parking lots to make a U-turn to go west. If using the westerly driveway cars will have to cut across traffic to go west, use the Old Main Road to Bray Avenue to go west, all these options in my opinion will surely only cause more traffic problems and accidents. I have also read the proposed complexes traffic study which took place on March 9th, 1-Otn and 12th of this year which even in the traffic study it said it was a less busy time of year, the traffic study which was conducted manually, which in my opinion is not a very accurate traffic study. The study consisted of a total of six hours over three days in a quiet time of year, I would ask the Planning Board to request an additional traffic study at a busier time of year like July and I would ask them to, what I call, use the strips that go across the road for a more accurate traffic study, I believe that would be a more accurate traffic study, before the consider moving forward with this application. I also understand that the now woodworking business which is on the Main Road and Old Main Road just a little west of the proposed complex, which I believe is own business is proposed to become a high volume beer distributor which is something else thatI think should be taken into account before allowing the consideration of special'exception for the proposed complex on the residential property. Since Suffolk County Community College right in Riverhead is going to be building a huge sports complex with a pool which will be open to the public and should be finished by the next spring, when I called that's what they said by next spring of'2017, and will have much more reasonable membership fees, 1 don't really see the need for special exception and the proposed complex here in Mattituck. As well as the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association meeting on April 25th Legislator Krupski stated that the County would be willing to buy the proposed complex property to preserve the land, which I think would be the best option for the land and for Mattituck as a whole, which Mr. Pawlowski said that he would consider if this was not, if his current plans were not granted. Another concern I have about the proposed complex is the before and after daycare for children, as Mr. Slovak stated at the April 25th Mattituck Laurel Civic Association meeting members will be able to just drop off their children, when 1 asked him what Southold Town Planning Board P-age 120 May 2, 2016 ages he said from kindergarten up, at the proposed complex and they will be taken care of. Members children will not need to be accompanied by parents or guardian. In my opinion this was not supposed to be a daycare center or a childcare facility this was a proposed sports complex. I hope you as the Planning Board-will take this into consideration and define the difference between a daycare childcare facility and a proposed sports complex before allowing the application to go any further. Mr: Pawlowski has also stated that the proposed complex will be good for the Town's tax roll, however when asked Mr. Pawlowski stated that the proposed complex would definitely consider going non-profit. Which in my understanding means the proposed complex would then come off the Town's tax roll so there would be no real long term benefit for allowing this proposed complex and all the Town would be left with is all the detriments that come with a complex like this, the traffic arid noise. I've also heard time and time again that this proposed complex should be allowed because it will reduce our children's drug use and our local drug problems, in my opinion this is a very unrealistic promise and is not a legitimate reason to allow this proposed complex to be built. In my opinion Mr. Pawlowski and Mr. Slovak are hiding behind the special exception only to benefit themselves and their other partner and not to benefit the Town as they would have you believe. In closing I would ask the Board to strongly weigh these questions and concerns before making a decision that cannot be reversed if the proposed complex is allowed to be built. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, please sign your name. You can step to this side or wait if you want. J Julie Amper: My name is Julie Amper, I'm very much opposed to granting a special exception to grant construction and operation of Sports East, which seems to me to be a subterfuge to allow commercial use in-a residential zone following an earlier failed attempt to accomplish this through a zone change. The project offers a single much valued carrot, a small swimming pool exclusively for members use. We already have adequate playing fields in town that might benefit from a little bit better coordination in their scheduling. We have'tennis facilities and'courts designated for pickle ball, we have the rec center, and the libraries offer a myriad.of exercise options, including yoga, dance, Pilates, we have.a sporting goods store just down the road,,obviating the need for an onsite retail pro shop and we have numerous health clubs that offer memberships. How is this project any different from those commercial for profit establishments? How does this one carrot, a private membership swimming pool justify the stick, a dangerous precedent setting act that undermines the zoning map and threatens the integrity to past planning efforts, from the blue ribbon commission to the hamlet stakeholders initiatives, all of which clearly and repeatedly affirm Mattituck residents vision for their hamlet. In this case it was a vision of a quiet two acre zone residential area, not one with the thump of tennis balls and the cacophony of playing fields in use from dawn to dusk, acres of asphalt parking spaces and the increased traffic generated by a commercial property. This past Saturday I attended a meeting held by the Planning Department to solicit input from residents on the Land Use Chapter of the draft Comprehensive Plan, once again we were asked what our vision for the hamlet is. I confess I wonder why bother, will our vision, goals and objective be Southold Town Planning Board Page 121 May 2, 2016 honored, will they be any more sacrosanct than the ones we've repeatedly expressed seem to be. Can we trust our leaders to uphold the policies and land,use designations of this comprehensive plan when at anytime and anywhere in Southold a special exception can be granted that makes a mockery of the true vision behind the zoning code. For me this is ultimately an issue of trust, of faith in our leaders to both uphold the letter and the spirit of our zoning laws. I urge the Planning Board to recommend that the Zoning Board of Appeals honor this trust by denying the request for a special exception. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes, step to the next microphone. Joanne Lechner: Joanne Lechner, I've brought with me today the introduction to the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan and one sentence says, "Our goal present in just about every plan and study is to preserve land from development, and the Town has continued to make town land'and open space preservation a priority." On the next page it states that the people of the Town want to retain the rural characteristic of the Town. I'm here today because 1 have•grave concerns regarding the development of the 20+ acres of land owned by Mr. Pawlowski and the proposal by him and his partners to develop the property into the Sports East Fitness endeavor. Mr. Pawlowski is in the process of requesting that a special exception be given under the special exception standards. I have read his application and attended the April 25th monthly meeting at the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association, which only adds to my concerns and gives me more questions to ask. The nature of the business, what is the nature of the business? We know now that this facility will be a not for profit entity, is what he stated at the meeting. The proposed development will be taken off of the real estate tax rolls, he stated that he is not asking the Town for any money to develop the property. He and his partners will be using all Town services, making a very good return on'their investment and paying no federal, state or local tax. I've also heard that'they've changed their mind about that, but a not for profit, according to the federal government can be requested at any time. In other words they can finish, continue building and then determine that they're going to go to the Federal Government to ask for not for profit status. That can be done after everything is complete; there is no time table on that. Then they can come to the Board and request that the property be taken off the Town tax rolls. The project has been called a membership club, a private sports club and'an' . athletic club, what is it? What I've read of his proposal there are 244 parking spaces and if they're going to build 244, I'm assuming they are going to be used. A question was asked regarding bringing in outside teams to compete on the multiple courts; the response was that no teams will be brought in. There will be five outdoor tennis courts, one artificial turf field as well as a vast indoor facility, it was also stated that the teachers are very happy because they'will have summer jobs. The full environmental assessment forms provides, "Will the proposed action plan produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction, operation, or both?" The response was, "Yes, outdoor multi use field and tennis courts will produce noise exceeding ambient noise levels during operation." Part of the response is also, "It is likely that these noise levels will be generated between 7am and 6pm."'At this time there"appears to be no outdoor lighting,for the courts however it was stated that the Southold Town Planning Board Page 122 May 2, 2016 outside courts will be open as long as there is daylight, this means during the summer when neighbors are trying to enjoy their yards or just home from work wanting quiet time, the courts and the field will be open from sun up until sun down. The developer stated that they are modeling their facility after Southampton Youth'Services Recreation Center; Southampton offers a day camp, summer camp that is run by an outside organization. Based upon the numbers of parking spots, modeling their program after Southampton Youth Services, a not for profit, providing jobs for teachers during the summer, the vast outside fields as well as the size of the entire project, no-inter murals for schools, this could lead to the conclusion that the endeavor will have a full summer camp up and running on that property as does Southampton Youth Services. There will be constant noise from sun up until sun down. Mr. Pawlowski has stated that this is a : private membership club, what does that really mean? It appears that any business that could offer annual membership can open on property that has a zoning of residential with exceptions. Any type of business can offer annual membership and say they are membership driven and will be beneficial to the community. Is this really what the Town forefathers were thinking when they placed the exemption for annual membership clubs? If the Town approves this project on this land,it is opening Pandora's Box, in my opinion. As any large business with any type of membership can, it will ultimately apply and/or litigate against the Town for the right to build on residential property that is also zoned with exceptions. The property is huge and will produce an enormous amount of sewage and water runoff from blacktop building rooftops and the outdoor courts. Our bay and sound are already compromised by nitrogen pollution, excess nitrogen pollution from sewage has caused massive fish kills, turtle die offs and toxic algae blooms, causing beaches and waterbodies around long island. Nitrogen pollution threatens our environment, health, economy and the quality of life. Long Island's clean water creates jobs and generates hundreds of millions of dollars every year for the region's economy. Nitrogen pollution in water is directly tied to development patterns, land use trends, fertilizer use, failing sewers, residential cesspools and septic systems; in short the majority of nitrogen is from sewage. Scientists agree that harmful toxic tides are being fueled by nitrogen from wastewater including septic tanks and cesspools. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation sites algae blooms in excessive nitrogen as a primary reason many of Long Island waterbodies are impaired. Toxic algae blooms, often referred to as red tide or brown tide, can spread hazardous toxins, kill fish and seriously impair water quality. Newsday last week ran four articles in regards to waterways need more environmental protection from sewage; these include Suffolk County as well as the Town of Brookhaven. There have been meetings with our elected officials from the State, County and Town, they understand if nitrogen pollution is not reduced in our Towns we will lose two industries, fishing and tourism. This proposed project is very close to the Peconic Bay and the Laurel Lake Preserve, according to the paper file this project does adjoin wetlands, waterbodies that are regulated by Federal, State and local agencies and it's also over an aquifer. This project anticipates using fifteen gallons of water per day and they will produce, according to the papers filed, 3,660 gallons of raw sewage a day. How can we justify putting this enormous project in place when it will greatly increase nitrogen pollution from sewage, and water runoff with no way to eliminate nitrogen pollution? Will there be a treatment plant established to take the nitrogen out of the sewage before it is returned to the Southold Town Planning Board a g e 123 May 2, 2016 grourid?Will there be some type,of water system where the water can be recaptured', purified and recycled?This proposed project requires substantial water, there is a water problem in the east end, 'saltwater is seeping into fresh. Last year the Town of Riverhead requested that all residents curtailed water usage as their pumps were at maximum capacity. With the pull of so much water how does the Town accommodate the project and protect our drinking water? Traffic congestion, the area of Main Street is so congested it is almost impossible to get into and out of the side streets and parking lots. Capital One, the old building of Capital One must be taken into consideration; there are 315 parking spots in that building alone. This business property is subdividable and multiple use. There is also going to be additional traffic from-the location that the Hudson Building Bank was supposed to be, and there is potential for a two story office building. There is also the mall where the movie theatre is there and they have approximately 375 parking spots. You have other businesses in that area, you have side streets, it's a total congestion. The Department of Transportation years ago would not approve any entrances or exits for CVS from their parking lot onto Main Road because of the congestion. This project'will substantially add to traffic congestion that already exists in the area. Why are the entrances and exits allowed on the side street when CVS was not? This part of Main Road, in my opinion, resembles Riverhead with-its traffic congestion. I do not believe that the Town of Southold would want to add to the congestion in this area which would affect all residents. There will be an increase in emission from busses, cars, delivery and garbage trucks entering and exiting the parking lot, as well as from the additional traffic on 25. There will also be increased emissions from the vehicles sitting in-the,parking lot with the engines running; this must also be taken into consideration.Approximately seven acres of trees will be removed; removal of these trees will have an adverse impact on the community by air and noise pollution. These trees cool the land, air and water with shade and moisture that reduces the heat'island effect of our communities. A single tree can produce the effect of cooling ten rooms, room size air conditioners approximately 20 hours a day. One large tree can supply a day's supply of oxygen for four people; a healthy tree can store'13 pounds of carbon each year, which reduces the greenhouse effect, with'an acre of trees that equals to approximately 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide. Trees help reduce surface water runoff, decrease soil erosion, increase ground water recharge. Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 20 pounds of carbon. There are 244 parking spaces that they are requesting, howmany more pounds of carbon can be produced in this one small-area that has more traffic congestion than it can handle? The project will be open at 5am every day of the week, Mondays through Saturdays it will close at 10, Sundays it will close at 7, outdoor fields will be available, at this time because there is no lighting on it, until dark: There-will be busses, trucks, garbage trucks and increased traffic, the trees that are left standing will block some of the noise but they will not block all the echo and pedestrian noises. Until darkis'the field and 10pm for the building, what will happen to the quality of life of the individuals who live in the community? From the application for zoning under the exception rule the application provides, "Does the application contain and species of animal that is listed by New York State as rare or as a species of special concern?" The applicant responded, "Yes." Observing this property from Sigsbee I've observed a turtle, I've seen a very strange snake on this land,,what happens to these animals or species of plants, either listed or not listed by New York State as"rare or A.,V0 Southold Town Planning Board P a.g e 124 May 2, 2016 concerned? The plan for this project is use; this project will produce much traffic congestion, sewer, water runoff, noise, all environmental polluter, the quality of life will not be the same for the families that live and travel this area of Mattituck. I thought the people of this Town wanted to have that small town feeling which includes respect for our neighbors.as well as keeping the two industries that add to the-Towns coffers, mainly tourism and fishing, these industries afford the Town much of its'revenue, which very little Town services interim reduces every resident's real estate taxes. Our town is trying to cut pollution, that is causing destruction of our estuary and ecological systems which affect all residents of the Town of Southold. How is the Town going to address this vast project with forward thinking? This project, a not for profit, will have the availability of all,Town services, paid by all Town residents as their property,taxes will go up and the principals will benefit financially at the expense of the Town residents, many of whom are on fixed incomes. The Southampton Youth Recreation Center is not near a residential area or congestion area, Maximus Gym is also located in a business district. This project, if allowed, should only be placed in the business zone on property. that is being reused. All environmental issues must be addressed and every resident agrees that a substantial and every resident would have to agree to a tax increase if they take it off the rolls. Many of the services that this endeavor provides are already provided by our schools and parks, which are paid for by our real estate taxes. This land once developed, if developed, would be an ideal hang out for teenager as it will be enclosed by trees, will there be a 24-hour guard service to stop the congestion, congregation of teens with or without cars? I thank you for your time, and I believe that's not the right piece of property for that project and I believe that we are duplicating services that we are already paying for. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Please write your name for the record. Just as a comment everybody, any comment, this is being recorded so everypoint and every comment that is being made will be addressed through the SEQRA process.'Yes,just to keep this moving along, we will stay here all night if we have to, if someone says something that you were going to say, you don't have to get up and say it but we aren't going to stop you, we are just trying to keep this moving along. Paul Pawlowski: Hello, Paul Pawlowski resident of Southold Town, I live in Mattituck and am one of the owners of Sports East. I think the key ingredient there is that 1 am a resident of this Town, I live within a few miles of the proposed Sports East proposal. I'd like to.just review some of the basics of the Site Plan and the Floor Plan especially after hearing some of those comments. What's included in the Site Plan, the basics of the Site Plan we propose is a synthetic sports field to the north for the property, five exterior tennis courts and the majority of our proposal is indoor sports use. I'll get to the Floor Plan in a second after the Site Plan details. Going into this entire proposal my partners and I went into this in detail first and foremost as residents of this Town, not as owners, not as developers, we thought of the surrounding properties, we thought of the area which-we proposed to do this and we came to certain conclusions that was in keeping with the Town and definitely, or what we perceived to be thinking of our neighbors. We are offering a large buffer, a non-disturbance buffer surrounding this entire build out, we are looking to achieve this proposed sports complex with the minimal use of land Southold Town Planning Board Page 126 May 2, 201,6 property. So our environmental impact as far as clearing goes and trees being cleared and things of that nature we are at 30+%, all not just the building itself, and again every drop of water will be contained on site. The Floor Plan, what were proposing just to kind of briefly go over what we're proposing because this is being.proposed as a private membership club offering our members something that we do not have in any way, shape or form on the north fork at all. Nobody really_ wants to travel to Riverhead to do the things that we're proposing. We're proposing a-6 lane, 25 meter swimming pool, which by no means is small; it will be the largest of its kind out here by far. It allows the avid swimmer the ability to do laps, it allows children to have fun in a pool, learn how to swim. We're proposing 4 indoor tennis courts, 1 indoor multi- basketball volleyball court for our members, a rock wall for our members, an indoor synthetic field for our members, 2 batting cages for our members, obviously private loccer rooms, a membership based only food service, you can't come in and get a water and leave you have to be a member, similar to how the north fork country club or laurel links offers their members food and obviously a small accessory pro shop for our members. That's our proposed Site Plan, the basics of it that's our proposed Floor Plan and it is being proposed as a private membership club to fall within-the special exception. .I just want to answer some,of the questions that I heard. By no means did we, and 1 am going to go through these questions but I've been extremely transparent I've been through the public hearing at the ZBA, the civic association asked me to come they had some questions, the chamber of commerce, I'm sure we've all seen it in the papers and I've never, my partners and I,have never changed our tunes at all, so I bring that up because there were some things said that-just simply weren't said. Not for profit, I was asked at the civic association I was asked if we would consider it. This is privately funded by our families, this is, we are dedicated, we are actually proud to say this is privately funded because we're not looking for any tax abatement, tax dollar, normally with this sort of thing that is what happens you'get public funding or state funding or town funding but not in this case, we are proud to bring this to our Town for potential- members. The question was would you consider it, and I,immediately said if its beneficial for the Town maybe but by no.means do we need not for profit or are we seeking not for profit, but not for profit basically means we come off the tax roll. This property as it stand produce roughly$14,000 in taxes a year, this project is going to be close to 10 million, big, big difference, 10 million interest only is $60,000 a month so we are outdoing the not for profit, any sort of would bring us as owners we're not even considering. Childcare this is for our members to drop their children, if approved, they'll have family memberships. Just like I drop my daughter off for a swim class at Laurel or learn how to play golf, we can't wait until our members do that, so by no means is this going to be childcare as far as, hey you know what I don't have a membership I'm just going to drop my kid off, can you babysit, not at all. Tourism, this is for us, this is for the residents of Southold Town; this is a private-health club for our Town not for the people that live out here on the weekends are more than welcome if they become a member we'd love to have them, but this isn't for tourism. Noise, one of the big reasons and.why I said we looked at this-as neighbors and not as developers is it's an indoor facility, you are not going to hear anything from the inside of this building at all. We positioned the tennis courts and fields near the Main Road and our noise levels will never exceed what the Main Road is already giving off, not in any way, shape or form. Pandora's Box, I Southold Town Planning Board Page 125 May 2, 2016 possible, however allowing for indoor sports use that we do not currently have in this town. Everyone has become accustomed to the curb appeal of the scenic view as you drive by this property, with that said that'is why we kept the large buffer of trees to the north of the synthetic soccer field. The surrounding, this building is setback 470 feet from the Main Road, 200+feet from the easterly neighbors, 200+feet from the westerly neighbors and over 300 feet from the-southerly neighbors. So that rendering that you are looking at now is a very, very good understanding of what this will look like, large mature trees will be kept, the only thing we plan on doing in there is removing any dead branches or beer bottles or burnt bottles or anything-like that if you were to walk through that property and see, just kind of clean it up but ultimately leave all those trees and give them the ability to do better over time. The parking, one thing I understand with development and planning,-we set the parking where it is just to get it away from the road so it's not part of the scenic view when you drive by. Our goal is if this is approved when you drive you're going to see our neighbors, our members playing on those fields or those tennis courts and be proud when you go east, west from this property. The building itself is, you know we almost called-it the Sports Barn instead of Sports East because its very similar-to the horse barns to the west and many 100 barns throughout Southold Town. We'did this type of building for longevity, low maintenance and sustainability,'the reason for the whitish color is it deflects under the sunlight to keep it = as cool as possible, if this is approved. Again we are leaving a very large non disturbance buffer around this property, much larger than any other potential development for this property, tenfold. The safety aspect-we are going to work with the Planning Board and the DOT to have the proper curbing, sidewalks, at night code compliant lighting for the parking. We are also-going to, we proposed to the DOT a turning lane along the entire 500+feet of this property that will help mitigate any traffic concerns. We proposed one main entrance; which is into the property and to leave the property to the west of the property and keeping with DOT regulations. We also proposed, to help mitigate any traffic leaving the site, is an exit only to the east,-and being a resident here if I am heading west I am certainly am not going to go further east to do so, so I don't think anyone is going to leave there, do a U-turn and then head, west. Septic system, we are more than willing to do one of the approved appendix c septic systems that the health department has been working on, pilot programs, I stated on the record, I wrote a letter in my Site application. We have no problem being the first of its kind on the north fork within one of those systems we will work with the powers that be, we are committed to doing it, to get over the hurdles to do it because it's not an easy standard process, but we would love to have the first one. As far as septic flow goes, there's roughly, when the engineers do their calculations it roughly 3,200 gallons that this septic needs to account for, by no means is that what we're using on a daily basis. But if we're going to compare apples to apples what we're proposing and what is allowable by right we are' not even a third of the flow that this property allows for, this property allows for roughly 12,000 gallons, were calculating roughly 3,000 gallons. Drainage, not one drop will leave this property, maybe on tires of cars and stuff like that but no sort of runoff will leave this property, it will all be contained onsite in proper leaching fields, so we will hit the code, we-will work with Planning to make sure the drainage is acceptable. Impact and clearing; including the building, the tennis courts, the synthetic field, which is permeable, the parking lots, we are just about 30% of this Southold Town Planning Board Page 127 May 2, 2016 don't remember the last time this was proposed, or anything of its kind, I find this hard to believe this will open up any sort of Pandora's Box. Sewage, I already went over it, we will be much less than what this property could afford another developer. 1 want to bring up, and I'll be.very clear, I was asked if 1 would consider selling this to the County,-for me as an owner I put forth a bunch of proposals and every which one of them we need in this Town, the workforce housing, the potential and the second proposal was we didn't need County money I was going to donate 18-21 acres. I'm not taking that money, what I mean is if another developer came in they have the ability to take that, I am here and I am dedicated to Sports East. Would I consider it if this wasn't approved, if it was my last resort, yea but it certainly wouldn't be my last resort because when certain people asked Al Krupski if he would give money towards this, on the'last two proposals there wasn't a dollar available but on this proposal yea the County has money, it was kind of interesting. We don't have, we could really have both, we could have a large preservation roughly 70% and we could have something this Town doesn't have Whatsoever. We could have both,'we could have preservation and nothing is ever perfect, if one,person only wants preservation well that's going to be tough. We are offering a large percentage of preservation and we are offering privately funding something that this Town doesn't have. I think from a SEQRA standpoint, I look forward to this review, I think you are going to see and working at the work sessions and working with the engineers that this really, yea no new development is prefect, but I think you'll see we have mitigated every single factor that goes into SEQRA review and I'm excited for.'that. We have voluntarily paid for our own traffic study, our non- disturbance buffers will exceed any other development in this Town, we're going to do well on our SEQRA review I'm confident, I've looked at, it's a big thing it's a'big building but as far as density build out its not.at all compared to the size of the property. We're before the Planning Board and you guys have been great going through the details, working with me on the Sketch Plan and I'm excited to'go through every detail with the Planning Board as long as it takes and long as the SEQRA study takes. The biggest thing stopping us is the special exception; I think this project defines a special exception, I say that because we need this and here's the opportunity. I have one more question, who here wants this? Chaiman Wilcenski: Thank you, anybody else would like_ to address the Board? Yes go ahead. Joy Ellinghaus: Thank you Paul, thank you for always being here and speaking, I know that we don't agree but I appreciate that. Joy Ellinghaus, I too own a second home on Sigsbee Road I have for many, many years. The first thing I would just like to say is that I don't agree with Mr. Pawlowski that you can have both preservation and an 82,000 square foot sports complex on the same property but I am here tonight unfortunately to speak against the building of the sports complex in this location. This location is of particular interest to me because 1 have had a summer home for many years on _ Sigsbee Road. During each years ride out I was always rooting for this wooded lot to still be there when we came for the summer and I can't have been the only vne who thought this as the years went on. As I got older I watched how things changed in Mattituck; somehow it was all for the good of the north fork but none of the other'towns to Southold Town Planning Board Page 128 May 2, 2016 took the beating that Mattituck took. Being a second home owner I am not allowed a vote in aby of the elections so I would just keep my fingers crossed that somehow this little pargel of woods could live to see another year without a strip mall on it. Many years passed and I and my neighbors were aware that only a few houses could be built on this property, naive as we were. The Peconic Land Trust seemed like an ideal answer for the lot though that didn't happen either. So when the property went up for sale and Mr. Pawlowski brought his proposals before the Town for development, none of which conformed to the zoning, I was here to speak out against them and here we are again today and I'm unfortunately speaking out against this third proposal. When I heard what this proposal was and saw the support that it was getting online my first thought was maybe you can fool all of the people all of the time. The people seemed really excited about having more recreation, and not having to drive 40 minutes and having a pool. I thought maybe we've come to see these things as a need, do we need it? Some people might think we need an indoor mall or a bigger cinema or conversely some might think we need even more recreation. Why not have equinox open up across the street in the Capital One building, I'm sure they can get it up and going pretty fast, and the dominoes fall one by one. This is a want, can you give the people what they want without breaking the back of the Main Road, without endangering more of our delicate environment or throwing so much more traffic onto a road that people already feel fearful driving on? So here we are once again not proposing to build the 8-10 residential houses in compliance with zoning instead you'd like to build a health club that those houses would be allowed to have, but it's not the kind of health club with a few stationary bikes and ' the like rather, and I quote Mr. Pawlowski who for some time continued to use the term health club, "Sports East is proposing outdoor athletic fields for multiple sports, tennis courts, a basketball court, batting cages, a gym, yoga and spin classes, loccer rooms, a 32 seat cafe and pre and after care programs for school children." Mr. Pawlowski also hopes to include an ADA compliant 6 lane indoor pool with a depth of no more than 5 feet. This is his ambition for a residential lot for which he.needs no zoning change to do,, how is this possible? It turns out the properties existing residential zoning allows for an annual membership club with a special exception from the ZBA. And if someone told you that developers can take egregious advantage of zoning laws for the benefit of their project this is the kind of example they're talking about, and we hope no developer local or otherwise is able to rest that kind of manipulation from our Zoning Board, as it seems at the very least cynical and disingenuous and at the very most exploitive and a dangerous precedent. This project, his largest yet, is simply being offered at the wrong location but just as with all of his projects Mr. Pawlowski refuses to see any negative whatsoever and its these never ending assurances that drive my doubt as to his motives and ambitiousness, because he can't_ possible deliver on all of his promises, no one could yet day after day he acquiesces to every request, reassures every casual doubt and dismisses every important concern.,If he cared to be that accommodating I think he would see what the most sober minds amongst us can see, that this is the wrong location for this project and he'd be doing a disservice to the area by building it here and that's part of the problem. I won't speak directly to you Mr. Pawlowski because I know that's not allowed in this forum but as a constant refusal to imagine negative ramifications while also promising all the bells and whistles, we just witnessed it here right now. The traffic study that you did I think you just said you paid for your own traffic Southold Town Planning Board Page 129 May 2; 2016 study when you had promised that the department would be part of that; would do that study for,you and',it was not the study that you had done it was done.in March. I'll go on about-just a few other troubling aspects about the complex that have not been answered. It should be obvious when we voice our concerns about the additional'traffic that this complex would bring to the Main Road and to our neighborhoods we'are talking about it during peak traffic months when the odds of accidents increase greatly, why then Mr. Pawlowski, chose to have this traffic study,done in March to determine feasibility is unknown. Based on the study being somewhat useless for these purposes we'd like to request, I'd like to request a more realistic study be done on a Saturday in July and a weekday in August. It makes sense that in order to avoid the inconvenience of making aleft hand turn during these months many drivers will avoid a left hand western bound"turn and make the right hand only turn seeking to turn to the next right on Sigsbee Road`and the next right after that onto Peconic Bay Boulevard. While it is true that from 2012 to 2016 there have been 94 accidents just between Bray Avenue and Marlene Lane, we believe accidents in this area are likely to increase as a direct consequence of this complex being built. Mr. Pawlowski said he'd work with-the State Department of Transportation to mitigate traffic congestions, I assume they weren't part of the traffic study that you did in March and if not we'd like to know who you did hire for, your study; if they were paid services what are the qualifications. We imagine children will be riding bikes to the complex or walking,-would there be a traffic light, a pedestrian crossing, sidewalks, what will be there to facilitate children coming and going into the complex either walking or riding bikes?And another quote once again it shouldn't be any surprise when you seem a little disturbed when someone makes a reference to childcare because your partner gave a quote that said, "Professionals would be'onsite so kids could be dropped off before school with bus service to school."The questions rise what kind of professional does this complex mean to provide, qualified daycare' workers?Whatpart of the complex will be functioning.as daycare?What kind of bus service to the schools did Mr. Slovak mean? This was a very recent quote. Can children only be dropped off in Mattituck schools or-in Cutchogue and Southold schools as well? Will this"bus service be part of the Town pickup.service or will private busses be used? Who will be liable for the safety of the children on the buss if private busses are used?, This again offering a picture of anything is possible without'concrete answers and an unwillingness to imagine any negative consequences:As with'the other proposals that Mr. Pawlowski made the environmental aspects are today just as 'critical as they were with the other two proposals, they haven't changed, they haven't gone anywhere, if not more so because today he is no doubt putting many things into play, toilets, showers, a restaurant, childcare and a pool. We need bonafide experts to help Mr.'Pawlowski navigate what is'clearly,an ever changing market to truly determine what would work best here and we need real answers. Kevin-McAllister from defend H2O did not seem impressed with the system chosen, one of the greatest concerns regarding Mr. Pawlowski's earlier proposals were the environmental impacts. His last proposal at 12,000 square feet is dwarfed by this-complex, at'80,000 square feet so obviously our concerns have grown exponentially but again for some reason Mr. Pawlowski brushes these concerns aside. I understand the wastewater is a complicated issue but it is his issue to resolve, if I'm not mistaken he has chosen the bio-clear system and I'd like'to hear some definitive assurance from Kevin McAllister from defend H2O who asked why ko Southold Town Planning Board Page 130 May 2, 2016 bio-clear was being considered when-other systems had been betted by,Mr. Pawlowski and he said, "I would argue in this day and age and with the impairment of'our waters, we should strive for,the highest for the highest achievable levels of denitrification."This does not sound like reassurance for the single biggest issue on the north fork. The north fork greets visitors at Mattituck and Mattituck cannot continue to,greet them with the scourge of commercial, non-rural ventures one after the next. The very best thing that _ can happen'is for them to be greeted by that wooden lot with small but meaningful signage. At a meeting last year Mr. Pawlowski did speak about selling the land to the Town, which was not feasible, at last week's meeting Mr. Krupski said that the County has,the funding and the inclination to buy this acreage. The best option is to allow the County to buy,the property as Mr. Krupski allowed for at the meeting the other night and for Mr. Pawlowski to pursue this well intentioned project on a better suited commercial lot, perhaps in a structure that already exists on the north fork and can be revamped for his purposes. 17 acres-may not seem very important but it has become representative in what Mr. Pawlowski has tried to make of it, everything but 8-10 residential houses. Finally I think everyone can agree on imagining the'north fork in the future, hopefully from Aquebogue east, .the prevention of overbuilding and retail sprawls similar to Route 58 in Riverhead is the goal of the 2020 plan and beyond, Ms. Lanza those are your words and they are words to live by, they are words that inspire and they are words to aspire to. The north fork is beyond a turning point we are at critical mass,,stories of fish kills, brown tides, closing estuaries are harbinger of worse.things to come with overdevelopment. It won't take much, even one bad investment of fitting a square peg into a round hole can bring years,of damage,and regret. We drive by these things every day, preservation goes hand in hand with'your,goal. We don't drive by wooded lots and get pangs of,grief and,regret in,our bellies. The north fork needs a degree of protection that most developers probably wouldn't agree with and you and,your Board members and all of us need to call on our better angels but when_you'think of this beloved area and think of how special it is, the beauty, the tranquility and think of how close it is to millions of people who.themselves,may want to enjoy it even briefly. You can,get an idea of how protective we all might have to be. This isn't about just one developer, it's about the many who are coming and about all of us dedicating ourselves to keeping what we love. It is a challenge every day to keep the rural character of the north fork at the forefront, the only way,is through preservation and adaptive reuse and more formidable translation of zoning without exception in this case. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else? Yes. Jill Schroeder: Hi my name is Jill Schroeder,l am the owner and operator of JABS in Cutchogue I'm a fitness facility. I've also been named the Suffolk Times Business Woman of the Year 2012, as well as the East End Women's Network Woman of the Year 2014. In addition to owning a fitness facility on the north fork I've raised over $150,000 for local and national charities and I'm also raising funds to implement fitness equipment in our local schools. I feel that'I have become an integral part of this community and 1 am extremely passionate about fitness. When I heard about this project 1 very much appreciated what they are proposing to do, however learning more. about it and understanding the business side of owning and operating a business in,this � I r Southold Town Planning Board Page 131 May 2, 2016 community, the magnitude of this facility I think is just bigger than what this,community can bear, whether or not you're privately owned. Aside from that I am a local business owner and I have a daughter that I provide for, so having a facility of this size come into our community will greatly challenge what I've done over the'past five years. It_very well may destroy my business'as well as many other local fitness facilities that I will speak for, because I don't see any of them here, and many of them also have young children. So I want to bring to your attention the local business people who will be greatly affected by this complex just because of the sheer magnitude and the money behind it, something I don't have but I surely have passion behind what I do, I love what I do and I would like to see my business continue to be a part of this north fork but allowing this project most likely will not allow that to continue. Please take into consideration'us local, small, tiny business owners who are really out here and really doing this to survive and have our families survive. I am truly passionate about it, what I've done, what I've been recognized for and my charity work. Thank you. Chairman-Wilcenski: Thank you, yes. Frank Sagarino: Frank Sagarino, we've had a house out here since the early 40's, I live in Laurel I live off of Peconic Bay Boulevard. I have two children that I've raised out here and third one now, a three year old, two that went through the Mattituck High School system one that is a state champion wrestler this year. I moved out here from Los Angeles 15 years ago with my boys because I thought this would be a great place to raise them, I loved the openness of the area. We talk about traffic, one thing that was not brought up tonight, and I've been a private fitness trainer for over 35 years, I worked in Los Angeles in many different gyms, I work at Maximus right now and I was at Ultimate Fitness before that, I specialize in senior citizens, people saying this pool is little makes it sound like a little pond somewhere in somebodies back yard. The idea that I have so many senior citizens doing the drive to riverhead to use weight lifting equipment and the exercises available and we still don't have a pool, I've had two back surgeries I know a lot of people who are older and have joint issues, so many people will benefit from having a pool that they can use that's not an hour and a half up the island. I don't have anything written don't and I'm rambling just a little bit and I apologize. On the traffic situation one thing that was not brought up is gyms do not work like a 9-5 business, people come and go all day the traffic is not based at 9 o'clock everybody trying,to get into the gym and 5:30 everybody trying to leave. It will affect me also; I live on Peconic Bay Boulevard I live just west of Brush's Creek. Now obviously I've been coming out here my whole life every summer and I've been here year round for 15 years, when I come out of my house there's a bump coming up Brush's Creek, very difficult to get off south Oakwood, very difficult, you have to look both ways three times. Can I tell you over the last forty years or twenty years how it's gotten harder and harder to get out and the people coming out of this facility making a right on Sigsbee and making a right on Peconic Bay Boulevard will affect me leaving my house in the morning.The real question is when I had my teenagers here and I said well this would be a great place to go, we are leaving Los Angeles because I am not going to have them around the drug situation,-the inundation of people the inundation of heroin, now everybody can put their head in the sand and if we had teenagers here today that all Southold Town Planning Board P a g e 32 May 2, 2016 winter when it's too cold to go outside and there is no place to play and there's no fields to be on, if we had 100 teenagers here every one of them would want a place to go. They sit in their basements, it leads to doing drugs, it leads to finding the money once they get addicted and everybody is wondering where all these car break ins and the robberies and,everything come from because these kids in the winter, 1 agree there's a lot of facilities out.here in the summer but there's a lot of cold months they can't be outside. This would solve a huge problem so-anybody, one of the biggest benefits is giving our kids something to do. I'm not happy with the growth and the population out here, I remember when I could only go to restaurants on the weekend, I know what the growth and the situation is but there's a lot more kids, a Ibt more kids getting into trouble and a lot more kids with absolutely nothing to do. So when it comes to the point of me having to wait longer to get out of my street but benefitting-the elderly, benefiting kids in the winter having a place to go, everything is a tradeoff. The fact that they have this huge buffer of trees and I don't have to drive by a lot like where Walmart is in Riverhead and see all the trees gone and I'm looking at cement, I think they've taken a lot of things into consideration for the Town and I think it's a great facility and every place you pick for one of these gyms. Jack Van de Wetering in Riverhead, who has tried for fifteen years to do a YMCA and every location he's gone to has never happened, and he had the money raised. Every time there's the naysayers to a place like this and you have to weigh out the health of the community, the health of heart disease, the benefit of keeping kids out of their basement in the winter when they're hanging out with absolutely nothing to do. I was shocked with my sons both of my older sons, one is 22 now and moved out and the other is 17 still living with us and going to Mattituck, I was shocked, we have a very open relationship, to find out what is going on during the winter, who is doing what, how much heroin is out here and how much we have nothing to do. My son moved to LA and he says the kids here do less drugs, less pot, less everything because were outside, were surfing were doing stuff outside. In the winter there is absolutely nothing to do, so when you look at a facility like this which is not another winery, it's not another restaurant, it's not another apartment building, it's not another movie theater which we don't need. When you look at a facility like this you have to say for the benefit of the community, does the good outweigh the bad and in my opinion after thirty years of doing this and I feel very much for the lady who has her boutique gym, when I lived in Las Angeles there was Sports Club LA obviously, the boutique gyms still all made it because the clientele was so dedicated to them they didn't want to belong to a huge gym. And, a lot of the boutique gyms in Los Angeles they had private fitness trainers and they did private classes still did very well, it didn't wipe them out it was a different clientele. So all I wanted to say and I know I have to direct this to you but I love to direct it elsewhere, to the crowd, is no matter how many problems you have with traffic you have to say, does the good outweigh the bad? And nobody loves a lake here, I boat out here, I live this community, I hate fighting to get across 25, 1 know additional traffic will come down my street, but for the benefit of the children growing up here of giving them something to do, this huge indoor building, the elderly having a pool to use, which there's nothing within an hour and a half here, I think the good absolutely outweighs the bad. Thank you very_much. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, yes go ahead. Southold Town Planning Board P age 1 33, May 2, 2016 Jackie Fedynak: My name is Jackie Fedynak I have a house here in Mattituck. This is kind of a duplication of service; 1 have an article here saying east ends first public fitness facility with Olympic size indoor pool to open at Suffolk's Riverhead campus. It says east end's first public fitness facility complete with an Olympic size swimming pool, aerobic and weight training rooms and a rock climbing wall is coming,to Suffolk Community College in Riverhead. The 18 million dollar facility will also be available for use by County residents and local governments making it the first public athletic and fitness facility'of its kind in the five east end towns. The 48,000 square foot building will feature floor to ceiling rock climbing wall, a strength and weight training'equipment room, an aerobic room for spinner, yoga, dance and exercise classes and an 8 lane competition and diving pool. The building will be 13,500 square feet, a gymnasium will also be able to accommodate a regular basketball court, two volleyball courts and six badminton courts, and there will also be a three lane running/walking track around'the perimeter of the gym, it's the first indoor swimming pool for the north and south fork that is this size and open to the public. The other thing I have to say is I know Mr. Pawlowski had said his membership it is a private club and the membership is at$50 a month, here seniors over 60 the membership is $220 for 12 months, a family membership which'is head of household, spouse and dependents under 18 or under 23 if enrolled in college is $720 for 12 months, adult Suffolk County residents is $275 for 12 months, that's a lot cheaper than $50 a month per person. I just wanted to let you know this is a duplication of services. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, yes sir. Erik McKenna: Hi my name is Erik McKenna I live in Cutchogue, I'am a teacher at Mattituck High School for the past 15 years, I'm also a practicing attorney, a lifelong resident of Cutchogue, a graduate of Mattituck High School 1994, a collegiate soccer player, current soccer coach of my son, parent of three elementary school, 2 at Cutchogue East and one about to be at Cutchogue east and finally also the president of the North Fork United Soccer Club which is an organization that plays out of Aldrich Lane and has children from Shelter Island all the way to Riverhead. Based upon my background as a teacher, parent, graduate of Mattituck High School as well as local, soccer club president I wanted to explain to the Town Board why 1 passionately support Sports East. 1 just have two points, one theoretical and one more practical. From the theoretical standpoint Sports East is a unique opportunity to shape countless lives and instill the lifelong lessons that come with sports, and 'I'm sure you guys know on the Planning Board this is not a new idea, town leaders as well as a bunch of local adults have taken strides to fill this void in the past. Specifically I remember Dr. Lizewski, he had his plans for the Teen Scene, it was based out of the current wellness center it was held during weekends, in particular during the winter months, it was envisioned as w space for exercise and activity designed as an alternative to the distractions and dangers of adolescence that some of the past speakers have commented on, that no longer exists. Other towns that also were mentioned by previous speakers, such as Southampton with the SYS and I believe East Hampton with the YMCA they've recognized the value of public space for year round sports activity and have made the investment. Now however Southold Town is presented with the unique private market Southold Town Planning Board Page 134 May 2, 2016 solution and the benefits, in my opinion as well as others, are limitless. From a personal standpoint I often ask myself where my life would be if I hadn't learned all the values that are associated with sports. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't at risk of going in the wrong direction of the law, living a life on the dangerous streets of Cutchogue that's not what I was talking about. My issue was I was extremely introvert, extremely shy and sports gave me an outlet, it showed me that hard work can lead to success, taught me the value of competition and theses are lessons that I try to apply to my life currently as well as instill into my son and my two daughters. It's well documented that if you ask adults for specific memories of their elementary or secondary school academic experiences you are not going to hear much, however when you ask about sports related memories their stories are going to be rich, detailed and specific. Now why is that?-Is that because there are bad teachers, I'm not going to knock myself, no its sports are just so much, confidence, self-esteem, motivation, the refusal to give up, the ability to Handle adversity, integrity as well as being a member of a team. Don't get me wrong, by no means am 1 trying to downplay the value of academic, I've always considered myself a student athlete and in fact as a teacher at Mattituck High School I repeatedly observe that some of the best students are also-likely to be.dedicated athletes and if you don't believe me just read'in the next few weeks when the,Suffolk Times comes out when they talk about the current valedictorian and salutatorian at Mattituck High School. It's going to be from two of my students, Katie Hoeg and Jack Dufton they are both stand out athletes as well as scholars. Now these examples are not isolated and I don't believe they are attributable to coincidence rather they are a result of the positive influence that sports can play in a young person's life and,sports East and the plans that it has for our town will only help in provide opportunities to keep on instilling these positive values in our children. My,second point is a practical one and I'm speaking as the president-of North Fork United Soccer Club, again we have ten plus teams, we have kids ranging from the age of 4 all the way up to the age of 15, there's not enough field space for year round sports on, the north fork. 1 can speak from experience from organizing the soccer club, as president of the North Fork United Soccer Club I see firsthand how soccer players scramble to find indoor space in the winter, why is the space limited?Well there are also other sports that need the space, there's basketball, there's lacrosse, there's wrestling, there's volleyball and ultimately they have a limited amount of space and multiple sporting teams that want access. Sports East would be a perfect solution and would greatly benefit the members of our club or my club the North Fork Untied Soccer Club and I don't want to speak on other organizations behalf but I would also wager that North Fork Lacrosse would welcome Sports East, Mattituck Soccer Club another soccer club in town I believe they would welcome it as well as the CYO basketball league. Some other people that have been talking about the impact of Sports East and how it can affect our local culture and I have been here since 1980, when my parents moved here and I grew up in the 1980's and 1990's and I was fortunate to have parents that were selfless and that were willing to take me all across the island to soccer events and to seek out oppurtunites even in Europe to play soccer. Obviously for a variety of reason and most of the reasons are economic, that's not going to be a realistic option for families. Sports East can be that in town affordable solution for numerous families as well as local sports clubs and it will benefit families all across the north fork. And I would disagree with one of the previous Southold Town Planning Board Page 135 May 2, 2016 speakers and I wholeheartedly that it is a need and not a want and it is something that we can really benefit from. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, yes. Nan Shade: 1 am nervous, my name is Nan Shade, I am a native of Southold I have lived here for over 70 years and I think this is the best thing that could happen to our town. We are very lucky.to have someone donate this and I think there's no question that we should have it. I myself and four friends get in the car at quarter to 7 in the morning where we meet in Southold and drive to Riverhead to Safety Swim for an hour from 8 to 9, that's the only time we can do it because the other times they are teaching the babies and young children to swim. It's very good for everybody health, I have fibromyalgia, my one friends has a double hip replacement, another has a double hip -replacement and another one has polio and we are all going there for our health. Everybody could do the aerobics, it is wonderful and I think there would be a lot less cripples around if they were able to use the gym. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Great, thank you. Would you please sign your name? Excuse me Ms. Shade could you please sign your name. Okay, thank you. Yes. Janine Warrens: Hi my name is,Janine Warrens I am a psycho therapist and have a private practice right here so I am going to take this from a social work perspective. I appreciate the comments that the people against it said in regards to the environment and I think that Paul addressed their concerns and I believe that he will continue to with his partners. I will address the big issue that got sweeped under and I noticed people moving their head and shaking their head to the drug issue. I am a drug counselor I' have worked with many children in all the districts out here, I've seen families devastated, I've attended funerals people want to sweep it under the woods, people want to pretend it doesn't exist. Ok so we have lots of things out here to*do in the summer, I was a-summer resident, I camped at Peconic Dunes, we lived here 15 years before we came full time residents. I am invested in this community, I am Vice President of the booster club, I was on the PTA at Cutchogue East, I was Vice President of North Fork Lacrosse so I am invested in the community in many different ways. Once by providing my service, second I take an investment in the children because the other part of it is how the children are directly related to the elderly. As that beautiful woman, it broke my heart, we on'the north and south fork have the largest amount of elderly population that live without their families. Their families aren't here, they are not taking them to doctors they have to come in from out of state or hire people, they have to drive an hour in traffic to get help,-it's not right. 1 want to also talk about the taxes, I've seen in the school district people move in from other areas, they move out here for the peace and the quietness yes but they move out here-too because our school districts are going up, we are getting more acclimates, we are getting kids into ivy league schools. Some of these people move in from a district where there are 4 or 5 Sports Easts, where there are activities all year round. I heard about the traffic study that everyone brought up, but 1 think the traffic study probably should be done at a different time of year because I think there would probably be more traffic for this in the winter months when the Southold Town Planning Board Page 136 May 2, 2016 1 summer people aren't here when there is nothing to do out here. In the summer months everybody is on the bay, or on the sound, or on the golf course so I don't think the traffic, we are going to have the traffic from the summer people, which I was one, I understand that. From a social workers perspective, we are giving every age group in our community an opportunity, a place to grow, I loved what Erik said, a place to experiment and get involved in the community. I think its a wonderful opportunity for every single one of us in this room and I would love the Board to think about the perspective, and what it does for all the people.-Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Yes sir. 'Erik McKenna: Hi my name is Erik McKenna, Erik McKenna's son. I am 10 years old and I go to Cutchogue East Elementary School. I am involved in a bunch of different, things such as mock trial, sports, including soccer, basketball, lacrosse and tennis occasionally in the summer. I also did the school play and student leadership which is associated with helping the Cutchogue East Elementary School and the community of Southold Town. I am here speaking tonight because Sports East will give everyone a great opportunity to stay fit, healthy and to have fun. My friends and I are asking you to consider to have Sports East come to our community because we need to have a place to do year round sporting activities, you wouldn't want us sitting around doing nothing all day, you would want us at Sports East staying fit and healthy. Thank you, have a nice evening. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Anyone else would like to address the Board? Charles? Charles Cuddy: Good evening my name is Charles Cuddy I am here on-behalf of the applicant. I have a particular interest in this property because I have known it for more than thirty years. For 'some of the people here who may not be aware the Planning Board in this Town a number of years ago rejected the 8 dwellings that people are talking about, in other words they were disapproved. So this property has been up for dwellings, it's been up for affordable care, now it's up for something that I think is very appropriate, I think it's the right use and I think it's in the right place. I was disturbed to hear the people really commenting on the special permits aspects because this is a Site Plan, I think Mr. Pawlowski correctly said to you he's got a Site Plan that meets all of the requirements, it has a great buffer area, it.has adequate parking, it has a setback that's phenomenally big, it's the right thing again in the right place. I think I'm disturbed to hear people talk about traffic, I think the gentlemen that pointed out that traffic is an intermittent situation here it's not a continuous situation. I go to Riverhead every day, 25 in Mattituck is not 58 in Riverhead, it isn't now and it probably never going to be. For those here besides me being in Riverhead, l am also a resident of Mattituck, I think this is a use that the community needs and I think it's a use the community should have, and I think if you look at the Site Plan requirements, all of them are met by this application and I would ask the Board to approve it. Thank you. Apollo Southold Town Planning Board - !(J,e f-37 May 2, 2016 Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Yes, go ahead.] am sorry we are going to let her speak first. How many'people are still waiting to speak? We may take a break if there's not too many more we will keep going: Ok well keep going. Diane Nicholson: Hi my name is Diane Nicholson I,am a resident of Southold Town, I - am a former YMCA professional and the minute that'I stepped on Long Island I was helping Jack and John Van'de Wetering try to start a YMCA because I know what this .community is missing because I have�experienced it. I just, I applaud the opportunity to pull a recreational center together`,.I'm concerned about the health club aspect of it and I guess I'm--hoping that we give some thoughtful consideration to making this a recreational center that's open to all so that it doesn't appear and be perceived a's a- health club so that our friends and neighbors who are in low'income situations or seniors that are on fixed incomes still have the opportunity to enjoy and appreciate and take advantage of these great opportunities to stay healthy throughout their lifetime. I also would hopefully give some-thoughtful consideration to'starting, having a pool that's a little bit warmer sn'it'smore accessible for senior citizens and for babies to learn swimming lessons and then have that regular pool for lap swimmers to keep our adults healthy. Those are my only,concerns but I am_ really excited about the opportunity to bring a recreational center to our community. Thank you.- , Chairman Wilcenski: Thank'you. Please state your name. ' Joanne Lechner: Joanne Lechner,'l still have concerns in regards to what is this club, it's,supposed to be a.private club, its only supposed to be members'only, traffic you're going to have childcare in the morning, childcare in the evening,,you're going to have a summer camp running therefore you will-have'traffic in the AM and the PM and maybe in between during the summer, not only'during the winter, that will add to,more congestion. The gentlemen before said you know,there is ten teams and they're going to•be intermural; according to what I was informed that there are not going to be intermurals because it's only going to be members 'only:'l know,Southampton Youth Services does have intermurals but they are not a private club. I can go there myself and pay $5 to go in if I wanted to use one of the programs its $15 a day. So I really don't know what this entity is, because you're not supposed to have teams coming in, so I'm just extremely confused and I don't think it's all set out and I don't think it's all what we really-know it is. In other words the gentlemen-speaking-seemed to know a lot more than I did, that we're going to have all these soccer teams coming in and out and playing,tha't's not a private club, that's a public club. Thank you. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you for your comments. Would anybody else like to address the Board? . ,Paul Pawlowski: I'II be quick, I just want to answer a few questions'. The traffic study was done by Dunn & Dunn, with any traffic study that's done by a reputable firm they don't just-go by the4ew days that they did their study there-are other traffic studies that were done in this area, when the-CVS came in, the 7-11 came in they take years of data and come up with their traffic study. They take every month of-the calendar year and Southold Town Planning Board Page 138 May 2, 2016 come up with that traffic study so this just wasn't just based on a few days in March. The reason why it happened in March is, because we are before the Planning Board and I want to be able to get them the assets they need to do their determination however it is comprised by multiple years, every month of the year based off the exact or a very close use that we're prosing and done by a firm that's been around for a very, very long time out of Westhampton. As far as using public dollars as,services,,yes as,far as police go or firefighters go, that's the public service but every-aspect of this including all,the curbing, all,the roadwork and every bit of maintenance required to keep this building - looking nice and sustainable is paid privately. We are not going to have any public service take care of our parking lots, repaint the tennis courts, anything of that nature, it's all privately funded not only from the initial standpoint but hopefully for the next 20, 30, 50 years. As far as exploiting the code 1 am going by the code, I tried to put forth other proposals on proposal one and two just because we, people were asked to come forward with potential workforce housing and this,property,met the criteria to the letter of the law as-far as close to public transportation, shops-etcetera,-that's why I came up with that. Since that wasn't supported I came up with a plan to donate 17 acres but this is an allowable use with a special exception so 1 am going by what the code reads I'm not exploiting one bit. I'm not proposing the 10 to 11 to 12 homes that could be put here by right because we don't need that. As far as offering all the bells and whistles we are dedicated and we're three families, there are three partners, we are dedicated to this Town and the children within this Town. Actions speak louder than words, not everything 'I do is for money, I'm not doing this for money, and I could've made a lot more money doing by right. I own, am a proud owner one of the owners of Cedars Golf Club, there is no money in Cedars Golf Club its pure enjoyment and if anyone drove past there in the past few years they'll see the drastic improvements however not changing what it's all,about. It's a par 3 golf course and the only thing we did was clean it up and everyone that goes there enjoys it and we do that because that's,something my partner and 1 like to do, my partner is part of a hedge fun, he gets more excited when he sees $10 come across because a kid just played a round of golf there than three billion dollars going through his account on some bulicrap that has to do with work, I.come to this as a resident not a developer. As far as competition and local small business I totally appreciate that, when I was 14 1 started my first business and_I understand competition but from what I,know the local fitness classes in this town have a great following and when it comes to sports and instruction as I was a division one tennis player I didn't go to a specific club because it was a nice looking club or anything like that I followed my instructor. He could've brought me to the tennis courts in Mattituck or the Westhampton Tennis and Sport, wherever he went I would've went, it had nothing to do with the facility and I am a big believer this will breed proper competition and just so the Board knows 90% of every local.instructor called-me for a job. Thanks for your time. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Yes. Denise Geis: My name is Denise Geis and what's driving me a little crazy here is I've lived here my whole,life, I'm 44 I've lived here my whole life, four generations have lived on Sigsbee Road and what drives-me a little crazy is everybody saying this aspect of Southold Town Planning Board Page 139 May 2,-2016 sports is going to save the whole community from drugs. I made many choices when l was a kid, I didn't chose to,drink_or take drugs but in the same aspect of them saying kids have nothing to do all winter. I was there, l understand but you know what you make choices and-the amazing thing that I haven't hear which drives me insane is when I was 11 1 had a job. l see kids 12, 14, 16 nobody has a job, no wonder they have nothing to do,all winter but sit in somebodies basement, we never satin somebodies basement all winter. My parents didn't just go okay-we'll just pay for everything', that's ridiculous. One huge-problem here is everybody saying this,is going to fix the drug problem, I'm not saying this is a bad thing, this is an interesting opportunity that could probably be used We but'not in a residential piece of property. People�forget this is only for members, no other'teams will be allowed here;this is only for members because it is on a residential piece of property, because it's a special exception and it's just, I think it's getting a little out of hand that people are expecting so much from one, facility. If this was put in a commercial piece of property-you would have many more opportunities and I would just hope the Board would consider those aspects before making a decision. Thank`you.- Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you'. Yes=sir. Joseph Slovak: Yes, Joe Slovak Sports East. I am a father of two, a 15 year old and a 13 year old, I'm an educator for 20 years, a coach for 25 and I come at this with all those things in-mind. We're not going to be a sports factory where people are coming and going all day and they're just playing and leaving, playing and leaving, there,are plenty of those as Paul-said up the island and its fine, it's what they do-and they do it well. This is not what we are doing. We've modeling ourselves after a number of facilities, I've looked at one'-in Portland Oregon so it's not just Southampton Youth Services:We've looked at bunch of different models we are not reinventing the wheel, this has been done. So what are we?We're an inclusive sports,facility that has a demographic of birth to 100, we expect'this to be a community club, that is we expect senior citizens, we expect toddlers and we expect everyone in between.We'd love to institute for our members a mentoring program, where we have senior citizens on`site and everyone wants to feel that they're needed and therewealth of knowledge, their lifelong knowledge can be helped in talking to people who are just leaving college or going through different stages of their lives. Our college students can help out our high school students who are going-looking for colleges'and things like that and what to expect. Our high school students can mentor our younger students in elementay school, they can help and instruction during the summer and things like that. As far as before and-after care we do it at our district, now there's a number,of different ways, there's a taekwondo shop'in Aquebogue'I believe and he busses his kids from Cutchogue-East to lessons,there, there are a number of-ways we can go about it. We can ask the district to have"another bus stop and that would be Sports East or we,can get whatever we need to get to b"`ring the kids there and pick the kids up ourselves, and this would be for members only, and this is for peoplewho have childcare issues and . - what better place"to be at. In the morning if you're able to move around and prepare for your,day at school and after you come home get some homework help and then be able 'to move-around and get some.recreation or sport before you go home and have mom or cAlo Southold Town Planning Board �_• Page 140 May 2, 2016 dad or who pick you up. Suffolk Community College-is definitely building a facility, there's 2500 students in Suffolk Community College they will be using the facility for free. I have not calculated but there are many, many people in the surrounding areas, my daughter,runs track and she goes to.Brentwood to run track meets, it is not going to be easily accessible. It is a great opportunity for people up there, it is not local, we want something for our community. They are not offering the same things we are offering, I didn't see anything about tennis courts, I didn't see anything about an outdoor turf field, its apples and oranges, it's a wonderful thing to have but we owe it to our community-to have something local. I'd like to look at, because Hooked at the Comprehensive Plan over the weekend, the plan for the Town of Southold, specifically the Parks and Recreation section and this was dated•10/29/2011 and these are some of the comments from those who worked on it during the work sessions. This is from 2011, indoor sports facility lacking, pool will increase property values, need a concrete strategy to develop indoor pool recreation complex, install paddle tennis courts, indoor sports complex, more performing arts, towns should look at the example of Saline Michigan where a small declining town worked with a philanthropist to establish a rec center that was the catalyst for the towns economic rebirth and improve quality of life. I haven't heard anything but for a few talk about what this does for our community, some of the greatest minds back from Plato and Socrates mention the importance of leisure activities and things like that, this is an integral part of who we are. I'd like.to read a quick quote from an individual that has travelled the world and worked with Olympic skiers and he says the word recreation is a very beautiful word; it is defined in the dictionary as the process of giving new life to something, of refreshing something, of restoring something. This something of course is the whole person and I think a lot of us are missing the point, this is'not a perfect situation. I've been at this for 12 years and I've had perspective investors and I've looked at a lot of different property and it's never come together except for Paul and Steve Marsh and I trust Paul he does things that I can't do and I do things that he can't do. I'll tell you he's got to have a thick skin under withering remarks like that I actually felt bad for'him but I am glad to have him as a partner.4 want to mention a few things about the benefits in sports recreation.this is from the Massachusetts Recreation and Parks Association, it builds family unity, it reduces stress, it promotes a connected community, it provides a safe place to play, it offers a place for social interaction, increases property value, healthy people are happy people, it diminishes your change of contracting.disease, lower health-care cost, reduces crime, increases community pride, gives young people something to do, helps the at risk population, I haven't mentioned I heard about the at risk population that Mrs. Warrens she mentioned it, we have.at risk populations in our school, we deal with it all the time and no one size fits all..,if people get a job at 11 years old, wonderful I had a paper route but that doesn't work for everybody we have to give them an opportunity so they are not sitting by idling. Another thing I'd like'to mention, the human capital model from the 'website designed to move and.this speaks to exactly what we're talking about and this talks about young people that get involved in physical fitness and physical,activity based upon their parents because it is intergenerational and the things they talked about with their research, 1/10th likely.to be obese, up to,40% higher test scores, less smoking, drug use and pregnancy, 50% more likely to go to college, 7-8% higher annual earnings, lower health care costs, more productive at work, this is throughout,their life, k1ko Southold Town Planning Board P a c, <; I 41 May 2, 2016 reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes, 1/3rd the rate of disability, this again is intergenerational cycle active parents are associated with active kids. Lastly we need this, and there are things to be worked out and we love summer people but they don't live here full year, they don't experience what it is in the winter when it gets dark at 4:30 and there's nothing else going on, you can't play outdoors, if you want to play tennis you have to go to the other size. if you want to rent turf space you have to go to Southampton, we need something here that is local and Sports-East will provide you with that. I just want to say one"more thing, they did a survey also and the survey had during the dfaft of the Comprehensive Plan as it pertains to Parks and Recreation and an indoor swimming pool and an indoor sports complex were in the top five and this was included in the final draft, it says conduct feasibility study that would include researching the availability of funding, public and private, operation public and private and suggested location of a year round gymnasium and swimming pool facility. the proposed multi-purpose complex may include an extensive gymnasium with exercise equipment,-weights, indoor heating swimming, pool to permit lap swimming, indoor basketball court, bowling lanes, loccers etcetera. It'went on to say feasibility study would include the possibility of included collaborations of-for profit and not for profit partnerships that could make the creation an operation of the proposed multi-purpose complex financially viable, that was from the final draft of Parks and Recreation. I came to this meeting and thought about how I was going to present and it didn't take long to see the tenor of this meeting and I thought there were some personal attacks that are really, really unfortunate and I guess when you are passionate about'something you take it personal but then you have to act accordingly. 1 would never impugn anyone here I would never talk to anyone here I would address it to the community. The last thing I would like to say is this and it's from the great Vince Lombardi and it pertains to this and I've said it before, perfection is unattainable but if you chase perfection you can catch excellence-and that is what we're looking to do here at Sports East. Thank you very much. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Yes. Joy Elli,nghaus: I just want to make another quick comment, Joy Ellinghaus, I don't think anyone of any intelligence would doubt the benefits of sports in general and certainly for children and connect them with academics or academic accomplishments. It certainly has become obvious in the last few years or the last decade or so that sports has been'at the forefront of high schools and particularly in Mattituck, in my day growing up it was arts and music but they'vecut all of that, so I can see how the community is getting behind and certainly supporting.this complex. And I think it is a very much obviously needed and wanted and it seems like a very nice idea, I just think it can exist elsewhere; it doesn't have to exist on this property just because you purchased this' property. And I just would like to ask the Board if part of the process of the environmental study should that not, I think it's-before the Zoning Board now is-that rig ht? Chairman Wilcenski: Yes, they are in a holding pattern while we do SEQRA. LVO Southold Town Planning Board Page 142 May 2, 2016 Joy Ellinghaus: So that hasn't been finished yet? Chairman Wilcenski: No. Joy Ellinghaus: And from what I understand if this has too many environmental issues, the special exception will not be granted and I've heard that Mr. Pawlowski will not seek to do anything else with this property and I would just request that perhaps he look very seriously into selling the property and look to do this very obviously desired project elsewhere and not in this location through this special exception. And that's all I wanted to say, I think we all understand the benefits of sports and how they help kids. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Anybody else? Would anybody else like to address the Board? Mindy Ryan: My name is Mindy Ryan and I hate public speaking but I have to show my support for Sports East. I was a Southold Town Lifeguard in 1984 and 1985 and in order to-take,my test I had to drive 60 miles to Montauk Downs and at the time I couldn't figure out why there was no pool here it was very strange to me. 1 became pregnant in 1996 and luckily I had 7 Z's in Flanders to swim because I needed to get some exercise. As my daughter grew up we searched for places to swim, we drove to the Hampton Inn up the expressway and joined that club in the winter so that we could swim in the wintertime. My daughter followed in my footsteps and became a lifeguard; I had to drive her to Brookhaven National Lab for her certification and testing. An indoor pool year round has been a dream of mine for 20 years, I've followed the debacle when there_ was a proposal for Greenport, a proposal for Aquebogue, a proposal for Laurel and I came to a meeting similar to this and I stood up and I said please put the pool,in my backyard. So thank you very much. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Anybody else? Yes sir. Mark Szynaka: I'm Mark Szynaka I am a full time Southold resident, I have a 13 and a 16 year old both who have jobs, both who are looking forward to the sports activities particularly the indoor swimming. I think that the opportunity to share the sports with my children would be a wonderful opportunity, particularly in the winter time that I think is the most important aspect of this project. It's privately funded, they are not looking to float a bond, they are looking to finance this privately which I think is a good thing. Having a central pool reduces the number of families who would otherwise put in a pool of their own if they know that they have a pool so from an environmental standpoint that would be preferable. I ask the Board to approve this project for the good of the community. Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Last time around, anybody? Yes. Jennifer McNamara: Hi my name is Jennifer McNamara I am a Mattituck resident, I also hate public speaking.,Recently I have undergone some serious medical conditions that most elderly people undergo, I have rheumatoid arthritis along with fibromyalgia Southold-Town Planning Board P a 43 May 2, 2016 and other arthritic conditions. Driving has become quite an issue for me, long distance driving is not an option. Being told to drive an hour and a half to a pool and then drive back is very wearing on someone with a physical disability. The opportunity to have something like this is unbelievably positive for this community. I have a 21 year old and a 12 year old child; the 12 year old is very athletic and very into sports and would very much love to have this ability to go to a gym throughout the year. I understand that there was some comments made in regards to children at 11 and 12 getting jobs, I'd like to know where those jobs can be had. There are a lot of children out here and there are a lot of children with a lot of great potential, being able to give them this one place that they can go to see whether they are going to become something great athletically, why not give them the opportunity. It seems that there are buffers in place, the sewer system is in place, there's a lot that can be had. I just ask that you really consider people my age and older that have these conditions that could use this,pool. Every doctor I see says'you need a pool; I can't make it to that pool up the island or Suffolk Community College as they said 2,500 students with free membership, those-kids are going to take advantage of that gym whether it's the pool or the gym itself. So I'd just like to say please that there's a special exemption, we really need this here. Thank-you., Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, would anybody else like to address the Board on Sports East'Fitness Club. I just want to thank everybody for their comments and this hearing has been recorded and all comments and inquiries will be addressed through the SEQRA process and thank you very much for coming. I'm looking for a'motion to close the hearing. James H. Rich III: I make a motion.to close the hearing. William Cremers: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Bill. Any discussion? All in favor? Ayes. Motion.carries. APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Chairman Wilcenski: The,last.order of business is for the Board to approve the minutes of: April 4, 2016. William Cremers: So moved. James H., Rich III: Second. Southold Town Planning Board Page 144' May 2, 2016 Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Bill, seconded by Jim. Any discussion? All in favor? ! Ayes. Motion carries: Chairman Wilcenski: I need a motion for adjournment. Martin Sidor: So moved. James H. Rich III: Second. Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Martin, seconded by Jim. Any discussion?All in favor? Ayes. Motion carries. Good evening. There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Jessica Michaelis Transcribing Secretary Donald Wilcenski, Chairman to/ 0 — ems` +z> _8') v��r7f�+ c r-- ko11 450 Brigantine Drive Southold, NY 11971 October 16,2016 s Leslie Kanes Weisman ZBA Chairperson Town of Southold Dear Ms.Weisman, I am writing to express my support for the Sports East project. I believe it is a project that will have only positive impacts on the community. When a private developer wants to use his own money to develop a center that would benefit the health and well-being of the residents of the area that is a project that should be encouraged. It would provide a venue for residents to exercise,swim and use the outdoor fields for other sports related activities. These facilities are needed on the North Fork. I attended several earlier meetings about the project. Some who spoke against the project suggested that residents could use the health center being built by LIU on the SCCC campus in Riverhead. I am an adjunct instructor that campus. There was a ground breaking ceremony for the center last October. To date,there has been no further action taken on the center. It is also unrealistic to suggest that the college will allow non students to use their facilities. The proposed site is not in a residential area and the plans include a buffer of trees as a barrier to the neighboring homes on Sigsbee Avenue. It should also be noted that at the meetings about the project,the audience seemed to be overwhelmingly in favor of the Sports East project. A few residents of the area spoke against the project but I feel that the developer has addressed their concerns in his plan for the site. Sincerely, ; y� Ethel McKenna IMELDA CORCORAN FARRELL 760 PECONIC BAY BOULEVARD LAUREL,NEW YORK 11948Ik ry�l October 20, 2016 4119e> �100 � e® 00 's, 9'10 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson `leo Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Dear Ms. Weisman and Zoning Board Members: I have been a resident of the Town of Southold for over 40 years. For 20 of those years I was an Educator and Administrator with the Mattituck Cutchogue School District. I am presently a Professor of English Language Arts and Writing at Suffolk County Community College and an active member of the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association. I have raised 3 children in our Town, all of whom were active in sports as children and remain so as adults. My seven grandchildren who reside here in town engage in one or more outdoor sports either at school as part of local travel teams. I,too am a tennis player and my husband,who is 89 years old swims in the Peconic Bay every chance he gets, weather permitting. I am well aware of the resources that are available, or in the case of our Town, lacking for athletes of all ages. It cannot be questioned that the North Fork has long been deprived of a space or facility that youth, families and senior citizens can utilize for regular exercise year-round. I submit this letter to express my family's adamant support of the proposal for the Sports East Fitness Club in Mattituck. I offer these comments in an effort to persuade you that Sports East is without question,being established as a venue where our community can engage in the outdoor sports we love on an annual basis. Many communities today across the nation have established these types of facilities for the wellbeing and health of their citizens. They are commonplace in most communities on the East End of Long Island. Both East Hampton and Southampton Towns have similar facilities, and Riverhead will hopefully soon benefit from the facility proposed at Suffolk County Community College. These facilities usually increase property values and attract buyers and visitors alike because of their year-round health and social aspects. Statistics show that most young people today are health and exercise enthusiasts. The population in general, both young and elder are far more health conscious and aware of the necessity and value of exercise. And yet,the student athletes on the North Fork have long been penalized by the myopic and narrow-minded perspectives of those who possess the "not in my back yard"mentality. As a result, unlike kids in most other towns,our young athletes must travel extensively during the winter months for lessons and practice to be at all competitive in most outdoor sports. My children and grandchildren are avid tennis players. Our families and many others in this town have been making the journey to the long-established South Fork facilities during wind, snow,rain, sleet and even hail, day and night for over two generations with members of the Mattituck High School tennis team. The ability to engage in outdoor sports and exercise is a prime characteristic of our rural, seaside community. When the weather permits, we can walk,run, cycle, swim in our bays, creeks and the Sound,play tennis,volleyball,baseball, lacrosse and soccer. This facility provides the Town with a unique opportunity to allow our families and senior citizens to pursue the outstanding opportunities of this area for exercise during the winter months that are present in the summer months. But due to our local climate,we are deprived of the opportunity to continue these healthful outdoor sports for almost half of the year. Consequently, many of our senior citizens become housebound and the ability of our youth to condition themselves and practice their chosen outdoor sport is completely thwarted. This facility offers our residents of our Town the opportunity to participate in outdoor sports all year long. It appears that the only impediment is the rather antiquated and confusing definition of"club" in our code that lumps membership clubs together with country and golf clubs. The definition has not been amended in nearly 20 years to address the realities of modern day life in the Town of Southold. It is our understanding that you are tasked with determining whether Sports East qualifies as a Club"established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports". While I am not personally an expert on the Southold Town Code, I am fortunate enough to be the mother of your former Assistant Town Attorney, Kieran Corcoran and the mother-in-law of your former Town Attorney, Martin Finnegan and as such,I have been able to elicit what I believe to be credible and reliable insight into certain provisions of the Code that may aid you in your interpretation of this term. First, I would direct your attention to Section 280-3(C) of the Town Code,which states that"In their interpretation and application,the provisions of this chapter shall be held to the minimum requirements adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare". Section 280-4(B) states in pertinent part that any word or term not defined in the code shall be used with a meaning as defined in the latest edition of Webster's Dictionary. Since most of the terms in the definition of Club are not otherwise defined in the Code, it would seem to me that you are tasked with applying Webster's meaning of the salient words in the definition in a manner that promotes the health safety and welfare of our community. I have already-commented on the various outdoor sports that are prevalent in our town. There is, however,very little distinction in this century between indoor and outdoor sports—well, maybe bowling. Facilities are sprouting up all over to enhance competitiveness and overall health. By my read,the fundamental question is whether Sports East will be a place where you can"engage" in such outdoor sports. Webster's defines "engage" in the context of activities as "to begin and carry on an activity" and"to do or take part in something." The Sports East Facility will allow the residents of our Town to take part in outdoor sports such as tennis, swimming and running,when the weather would otherwise preclude us from engaging in those activities. It will also provide the necessary conditioning equipment that is essential to the safely and competitively engage in outdoor sports. I respectfully suggest that you apply the provisions of the Code I have cited and use your discretion to recognize that Sports East is and clearly should be considered a membership club as defined in the Town Code. It seems obvious that this proposed facility will benefit so many of our citizens, increase the desirability of the area and give our citizens year round opportunities to continue the outdoor sports for which this area is known. We urge you,the members of the zoning board,to recognize.the true significance of this decision and the current,more realistic interpretation of"outdoor sports". CHARLES R.CUDDY 0' OCT 18 2016 ATTORNEY AT LAW 445 GRI FFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK ---�--- Mailing Address: TEL- (631)369-8200 P.O.Box 1547 PAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 -mail cl�zrle€ cu�l�3i�ucriz^^ ^A+ October 18, 2016 chaoescuddy@optonhne.net Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Sports East Fitness Club-9300 Route 25,Mattituck,NY SCTM#1000-122-7-9 Dear Ms. Weisman: Enclosed is a Memorandum on behalf of the applicant which is submitted in accordance with your statement holding this matter open for additional comments. Very truly yours, CRC:ik Charles R. Cuddy ,ta Enclosures SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS In the Matter of Application of OCT 18 ?016 BY '' ,, Sports East Fitness Club —'�4 f—?L MEMORANDUM 9300 Route 25, Mattituck,New York SCTM#1000-122-7-9 FACTS The facts are simple, direct and not disputable. On December 4, 2015,the Sports East Fitness Club applied to the Southold Town Building Department for a building permit to develop a sports complex at its 20 +acre site at the Main Road Mattituck. The site is in the R-80 Zoning Use District. The application was pursuant to Article III Chapter 280, Section 13 (13)(7) of the Southold Town Code. On December 12, 2015, a Notice of Disapproval was issued by the Town Building Department stating the proposed use is subject to site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Special Exception approval from the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Sports East, based on the Notice of Disapproval immediately submitted an application for a Special Exception use to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The application was accepted and a hearing before the Zoning Board was scheduled for February 4, 2016. Prior to the hearing, the Southold Town Planning Board delivered to the Zoning Board of Appeals its review and comments by a Memorandum dated January 25, 2016, all of which related to the proposed use and the Special Exception standards. The Zoning Board hearing of February 4"was held open for a SEQRA determination by the Planning Board. To review the site plan the Planning Board required a full set of design drawings. That Board held a site plan hearing on May 2, 2016. On May 31, 2016 the Planning Board sent a second Memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals asking"Does the use as proposed meet the definition of a membership club, and fit the described use in 280-13 of an annual membership club?" In response the Zoning Board held a further hearing on October 6, 216 and focused on the definition of a Membership Club, as well as, the definition for"Recreational facilities" and "Recreation Facility Commercial" as set forth in the Planning Board's May 31St Memorandum. Supplementing the statements made at the October 6" hearing the applicant submits this Memorandum. Page -1- ARGUMENTS I. The use of three (3) definitions sows confusion when there should be none. Sports East is an Annual Membership Club. First and foremost this is a membership club. The application was made that way, it was processed and recognized that way. It is not a commercial recreation facility. There are annual membership fees. This is not paid admission to a skating ring, a bowling alley or a riding academy. It is a sports fitness center with a membership fee. Until the Planning Board Memorandum of May 31, 2016, no one suggested otherwise. The definition in question is: "CLUB, MEMBERSHIP OR COUNTRY OR GOLF An entity established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities, but not including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or motorboat racing. §280-4" Sports East is within the definition of Membership Club. It offers outdoor sports and an indoor site. What is meant by principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports is open to question. Sports is in the plural. Presumably the site can have more than one sport. The significant sports at Sports East will be tennis, soccer, swimming, and basketball, all of which are played outdoors but may be played indoors. Why does moving them indoors, at least for a period of time, prevent them from being outdoor sports? It is clear from the testimony of the Laurel Links General Manager that there are as many activities conducted inside the golf course Clubhouse as outside the Clubhouse. Laurel Links is in the A-C zone and received Special Exception approval. There is no limitation on inside or outside activities. The definition being reviewed is hardly precise. The number of uses do not appear to be the criteria. Is it area used, or the type of sport that controls? Ambiguity in the definition shouldn't be held against the applicant. Calling Sports East anything other than a membership club is either an innocent mistake or an orchestrated desperate attempt to not have this use at a 20-acre site in the R-80 zone. Intensity of use is not an objection. As of right uses in R-80 include wineries, horse farms, the keeping of domestic farm animals and by Special Exception riding academies and even a summer camp accommodating 250 children. Moreover, in the Mattituck-Laurel area there are baseball and soccer fields in the A-C and even R-40 districts with proximity to residences. At this point there is no fixed zoning district for fitness centers,the nearest to this site are in the HB and RO districts. A sports facility confined to one-third ('/a) of a 20- acre parcel is certainly a contemplated use in the R-80 zone. Page -2- (OCO(00 II. Reference to recreational uses in the May 31, 2016 memorandum is a sham. It is a deliberate diversion and proposes a commercial use not sought by the applicant. Recreational Facilities is for predominately outdoor activities by paying users. It is not an annual membership. The combination of indoor/outdoor activities is not acknowledged. Moreover, Recreational Facility is only found in the Light Industrial Park District. There are two (2) sites within the Town zoned LIO; one is behind and north of the Town Disposal area, the other is near an asphalt plant in the hamlet of Greenport. Neither location has available land and neither is conducive to outside active use. Likewise a Recreation Facility Commercial is not an annual Membership Club. The only reference to this use is in the B-General Business District. However that particular Code provision requires the facility to be entirely enclosed and there are no available sites throughout the Town. That was confirmed by the testimony of Fred Markam. The Zoning Code and Zoning Map effectively destroy the opportunity for Sports East to be located anywhere except in the R-80 Zone. Preventing a use through the artifice of having no location where the use can be located effectively precludes the use. Neither Recreational Facility or Recreation Facility Commercial includes a Membership Club and focusing on either definition ignores the application and the testimony of the applicant's principal. In reviewing the Planning Board's May 31 Memorandum and its suggestion that Sports East is a recreation facility, what is absolutely perplexing is the Planning Board's endorsement in its Memorandum of January 25, 2016 : "Another indication of whether a proposed development is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is how it fits into the current zoning. In this case, the use is considered by the Town's Building Department as fitting under the Special Exception section of 280- 13 B as a membership club. Under that section of the zoning code, the use must meet certain conditions, all of which the Building Department found to be met as indicated by the Notice of Disapproval, dated December 12, 2015, which makes no mention of any variances required. The use exceeds, or is able to exceed all the requirements in the Town Code for such a facility, including the minimum property size and setbacks." (page 2 of the January 25 Memorandum) The Planning Board's statement was followed by the Zoning Board's recognition at the February 4th hearing: "A Special Exception Permit is a request from an applicant to go ahead with the project that is already permitted in the code in that zoned district but only upon review and approval of the Board based on a set of standards which are in the code." (excerpt from Minutes of February 4" hearing). It is virtually impossible to reconcile the January 25th Memorandum and the statements at Page-3- the Zoning Board hearing with the May 31"Memorandum. At what point may an applicant rely upon a Board's assessment? The first Planning Board assessment was correct. It coincides with the determination of the Building Department and is a fair understanding of the language in the Town Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals has sufficient latitude to bring about a decision that is beneficial to the community (see the Edson Farm Stand Decision(8-19-2010)where a fully operational retail store is considered a farm stand. III The Zoning Board is without jurisdiction to consider the Planning Board's request. Under the guise and pretext of an interpretation a Board without any authority to intervene has appealed to the Zoning Board to reopen the determination of the Building Department and the Zoning Board itself. This "request"was made nearly four (4) months after the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing and more than five (5) months after the Notice of Disapproval. If this can occur, an applicant never knows what it is addressing or who it is addressing and when the application is on an approval track. If the Planning Board's " request" is allowed, when does this practice stop? If a member of the Town Board or a Town Officer is troubled by an application, e.g., Assessor, Town Clerk, Superintendent of Highways, do they make an"interpretation request"and provide alternatives to underscore their opposition? This is a daunting precedent. It isn't just bad practice, it is beyond the power of the Planning Board and should not be recognized. An interpretation request must, as a minimum, be relevant to the proceeding before the requesting Board. The Memorandum of May 31 is not related to the Special Exception standards and had nothing whatsoever to do with the site plan being reviewed. It is a belated attempt to appeal the Notice of Disapproval. The appeal time has long since past. The process cannot be a rewind and a do over whenever a government official or officials take exception to a proposed use. The Planning Board does not have the authority to question the Building Department's Disapproval-which was recognized by the Zoning Board (Town Code §280-141). The Zoning Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to hear an application from the Planning Board which questions the Building Department's determination and in a neat 2- page Memorandum further questions the bona fides of the application and provides a brief to set aside the basis for a Special Exception. This aberrant procedure lacks uniformity and violates the due process clauses of the State and Federal Constitutions. CONCLUSION If the May 31 Memorandum is to be considered at all then it must be acknowledged that an Page -4- annual Membership Club for the purpose of outdoor sports is permitted. To place the same sports indoors during inclement weather is not a big leap-particularly when the site is suitable and convenient. When a meaningful appropriate use cannot be approved at a suitable location then government is not serving it constituency and loses legitimacy. Respectfully submitted f% Charles R. Cudd , attorney o Sports East Fitness Club Page -5- r S" ` G� Tom ./ Asa OCT 12 2016 Fuentes, Kim From: Kathy Driscoll <kjdriscl@aol.com> -- Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:37 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Sports East To whom it may concern: As a mother of three children, a member of our community, the co-president of Mattituck-Cutchogue SEPTA, and a former teacher, I would like to state that I feel that the use of Sports East fits the description of a membership club.The use would be primarily indoor and thus, should be allowed to proceed. truly hope that you will come to a decision that will give many people a safe place to gather. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kathy Driscoll 675 E. Legion Ave. Mattituck, NY 11952 Sent from my iPhone 1 )01iz1 Fuentes;_Kim From: Sean Driscoll <sean.drisc@gmail.com> 'S'ent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:29 PM �� To: Fuentes, Kim / Subject: -Sports East S� To Whom it may concern: I would like to add my strong support to this great project. Our fellow town residents need this facility;from young to `old and in between. An indoor pool, an indoor exercise track and all the other amenities certainly benefit the town better than Laurel Links' indoor pool'which the town approved for variance years ago as their GM mentioned at the last meeting. Sports East will allow our residents to engage in healthy activities year round, but especially during those cold months when outdoor activities can be difficult or even unsafe. It will also provide our teenage residents with a healthy environment to congregate instead of the limited and mostly negative options they currently have. The use would be primarily indoor and therefore shouldn't present a significant noise issue for nearby residents: Picture -40 Southold residents parking in a lot and going into a building to exercise. How noisy would they be? How noisy is the Mattituck shopping area? In my experience most Southold residents probably don't even know if their car's horn works! Since it will be a membership organization the town could compel them to have members reduce noise outside or risk losing their membership. It is also important to note that the developers of Sports East ARE residents.They aren't dropping in to make money and -leave.Their children attend our schools and they and their families are part of what makes this community great. I realize that our town government's first thought is"no"when it comes to building anything new in our town.We all appreciate that your first priority is to preserve the rural nature of our great town, but this use of a fallow parcel right near the commercial district is something that will improve the quality of life for ALL residents. Thank you for-your consideration. I hope you come to the right decision. Best, Sean Driscoll Mattituck - 1 �-T1 - Fuentes, Kim From: Kathryn Casey <kathcasey@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 11:50 AM To: Fuentes, Kim Cc: Liz Casey; Ryan Quigley, Mary Casey,Jim Casey OCT Subject. Sports East / A Ry— ul-n�p��® o� Dear Ms. Fuentes, I reside in Greenport with my husband and two children. We would really like to see this facility in Mattituck and believe it would be of benefit to the whole community. Please note that I support that Sports East meets the definition of a membership club and therefore should qualify for a special exception. Thank you for your consideration.We hope to see this great project come to fruition. Warmly, Kathryn Casey Quigley 1 °l 1 o e ft.t.Q.,P � me e4-6 October 4, 2016 Town of Southold,Zoning Board of Appeals Leslie Wisman, Chairperson Oct Q Box 1179 ?®16 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Mt.- RE: Sports East Fitness I am against the ZBA granting special exceptions permit based on the following: - Allowing this will prevent ordinary and reasonable use of adjoining properties based on noise and light pollution, and traffic congestion leading to additional pollution. - The safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience will be adversely affected by this proposal. - The Town of Southold already has limited clean drinking water.The Suffolk Water Authority held a meeting requesting all residents to conserve water. - Sports East,in their proposal, stated they will be pulling 13,000 gallons a day of drinking water.This affects the health and welfare of ALL Town of Southold residents. - Further,the waste water produced by their entity will cause additional pollution for Peconic Bay and Laurel Lake, a sanctuary. - The use is not compatible with its surroundings and character of the neighborhood and community in general. - This project will produce excessive storm water damage, which will also affect our Peconic Bay. It will produce more damaging pollution to our frail Eco system. Sincerely, c Jacqueline Fedynak 10/1/ h t P Ma-V d,D rwPm)&,&o +-71-1W Fuentes, Kim From: Jill Tapper <jillzappulla@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 7:49 AM To: Fuentes, Kim OCT Subject: Sports East 1 1 2016 Good morning Ms. Fuentes, ®® My name is Jill Zappulla and I am a resident in Laurel. My twins, Marc and Trevor who are 11 years old, spend much of their down time playing local sports-North Fork United Soccer, North Fork Lax,Sacred Heart CYO basketball. What a gift our community could give our youth if Sports East was clear to move forward! We volunteer our time coaching, spending our own time providing healthy,team building opportunities for Southold residents. Sports East would provide a state-of-the-art complex to continue supporting a lifestyle many Americans need! Please feel free to contact me with any questions! Sincerely, Jill Zappulla i Fuentes, Kim From: Lena Maun <Imauntony@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 10:08 AM ��� To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Public Comment regarding Sports East ZBA Hearing Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Fuentes, Please accept the following email as public comment in regards to the Sports East project.. I attended the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing held on October 6, 2016. The subject'of the hearing was to determine whether the project whether the proposal meets the definition of a membership club as outlined by Southold Town Code and seemed to hinge on whether the facility will primarily support outdoor sports even with a large indoor space. As a resident, I believe that Sports East meets the definition of a membership club and therefore should qualify for a special exception as the indoor component allows access to outdoor sports through the winter when normally inaccessible. While I have nothing against Country Clubs (projects which have been found to meet the definition of a membership club), such clubs are generally single focused (golf) and financially inaccessible to many on our community. Sports East would promote a greater diversity of use and be open to all. I fully support a facility where my son could run and my (disabled) daughter could swim all year, and to be able to do such activities in and with others in our community. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Lena DeSantis 560 Deer Drive Mattituck NY 11952 i t)k,q,V 'ed 1'/, Fuentes, Kim From: Adrienne Weber <gwiltknit1937@outlook.com> ®cj,® Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2016 10:44 AM D To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Sports East �a I am in support of Sports East. This is a necessary facility for the North Fork. With water all around and no place to swim or exercise from Sept.to May, this is the answer. I am a senior citizen with degenerative disc disease. The only form of therapy that is successful, and alleviates pain, is exercise in the water. In the past I have traveled once a week(which is not enough)to the YMCA in Easthampton to have water therapy. I have also,weekly, been attending water therapy at the indoor pool at Peconic Landing with doctor's orders since I do not reside there. Please give every consideration to have this facility pass and start construction. I am in full support of Paul Pawlowski, Joe Slovak and Steve March. They have done all they can to have this pass. If I am not at the meeting on Thursday, please let this suffice. Adrienne Weber 2250 Beebe Drive, Cutchogue,NY 11935 631-734-8688 i MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS *VjV SO(/�� P.O. Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSKI ��V� ®lam Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERSTown Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY G ® O 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III �n MARTIN H.SIDOR �fj� (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs.Ave.) com Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM t01 ` To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director Date: August 25, 2016 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9300 Route 25, ±141' s/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 As requested, please let this memorandum serve to reaffirm that although the site plan application was withdrawn on July 11, the Planning Board continues to request a code interpretation of Section 280-13 relating to the proposed application referenced above, and the Special Exception use of"annual membership club." Please refer to the Planning Board's memo of May 31, 2016 for the details of this request. Please call with any questions. Thank you. BOARD MEMBERS f soy Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson O�� ryol 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 p Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning • ^^aay� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider IyCOUNTY Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS io TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I Tel.(631) 765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 August 30,2016 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead,NY 11901 RE: Sports East Fitness Club,9300 Route 25,Mattituck,NY Dear Mt. Cuddy: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2016 requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals hold a public hearing to interpret Town Code sections 280-13B and 280-4, in relation to the above referenced application for a Special Exception Permit for an annual membership club. Your client does not having standing before the Board to make this request, since no disapproval from the Building Department has been issued,which is required for the Board to take such action. However,the Planning Board, as a town agency,may make such a request as of right which,as you know they did on May 31,2016. Yesterday I requested and received written confirmation that, despite the withdrawal by your client of his site plan application,the Planning Board's request is still active. Therefore, our office has scheduled a public hearing for October 6, 2016 at 1:00 P.M. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Si ely ours, Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson cc: Donald Wilcenski,Planning Board Chairman Heather Lanza,Director of Planning William Duffy,Town Attorney Kim Fuentes,ZBA Assistant/Secretary S Dunn Engineering Associates, P.C. Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street n ��� Westhampton Beach,N.Y.11978 U ZV.Z 631-288-2480 V D 631-288-2544 Fax ®CT® 5 2016 August 24,2016 Mr. Paul Pawlowski Via E-mail: pawlowskibiz@gmail.com Re: Response to Comments on Traffic Impact Study Draft Letter of 7/11/16 for DEIS, Planning Board Private Annual Membership Health Chub S/S of NYS Rte. 25,West of Factory Avenue Mattituck,Town of Southold,NY Dear Mr. Pawlowski: In accordance with your request, this letter responds to the comments in Item 4, Impact on Transportation, on pages 2 and 3 of the July 11, 2016 draft of the intent to prepare a DEIS by the Town of Southold Planning Board (Lead Agency). The Traffic Impact Study performed for this project has been prepared according to NYSDOT guidelines for TIS preparation. For ease of reference, the Town's comment is presented first and is followed by our response for each bullet,which we have numbered 1) thru 11). Comment No. 1: Based on direct observation, use and experience with the roadways, the Planning Board disagrees that the estimated site generated traffic of 155 vehicles Weekday A.M., 324 vehicles Weekday P.M. and 373 vehicles Saturday Midday Peak Hour could be "easily" accommodated on the roadway network as indicated on page 18 of the TIS. Additional traffic volume may result in an adverse change to the level of service for affected roads and mitigation to address the worsening level of service must be fully discussed. Response No. 1: As indicated in the capacity analysis conducted for the signalized intersection of Factory Ave/ Sigsbee Rd @ Main Road (NYS Rt 25), the addition of site generated traffic to the existing traffic on these roadways has a minimal impact to the roadway network. Excellent Levels of Service are maintained for all time periods analyzed. These results support our conclusions. To properly look at the volume of site generated traffic it is important to break down the total hourly volume into arrival and departure traffic. Thus, for the AM, PM and Saturday peak hour, the total site a Mr.Paul Pawlowski August 24, 2016 Page 2 generated traffic of 155, 324 and 373 vehicles per hour, respectively would consist of 94, 202, 182 vehicles entering the site and 61, 122, 191 vehicles exiting the site. This would result in approximately 1.5, 3, 3 vehicles per minute entering and 1, 2, 3 vehicles per minute exiting the site. Comparing the site generated traffic entering the signalized intersection to the total traffic entering the intersection already on the roadways, there is an increase of approximately 6% in the AM, 10% in the PM and 9%in the Saturday peak hours, which is not perceptible. Comment No. 2: There is a large concern about the ability to make a safe westbound turn onto S.R. 25 from the parcel from the westerly site driveway. The TIS indicates that following the build of the project in Table 5 - Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis Results, that the intersection would have a Level of Service (LOS) of "D Weekday A.M. Peak, F. Weekday P.M. Peak and F Saturday Peak." This is not addressed fully in the TIS. Further, there is a concern about the impacts to the surrounding neighborhood roadways due to traffic that may not be able to make a westbound turn from the site at busy traffic and instead taking a right turn eastbound and using side roads such as Factory Avc./Sound Ave. and Sigsbee Rd/Peconic Bay Blvd. to head west. Response No. 2: Since most State roadways on Long Island have higher traffic volumes than Route 25 in Mattituck, at most locations, there may be times when it becomes difficult to make a left turn out of a driveway or a side street. In their review of our Traffic Impact Study, the NYSDOT did not express a concern since this situation is becoming a common occurrence along NYSDOT roadways. Comment No. 3: There are concerns about the vehicle stacking in front of the property in the eastbound lane of S.R. 25 resulting from the existing traffic signal to the east, and the effect on the safety and operation of the parcel's westerly and easterly driveways. Response No. 3: The capacity analysis shows at high level of service with no disruption from vehicle stacking. The easterly driveway (right turns out only) is located 251 feet west of the signalized intersection of Factory Ave/Sigsbee Rd @ Main Road, while the westerly driveway (right and left turns in and out) is located 592 feet west of the signalized intersection. Vehicle stacking will not have a negative impact on traffic flow as evidenced by the good levels of service at this signalized intersection. • 1 V ko M Mr.Paul Pawlowski August 24,2016 Page 3 Comment No. 4: There is a concern about the accuracy of the seasonal adjustment factors used in the TIS. Real time traffic counts are requested where the entrance is proposed and at the Factory Avenue/S.R. 25/Sigsbee Road intersection in the busiest months (July-August). Response No.4: The NYS DOT has a permanent count station located near the site on Route 25/Main Road between Manor Lane and Sound Ave. in Mattituck. The State monitors these count stations throughout the year and develops the seasonal adjustment factors. This is the accepted means of adjusting traffic count data. However, as you suggested we collected volume data again in August 2016 at the signalized intersection to satisfy your concerns. These counts also provide the eastbound and westbound traffic volumes on Main Road passing in front of the two site driveways. We performed the capacity analysis again using the "Summer"2016 data. Our findings are presented in Attachment 1 which includes an updated Table 4 and the traffic counts collected in August 2016. As can be seen, the LOS remains excellent. Comment No. 5: There is a concern about the accuracy of the gap acceptance model (the number of acceptable gaps in traffic for a given movement compared to the number of vehicles seeking to utilize such gaps) as it relates to real, seasonal traffic volumes and patterns. Page 32 of the TIS. Response No. 5: The creation of simultaneous gaps in the eastbound and westbound traffic flow are created primarily due to the presence of the signal to the east. According to the capacity analysis software, the gaps created are acceptable given the volume of traffic on Route 25 at the access driveway. It should be noted that the standard for analyzing the levels of service and delays at an unsignalized intersection is to use the Highway Capacity Software. Thus, the Highway Capacity Software was utilized in our analyses,which conforms to the requirements of the NYSDOT. Comment No. 6: There is a concern about the lack of pedestrian connectivity with adjacent neighborhoods. Pedestrian movement and safety to and from the parcel should be examined from all potential access points: Factory Avenue/S.R. 25 Intersection, Sigsbee and Marlene Roads and along S.R. 25. Particular attention should be on adequate pedestrian queues and facilities from a 1/2 mile from the parcel. The connectivity with the SCTM# (1000-122-6- 22.1) aka the Capitol One Building must also be assessed. The building is currently vacant, however, the impacts from the action due to a future use on this parcel must also be contemplated. J; Mr. Paul Pawlowski August 24, 2016 Page 4 Response No. 6: We are ready to do our fair share by providing sidewalks along our site's frontage. Comment No.7: There is a concern about the lack of large vehicle parking and lack of overflow parking on-site. Response No. 7: No buses are anticipated to bring patrons to and from the site. Once the facility is built, the only large trucks entering the site will be the garbage trucks and they do not park on the site. Thus, there will be no demand for parking for buses or large trucks. Furthermore, the parking provided conforms to the Town Code requirements. In fact, more parking spaces are provided than required by the Code (244 provided is greater than 240 parking spaces required). Thus, there is no requirement or need for overflow parking. Comment No. 8: The project may add traffic to the area, and due to current road design, traffic, and intersection conditions, the surrounding roadways do not have the capacity to handle it. The parcel is located only a tenth of a mile west of the largest shopping center in the hamlet of Mattituck. The shopping center is very busy, and tenants include a large grocery store (anchor), several restaurants and retail uses and the Town's largest movie theater A convenience store is also located on the northeast corner of Factory Avenue and S.R. 25 and a popular retail store (ice cream) is located on the northwest corner of Factory Avenue and S.R. 25. Note, that a CVS Drug Store is located between Sigsbee Road and Marlene Lane. These commercial uses and associated traffic generation and movement must be taken into account assessment of impacts to the transportation system and must be fully discussed in the TIS. Response No. 8: As each of these uses are currently operating, all of their associated traffic is contained in the turning movement counts that were performed in March and August 2016, as well as in the continuous count station data provided by the NYSDOT and also in the updated summer 2016 counts. Therefore, the traffic generated by all of the existing uses have been taken into account,included in the collected data and analyzed accordingly. Comment No. 9: A driveway for a 52,633 sq. ft. building and parking for 363 cars are located across S.R. 25 from the westerly site driveway of this proposed development, yet the TIS did not assess the interaction and safety of the two driveways nor take into account the potential volume of cars that will use this site in the future. This site has a certificate of occupancy as an Mr.Paul Pawlowski August 24,2016 Page 5 office building, is in good condition and is actively being marketed for lease and re-use. Response No. 9: The future usage of this building is undetermined at this time and as such intersection demand can not be accurately estimated nor when this will take place. Thus, it is not identified as a proposed development and is not taken into consideration in our Traffic Impact Study. This follows the guidelines of NYSDOT for preparation of Traffic Impact Studies whereas there is no proposed use for the property at this time and need not be included in the study regardless if such property is available for sale or rent. The new tenant that will use this building and parking should be required to prepare a Traffic Impact Study, analyze the expected traffic conditions and provide mitigation, as necessary. However, it should be noted the roadway improvements of westbound to southbound left turn lane on Route 25 at our site's westerly driveway will help to mitigate the extent of possible roadway improvements required of the future developer of that property by the NYSDOT. Comment No. 10: There is a concern on the maximum occupancy of the site and the number of vehicles that would support such occupancy. Please identify the maximum occupancy of the site. Response No. 10: The permitted maximum occupancy within the building is generally determined by the Town Fire Marshall. Comment No. 11: The project will create a demand for pedestrian facilities where none currently exists and the project does not include pedestrian improvements. Response No. 11: As indicated by the NYS DOT and their review of our TIS, they have not required any pedestrian improvements along Route 25. On site improvements have been made to minimize pedestrian-vehicular conflicts. It is assumed that very few patrons will walk to and from the site. However, as noted in our Response 6, the applicant is ready to provide sidewalks along our site's frontage on the south side of Main Road. I trust our responses address and overcome the Town's concerns. Mr.Paul Pawlowski August 24,2016 Page 6 If you have any questions or require additional information,please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, ��.c��uAI /mss• �.��r"`'h j WALTER M.DUNN,JR.,P.E. President WMD:as L2016081 P36014 Attachment 1 NP 36014-Sports Recreation,Mattituck File Admm/Reports/CIS.doc t� 4 signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses NP:36014-Sports Recreation,Matntuck File:Admin/Reports/TIS doc G 1 11, wwl- SAME Weekday AM Peak Hour g Main 14.6 B. 14.8 B 15.3 at FaHour17.6 B 17.8 B 19.3 Road Saturday Midday Peak Hour C -22.8 C 23.7 C 28.3 Note 1:Includes an increase in traffic volumes of 2.0% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. Note 2:Same as Note 1 and includes the traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed development. Revised Table 4(Using August 2016 Data) Summary of Signalized Intersection Capacity Analyses Results HLA 22010 Signalized Intersection ResSummary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 ;µl Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period AM Existing PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2016 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name AM existing summer.xus Project Description X, ,'aC.l::_•.t;: -' +.r>^:a. :�Y;:' r _ ^;r; ., �3+4'; yr •.�� MN, .;nr�Fy ^<�,fr��tr+r+,w,;,.�....aY-..,,.�.y�:;; "":r,�."";a;.;a�°�^^•'�.`.�„.c�;�'�,:a r.,r�.�-.�'..�+,,-.;;•,.,� :Demandl�orm tlon��rc. ;�;'' �•Eg`rr' ,.. ,.WBY^=•= ^=-;P�4,�..,�>,. _^:NB�:;;�;,r.,r<". ,_ ,t;a;- S��>= ,s Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R r3+ .'..yY` v.\ "}+�'7.^y,"" :,fly vF�^" :4T:' :'i' .i. 5�:�.yy. Ftr'} ''`'�y`udj {"FCt1^1 r�Mly-s«vr�. ..�,_ '.<i.'.n"A'W"!%!'..:Kr%%�-�,,-:i�h(,)'.'yv^�s.� 9w.y'n'.�.n.i •`�A: �D?rt?? �R�eh K �" �, � `� Y45�� 5_�t'��"''-1'©;_� :t., z� `(. �i � 9'T G• 3i.;'.. ��`k i. .; .��L,-.�,::�.:s_.,-_�:as�:�>...sx�.� :-.�,.:� �>:..,�.,��,.`� �.r:� r•,..���°"rr�48�i�.''`15.E f=".�d �. :4�a'�" iw;68'-_;,::�..�,..4;7 �Slgnal Infra i�'on �"j ;< �sA� z" F:�.$�=:�-�.'�m1�� � % _ � 4� ✓` �>.,` Cycle,s 47.9 Reference Phase 2 ',®ffsets< QRfer-ence?Pont rEroi Green 0.3 1.2 17.0 10.0 5.5 v Uncoordinated ~Yes- Simult.Gap EM On Yellow 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 o'rce Mo g -Fietl;F aS�imult:>.Gap== /cSa u^_ 'On,'; Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a s�--k'-i"..v:a' a A71merMResu�ts.: J : ,EBL ,.EBs ^44 ;,.,. e• t; 1 3 .w- x.a B IVBT _- :S@L: SBl Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 fir,'«"�c%Yi-re +z�:,;i':- �`'i� -2�a'.'• _ �"x' <?F,°"Y ��;•'�..:`.Ta�`�kT't a-L; _'�: Case NIu �b = •y'r k_ -.;`;_~ r.'; "s>.1 1 '`z: 4k OF=`.a1 . :1 �=�'~;; �`, Phase Duration,s 5.4 22.1 4.3 21.0 8.5 13.0 :4rU' X4:0' ':4©: Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 Queue''GI''eiaracei�iie(gs),s14�� '.,•:s' _ `$`; . s; : "^" 2x;346; Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.2 'r7W'E": sy S'> -.� z, _ - ;�..r� i;. ,•.,� wr: v',5„.,' -.i s; •-r;: +"s ,.3, 3 N '"•.�,w '�P �^'a``II R ij ; .., ,a.r : :' 3 'd4 at1 '# t f , ;,s:' U. 3• E 4, y: f%ase�C, < o bab�Yt a -'" �0 8. s 00;';Y= 03 8 1.0 w 1,n, r'r, 0 6„<. :.;' 0,83 a x.�i:A.v. „f."" :i:t' -+3 .��' ' f," if �r,.�.,. r<s�i `G_..,.s. h,...�..,a. :xa�.w:;' = Max Out Probability d 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ` r�;u^ r..y'� L` •'r. Ki-:,^.,:`+OM1':: :{-� ,�5'3-'_'v^ ^,i^'i •'?Y"��1��4[['°`G:T':`r 'F+,' - 'i.;a -. st,7,,...» - Vo" Imp ? f, Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Asslg'red'slGloveriient 5' 2 ':: "` 12:, 1<; '6 :<18 :,i ''..7 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 49 566 7 548 14 32 1 74 60 A41 K. "te s4 aelUl/In." 18 A:';1x893= 181b =1890 :;181;0 f Ad.,1_ Queue Service Time(g s),s 0.8 12.7 0.1 12.6 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.4 -f• '- i `_i,.•-[z• _ _.�:„`€,a.I" _ - i;" '-:i�`- :'� - a�,�x'sV'v.^_ate> _ �< ,'�: _v7�^{t•_a w C`cle<Queue CI`ea' ce Ti` ei 'e^" `s `Dy8 : 1`2T G1=01 �1r26.• � � =6r 1'4z Green Ratio(g/C) 0.39 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.11 0.11' 0.21 0.21 {8^ 223 '='670'k 208 1199='- 3578 r 3�4. Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.172 0.789 0.029 0.818 0.068 0.158 0.196 0.174 >e.a,c.l.of<;QrudUe.; Q,);ft/fwn(-'S _ ,., a.e")_` ;5:_6•, �.9:� i,.,,+ k•;0-•y.9„d; ;;1,•10:2 :_f :31�2j w , tt,14'6� ;.::}1�;4:107O, Pce„ntig, Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.3 4.3 0.0 4.4 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 `4,113 Queue 'foKa •,i - v r; �` - '"d, •t.,�;: r ..{: r^y. ..,p.C;;Y�'y�.,-�;,'e •a ,--'^c..'$"a �7 •.',,I-.x 'Y _• ,r, So Uniform Delay(d r),s/veh 11.1 13.2 11.8 14.1 18.9 19.1 15.6 15.6 �'•:A J Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 y 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .y.•%.,,,,ri,£=i"Y,,�'3 K f,.-mak� _ _- _ � _ - - s _ ••r�_ _ �t': '^S"i `s•+'_ _ t�'s5':"ry nr`T =Control De►a s s/,v ti. "&F 5,;oa :1,1'c8: ',1x5:0 "19:0_._ ';1i9 3, <15 7, `v f'.�, AMY(£��% _> :.,.,?tee �.n., < .`: ,�_..... .' Level of Service(LOS) B B~ AB~~ 'B ~B. B B B AppioachDelays%v4eli,=LO`S, 13°7 `'' B: 1'S'0:` B:' �9;2v: B :,; ' J:S�T; Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 14.6 B - ,z._ _ .,. .np.... Multimo'da1R"esults= ,EB` WB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B ;Bicycle`LOS Scofe/LOS, 1:5 ik 1:4',< A:. I A,", 04': - A<.` -QV7-• A- Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 1:49:23 PM F. _ 2010 Signalized Intersection Res_ Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration, h 0.25 Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other ' Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period PM Existing PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2016 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Yi Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name PM existing summer.xus Project Description Tµ., n x.:_ ; _ Ngo` Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R rvv-';r•.tz.r.- .ti:AaL"2-^'nai., _ �`,5 ,r. -3 _ 4: - ;2'Sn:a ;daj 4,,;,. ...�,o. .µ .., .r_ .i,, �F.•, r.: '"._}e k;� :<.= ,< %25 x, .��, .�e(•�a<�d.& 2u. a.>«;�:s�'��,:.a',�iW;n .,`v..:�� Y.�rxua„�,>i .....�,•«.t�•:�>:W. i.:.....-.aa:.t a .�ua a.. .� 'i,.�" -r»i`. �'„ :n+=,fir _ n r+.^ ,- +-ro c'= ,• J �'s» 'Siu'g a1,�7,�nf,;or,�,atton�._ •'�;• ; '.�.:.�„�� �_ g -; <� �a•. ��. _. :_- -: �K; , Cycle,s 60.1 Reference Phase 2 Refe"rerice'P6inf" TEnd Z e w• Green 0.6 2.2 24.0 11.7 8.7 0.0 .R '`. Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Gap E/W On Yellow 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 ,,fir. - ', Force Mode Fixed �4 l 0 u `C�_40_ S O i Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 a ="., . 1-4 T� ""^ra.'- ;,3*,?e,„r.;+r -- _ ;�T.- ..r<r_ c. •„n,. fir•=-m-^ca^� �ca�-"'i"^T+�'. .,Y, �e Sn .,,.� ,a.<_W,...,�.-, .,_,-,r.r.,. Timer� esul ^:"'ay�.. s-k- EBLr`,' -EBF ' ;UVBL 1f�BT"„ 1BL'Y SBL' SBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 : .. v 0� :40.. GaseMfu1berk,. 1 1 4A ,>; = 1 � 10:0 Phase Duration,s 5.8 30.1 3.6 28.0 11.7 14.7 GharigeSl?eriod (>.Y+�R'�;j,s 3:0` Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 QueueClear'arice"LTmes(g.s,)s 3:6= ` +22:2` Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.1 0.3 IFro�tiab'ili `077x_xRFIr.0:0:' _. .40s'14n:»t :. IF.O'0 '` ' 07 :•,: Max Out Probability 1.00 0.00 z 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 oue a fGro%pResiilts "EB'T Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R AssignedFpMove''menf =5 2 12 1 6' 1;6 3 '8 18 7 4. 14 1. Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 87 701 14 648 22 55 75 138 �;.�:.�• �,: {� � �- Eur - =r,_,. . -, . ,Ai .�, "z1; .,,,1''ustecf5afuraton,'Flow<Rate='11//s=,save /.'hlln<. �8f0. :fi882<- �1R10 '1886: u. r°18110 '1SS78;i:; 18110 664' .Aar* ,Yn +.r. +lw. ,+.k+.r�,..vaKw.w\�u.r�/.,3P..,eU.„e•..E-t ..kH ..: -.,!�..... Sev�,.a _Y.Lv.f dF..3. _li., QueueServiceTime(g s),s 1.6 1 20.2 1 0.3 18.9 1 0.6 1 1.7 1 2.1 1 4.4 Cyele QueuerClearance:Time<(g_i 3 1;8 :44: Green Ratio(g/C) 0.46 0.43 0.41 0.40 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 Zapaqi = .c. 'veli%h :2T1'' ;81;8_• 18:9 ;752. "' - ty_(� Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.321 0.857 0.075 0.862 0.083 0.215 0.214 0.428 Back:of`Qlyeue' Q'U":ft%In 50=t1 <'ercentile :i3c7' '1'83:9= 25.= '171: 62 :•€=16:3". 20a5«` Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.5 7.3 0.1 H7.1 m 0.2 0.7 0.8 1.6 =_` Aoo -4.00"1 AWAX A004- Uniform 0�0.0 G2ueue.�Stor„age�Ra a�(RQz),(.,50�hype -01?0:• ,AWAXE Uniform Delay(d 1),s/veh 12.8 15.3 14.0 16.6 22.3 22.7 20.4 21.3 Incremental®`e►ay(d2)s/'veh 0:3 1 0 Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C,ont�ohD'elayE(;d');slveh 1,3.1 16:4" 1`4:'0, 1.7.7 - .22:3,,; 229; "20:5' 21.6. Level of Service(LOS) B B B B C C C C Approach'Dlay,s/veh,l.L`-OS 16:0 B, 1;7:7 B: 22.7 C 21 2' C Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 17.6 B '.,'r Multlmo�d'alRes�ylts; EB G,VUB °NB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B2.3 B 2.3 B 2.3 B Bicy )e-L68,$eote,%'L6s 1'.8 Ail, 1.6 I A 6�6 A Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved HCS 2010TM Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:26.55 PM 141 _f'2010 Signalized Intersection Resp->�Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 sa Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period SAT Existing PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2016 Analysis Period IT>7:00 Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name SAT Existing summer.xus Project Description 8•` 1;a.: •aw;a:a;rtu:c_k^ ",:Tez>S"..��•S"t'"+'"" _ M ).�'4'in.`s fa s zCz%t;,; �3'.i,+ck_ax r C i,', r•,v,'"���>B��:::�i.Y'�:; •�;Y'� J.'a1}V Bi:..; :s�' �A%;-` ,-S•B' ,p„�e an orrna�ion�r' _::... ,�EB;r.�:,:,'��'�: -<;x.���. 4 .2,__ ;.�..�•::� ,_ _ - Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R ;�^y..i�Y+q". tea•-i .. '.� rye ;Gti''°a'`r ,,,wa.�,,^„ ,ir^wu+..5:"v 'a��}!'rW.,.G - 6rv,y... �;:�,'3`-,"y•_�rFv.�.•v.,.,,.� ue;^yrY i�^v. r=�-'- --.a..��,�x;, e,:.., ' ' 1 ��32;�� '���1r.4� 8a=,x,26` �.•45,�"� M= �.1�7'-�=.x;;43 88 ..}-:> v t dfw � "J.: .�.�J .Vi>•.eb...'Ii 65_ f^..s'iw.heu.dC3 _ - �S" '_ :3T` -'•r�'iFT`�YG•i'.••.c-,•'�«rm-p 1 T.,._: "".:�.: '' '?.smC`e ig�al�ln'fo'r' atm:.��::��<. :`:•,i. `',.,�'=;�.•;::�`_ -,''�;� a� =�,��..:.- ,.,s ,,} _.����,- 3g,�;.r.F Cycle,s 77.9 ReferencePhase2 �r 1 F•�-:,'v:3f" -�'„'�" xr:C - ,^ tie;g:s ^.-`;rte ::1�Y: i�' �?tt`'.:&K..u;.-S�.a3 ti�:.Yzl• ".�µ =ti' ReferencevF?oiirf _Erid,. zOffset=;;,s_y�;;,�„�,�:��::<�:.x.,F_. , � .._� ,.-,.�w-f, _a. . Green 1.6 1.5 39.0 12.0 10.8 0.0 art: r,: � ��"_�s °I• "�Pi +', d Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Gap EM' On i�;, Yellow 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 ��° .+ K�. .;..i% �•d� - ""r%`s" Ar'S.. x ,?b„ 3','.'6,b l SYP yj }•. 'FarcekMotle. ;;�Fxed . lama t' Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 :.p'•;.,,. ..i,�.y-...,-..�� �...-"�>...a ..r�t g:u< l x•� �r,;,..�.-�-...*.-a rn Ties L2esuts�'xr !;:-rEBL, T .'' ;WRIB,:� NBL' `NBT _ =SBL:"$ SBI +w.,J='%., i',i ..•N.L moi: i.�S^�.(i ''WRE,t P t`.` .,f'.l Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 �Ca's,'e;Nr��ter�,;, __ . . .. ' S^_„>� �•�,,,: 4:O�s`' �x -x��- -.. :;i4�p"�,�==:r _ _�a� 1�Oa.©4=:' _ - .9,0:0 Phase Duration,s 6.1 44.6 4.6 43.0 13.8 15.0 Ct%argePeriod�(22'+ )_;ss 3_y0;' .40;' ✓,� 3^�0., ?4'Os'; 30: _ 30 ^i� G -f•,,.f-...`. -.J'e Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0` 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 Q`Ueue Cleara ice Time(grs;);'s• t= T 10, Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.8 0.1 0.5 %+Od ,t ;sn p :,3 t-•'MU5 10© Oa90�' F' 00 pla's'e,Cal'( robab tX# s ,. w> ra��W• :s,"a .: ',�,F,,, - P,.. Max Out Probability 1.001 0.07 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R �:_1t`:;;< j S s; j6 ;3`':F,t> zs 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 84 Y9•1.3 35 629 28 77 160 142 ::,: "k.y .:3 ^q.;''47' .i .i• ?b.w a "a Ad uste SafuiationFlow Rate -^sx veh"%h/tn 13.81�OY :188 • s;�84�U s_1f"Y84' -<.' `°-1'8 i®4 :.178i 78 ;0>.'':1`69,5 .u�. •.,u.cr RR,,.- ..(. : .3.. ;x: �ata� .�.s._. •R,.w: Queue Service Time(g s),s 1.7r 35.0 1 0.7 19.5 1.1 3.0 6.4 1 6.0 Cycle°QueueGlerance Tiine•(g;o;)f s' Green Ratio(g/C) 0.55 0.52 0.52 0.50 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 Gapaity:(cr);zveh�(t% t 368;•"+ r--t: ,t ;f 4.t ,.- ,, 5 z _ r ',J8�t.� ,:;11'58• `94'�'.;' _ 2'S0' '2.4}�-:: .278�•:';2��r• Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.227 0.930 0.220 0.667 0.113 0.313 %0.574 0.546 .< '<.."._ :,•Fr _ .Bac of€Queue ,Q}=;ff/In 5Qzth `_e�ceiitile` _14 5: =379:4; :-11:3,= Dnp ,1,_=w':,3. _ . € Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.6 15.24 0.3 7.3 0.5 1.3 2.7 2.4 tsl_ -_• a. - •R'. tY"roy 3�" --..'.L>.n.� {�- Z :'E 1 Y'1 F4'vi. n-wi:'. -,$:9: ` .' - yl• Queie<,StorageRatio(„RQk)(;5Qfper�cenfile),, _ ;A,AO. ,w0.0000„ '9':OQ i`0.0.0' 0 QO 0;`00.;,' Uniform Delay(d i),s/veh 11.2 17.3 17.7 14.6 29.4 30.2 30.6 30.5 dperenientaf D•efay-t(qdi;),;s%veh 0:. Q7. 0 7 1, 85; 0:3', 'Q3;'' =,Q:a1', 'Q3. L:'� Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -Control:DelaAW Level 1k7i9: -"4:9_:f Level of Service(LOS) B� C B B C C C C AI?P.7�o•:acti:R;elayMs/ueh%-.LOS :24:6` G.• s "15U' 6=: .,., i�•'30:2,' r3f1; 5- ;C Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 22.8 C Multmodal�l2�esults'. . . - _ - , ,. - , ..,..- - `T_• -„ .,....�,., . . . � �.• ., _ SEB: '.•W.B -NB` �=S6, Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B BipycleLOS•Scor,"e'/L'OS 2.1" B- 1:6. Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010T1 Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:27:39 PM 141--, 12010 Signalized Intersection Res'ia. Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration, h 0.25 �a Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period AM No Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name , AM No Build summer.xus Project Description mi=x•; _,��;,�:- <�•��:- �,. - �:- ���, ,-��r,. .�,; - - -�• - ;�...;,,-���;-.. - ®e a,tl In or o Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R 6- W li ue ` ;5. x,.7.0: 8;., 8 •M,l � �a _' r 5£ t�,_,'?w�..�*mk' s .v ..,a .izo a�� z�s� I: wd C"•o F�Fsak a i$. ._ _ .4 r:, i •..,.µ . yr : '. z<#O6ems`>:5c:..,5✓-r,�»az.;<,'.,: .xt,v'„m. •'ham Cycle,s 48.7 {Reference Phase 2 RM FR,efe�@$04rPo°rit n En i Green 0.3 1.2 17.6 10.1 15.6 0.0 Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Ga E/W On .a-� ,. - . P Yellow 4.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 � ' �rce�IlQQ,de,.. ed0.00.00.0 0.0�&d = �', .z,,"cfr'^su;R-"nr+,•3',Y +r,- r n--:$ :Y^„s... 0 :7i� 'c,. ;;c5%•> ^'^ M. "tw"' :-rk« 9.' ';;x'.tr5, ^^xs <-«< Ti°m,"erwRestllt SBL:` IT 'IV A- ._NBT, SBT Assigned Phase 5~ 2 1 6 8 4 Hca"p� �.�.x,...<.,»�r>'�x. �':,'rs�a+,usft Phase Duration,s 5.5 22.8 4.3 21.6 8.6 13.1 C Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 QerJe:CI_'isafaricme;:(q! -)�s - 2 8 'i 5:_2; ` ,21 15 2. 2 8: 3:7 Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.2 T?flase:Cali"p`ro6'abili' " 0 9r' : = 1<:®0•'•i x0®8;: 100 04;fiu Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 °A�Io rernent Groep Resul r N; „ r,,rv. M n �. _ EB° WBS ,NBs '�,:<= Approach Movement L T� R L T R L T R L T R J_ 4> 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 50 579 h 7 561 14 32 76 61 Ad' stedxSatu�a"fPorj ;loth 12a a st'+.uel`fn�l'a 1'8°10 18A4.y.• 18 0- "1°89A.' 7810' 7r��e�.r_ 1:81=0= :fi6'46;.a _14 -h',SG-R6:-5��.K�l.-,+rv�.,w(u.} ,�y,�„<. ..c� .h.n ..<.�..5't6f:. 'uf3Ti✓�«.,:t:sh..«v', - t-I,T.+ e'<'-•<. Pi Queue Service Time(g s),s 0.8 13.2 1 0.1 1 13.2 0.3 1 0.8 1.7 1.5 �`C`c1e:Queue`Clea"atjceTime: a ''; ,Yd,� ,�,1 (;•9 ;};;s: `0;.8- '',1:3x2' t-10�r :1:8 2< 0 3.: '0 8: a "1=:7F` �5;• Green Ratio(g/C) 0.39 0.39 0.37 0.36 0.11 0.19 0.21 0.21 s'"n i:f>:. `-'. ,.. w Y.: 'Ff;3. _ nr�M +<: -' �w;., Ca'aci c' r3e /lir. 2a1 ' ::y30:. 220> `=1: 2 7 X42. P r ,;);,..a 1R ., °` F.w ., s: Mme.. ,U8.;. �a.,:.: .., Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) h 0.178 0.793 0.030 0.823 0.068 0.159 0.202 0.178 `acfc®fQeue� +Q ffllit 50=th +e�centile• 6:8s:- 1=1:2:4 u_ :Ob9 x1.1'S:fi'r` 3: `- '7'3:-, S 4 '123Y- Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.3 4.5 0.0 4.6 0.1 ~0.3 0.6 0.5 Queue`>Stora'e-Rat°oe 0100--'a"(00, Oe., 0'00; -0i0`0 Uniform Delay(d i),s/veh 11.2 13.3 11.9 14.2 19.3 19.5 16.0 15.9 Incrernental``Delay. s/ueh Q:1; 0 8t 0' 0 - vo 01>, 0 1 0:1`' •O 1 Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :Coifrol.De a, ;rii`mss/ 1.9= _Y.(. .J �._. .,.. Level of Service(LOS) B B B B B B B B -Appto'achDelay s%veh f,LQS 13`:'8.`: 85 15:1` B; 1 6 ;B' 1.6 0 B Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 14.8 B MUt• todalR�esults `EB+- Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B Bicycle L`QS Sco'rer!}LOS 3 Y.5• ;A 14,' A;. :`,0:6 A, OT. A Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved, HCS 201011 Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:28:11 PM RkIJ2010 Signalized Intersection Res-I,__J.D' Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period PM No Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 .z Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name PM No build summer.xus Project Description I u.0"• +-` ,2,:&le" m� 'FS r,""'`7;..b�.<'.�.e.;"v34,.` :f - .n.-_ •tyJ> �<�ar�r ,vitfi`,-.5'r�'�P,.r.^q,--..,c•'";•YRrr• �&nvitFa ti. ;x smn'k'GK'.:, p ' �{EB € _ .�,.cr." - l:;l rz,.t..:s� .<i,:,•. ^-.J.a«_......_,s3c�o..<�.�..'_'3.,,...4.Ysd�a.e.<=..� '.+<:-.a.. Approach Movement N L T ~R L T R L T R L T R ""es^�•r.�•4 "B;+p` :C .:p .•n•e mk,^,. •a c' eR,� �ac�«...L•�.x :y;4v.., ..ep.,rz. ,.F .� ,Sr4.,.p.�; - �a add' 'tl°.'ri Y,� c ...,,r� r•... ^�`�•��,.. <jDema ci(�!.}�" e, : ,-.,�;.,- ..._,< � '�. �r�:.��r; � 82=���°"626� =3:s'.'� ."_,1,, 585 -.�26M1 �� � �•.3 3: <1 g�a _7>`r.=;.o-=28;.. -102 Info W. .ire •.0 �< „�� "�� �' � ';:-� �.� y. �." _ :•.: Cycle,s 61.4 Reference Phase 2 `" { �• -• ,:m�� -,�.'�::•�-tet:.. �,z -����:��- �� 'Ofi`se;:s _>s`."'0777,<'Reeren;.`ce;,l?otn ` -;EFltl; a' - = Green 0.6 2.3 25.0 11.7 8.9 0.0 ' Uncoordinated 'Yes Simult.Gap E/W On 60-101 ,�Ct!;`' '. •w. Yellow 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0w e a' Fdtee,i/fQd :-,''Fixdh=S`iiItGaji, (5, £®n i Red 10.0 10.0 0.0 0.0 r-"mft ' ` `• ^ ` Tr902" BL u '!",' SBT` Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 'R4,�`-""f` .:hi :�•,St�•r;!. _ .. ,�n.�, t'<�c;,>k�^-:t•:i�;a'rP ,..�.r".��4 >;.'�x�l^,aF y..�yN��.�y�"i :«?,'{s�"• r�,,-.. -�e 'u-.r,,r' ';3=� �:= s _ - � -ase �b�.rt•}�-�-:�.�~�'�'� a1:z1�'.�.�=r�--�4�O�;x;� E.�:...1>.1< ;�;c..�,�U�=�., �a•�:�t=�'; .::•.1"�=0.; - :''I°00 i.C+„„•„ ,�.�,1 a�.,,�<�<�.......7._ �` - �:�.:;.yx.,,.<�..�..><� .�r,� Ft,,,-�.?�•43....��<.ex..f.,.�.�,F_.,.�3 a,` Y«.� .r..��a,.,.v. :� �' Phase Duration,s 5.9 31.2 3.6 29.0 11.9 14.7 3 ;3:0• Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 a'ueueClea`rarice�Tirrie�=��'"�54,-s• _ _ � --'.3�' _��2.31;..;' _ ;^�2�:3"�>;�:4�. --1;:8`.;,�� '3:r7�-:;�� �- - - �;G:6� Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 3.1 0.0 3.1 0.1 0.3 --: „;�,yr:•x•- - v`X: <. .:y;•,�'r =•� e:l z" .,s :�'_ :3.,�:< •, - - '<=t s� '>'- `=ii;.t.`:t.:' <: „iF=. ,r r; l;' ti-; "z4 r?:•rir 1 ,l zit�^::? 4N, r��x r•: .gip`• 'ey. <e: s �aP�ba�;�ili' ,_��;•_:1.• ;�:�« ..i.:;.sr< ::�<;::r;;>5 ,:s:0e,7,�':�nen"r�'G��� :.:,d;�;�4:sT. .:�.�� i��:.���;:y:��.:�:"�z�4��7��?i;,��_F,�;:.,.,'. wrc;-:x;,98`, Max Out Probability 1.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 MEW h•.r-.•�-Fdr•_ _`- .<>r,;. - ,�3 t-..•• r:';,7 fid'': P','"t;�,,-, -�,}.a•,...,.<wjin;;: r's^i -`-°M'T' ,;,t" ,..,w.a<.���,':..s xt; 4`--•�.:-��•� "�•` ��Vlgveme ttupResaltstWB, Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R Assigrieit�'ilo�e°i�"nt•. ;5 _ -:,2 y 12:.: ,;:I: Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 89 718 14 664 22 57 77 141 tis - ^.j rt•s 1 r...,. r e �Saturatio'Flow',' aC� =sR•ueh/fi/n, 11Sa'0 ri882` f :,111.0•= 88fisj 18e®F': "1783=• 1%8110 X1'665=' R .. ( .,)";,r . �,_ l�,. .•*.,'1> ,t,1. i (_ v. Queue Service Time(g s),s 1.7 21.1 0.3 19.8 0.6 1.7 2.2 4.6 a " arf2 JW�.a: t; \y.e.., I--b ,,.o z�,�•,;.. GycleQueueClearance•Time.(g;),s :21:1,... �,0=3.`;s �;9„8;, „0:6`_„ ':1,.7' Green Ratio(g1C) 0.471 0.44 0.42 0.41 0.14 0.14 0.19 0.19 Ga - ;, y...,., t. 61;86. _7567;_: x'34 Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.332 0.861 0.076 0.866 0.083 0.220 0.224 0.445 7 4=_ r 117:11 ,(:5Q.tFi'tp rcentile)r, ;c 1,4 fsri'Y7 92.2 2.5y;98�ti,2 Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.6 7.7 0.1 7.4 z 0.3 ry 0.7 0.9 1.7 'f' '1" �N'.}. .L..vti�• 113. 9 � ` F�n .,,r. "t�X.. - c�••��K: =ueue:Sfoa 'e.Ratii :-R `°AO t6 "ercentile :O.QO. U 00 ':- �Of00'4?US00=t= =' .O00<. Uniform Delay(d i),s/veh 13.0 15.4 14.1 16.7 22.8 23.2 21.0 22.0 t'IdD la 'sXveh_' .0<3f< •�:1' S O''l_ :�;;2' ,• 01- !'02=`., 01;«,: 0 4t ;tnereriien a e yri(kd_.�R},;,, � a_ - Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i�:•' _ Sx. i:t," "'n: :i:•`�N -�'� rc, Z,•n,*a..•7'.,,s Gontro' Dela, [.tM`,sveH:= -3 'X3':3 :16:5: - 14:2, 17:9, _ ,22:8;'•x23:4 :2;1:2 .;22_x}= ,�.� _...A.... ,,,,a',-.-,•..5' Level of Service(LOS) B� B�� B B C w C C C Approaefi-D`elai;;s%veh ;LO:S 16:1 B 8' BY- : -23;2` Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 17.8 B :.:q ..,._-�t"tsw..}j7,y,,.i _" ..._ _. ... ... ..- - .._ .. _ _. .v-r Y..m.- - ., a .. ... •i..r.� �N(tiltiinodal�Results-- - �EB'� -.1NB'. � •�NB'_ SB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.3 B BicycleLOSS�cfq�e'/,SOS 18 =A 1."6' A< 0:6 .A, '08 A Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101"Streets version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:28:46 PM FLA_-_x'2010 Signalized Intersection ResL�`, Summary \L/ General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period SAT No Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection IMain Road @ Factory A... File Name SAT no build summer.xus Project Description - x'Y.` ..xa.3^ ,_�..+.4., �r��<,�w rd:-'�w+:s.:. 3^:s^,"-;,;* >'t';?,kv;^^^.hcf.' ""'C.a.•i�„">'a,�.s--^;c n,��a-:;,�p.x�n�m '�x,�ci%''%??�",::.r-.-. ..,,r -..- , Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R •-'y.:v-5;.e•z - -M, p:v %-v,..,'„,°3?av a,`�'t'-a<v u�"'r•z t..;+s -^e;,, t,:` ""`,"<. °;.f m - "z; .s• t.. ,�J. _ ;. �Dppma d� }�h�h.x' �'xk�;t� �79#.tom �826sE;3. r.<�33�- i�4 •9 �"�2n7>>;= ;ngs�.a;�a "��7."`� (K:1�51�,>,�.;4„4. 9,0 >�s`�.az < ,. Cycle,s 80.0 Reference Phase 2 Offsei„s'_ ='.0.; f) efe encgr,00 �E`nd Green 1.7 1.6 40.9 12.0 10.9 0.0 Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Gap ENV On Yellow 3.0 10.0 14.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 :Fo,rc'e ode-, `"RidSi°"ulfnN, 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 lag Pte : 76.2 Assigned Phase 2 1 6 8 4 4 j �®".,c-t_ � > ..: i�Phase Duration,s 46.5 4.7 44.9 13.9 15.0 Change Per':io�d,,(-Y+R r3Q`. 4 0aQ 3U- Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 Queuele,acance Time(;g:5:)i s, 3:8 40-A.' ,2�0 ;, 22 A` ^52'; _ 88 Green Extension Time{g e),s 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.9 0.1 0.5 :r."5--+.�^��_ "'`':i" "• f. ,y,-,,„p, :+>r" i•:�• - - ..tp..,.wa '$ 4..y^; - „ f`.,_"T.a. _ _^. -_I CII ro ablli�q ase .. # b �Y,;s5 Max Out Probability 1.00 0.11 0.80 0.01 0.00 0.00 �'•�r '�Z"5 S'.'A'23::^ 5:;r."�,:.ie""y.. >- .«,....,. _ . _ * dee a. - -f.�H.y,. z ,. ;�:cr.<..<-°;•�"�,4Y'm"....�'..,•v..�^:'a s�✓.,:_.. ;_s,�, .� -.r.•.a Y..^,*t r<�^.t?'-��,�..,,..,... )MoemendGrQ�ipResults-"w s' EB'.'= WB.`, NB`'.' SB,= Approach Movement TM L T R L T R L T R L T R Ass'i lied rt:j�oe'��t,.l.^Io ;;F^t_,g�f_•'e.<��(,r„sp)�,:ea�h�:/• �I,n�3.�,-a ,a ,x1l,8.,5>.1-`r:O�x,;2 18-2i8'--:�ra;;',.12,' €,x�;1""r�8i.1�_1.;t�.0.}`'�i g'1p•�;$6'&,�r 3'i-=`t,,r:<ti°.6,...s's: �1'��8�`'a�'•€:;1 78-x 1 , ,1�€8-.��S=IT-'0.t�,;_p<P..4 6 5. 437oe Adjusted Flow Rate v),veh/h 86 935 36 645 29 79 164 14 161406S0144a Queue Service Time(g s),s �1.8 36.9 0.8 20.4 1.1 3.2 6.8 6.4 C.cte°y'ueue'C eararice Time !^/ti� -s. '1`:8`'- ;36:9 r .4 ^ =a>:1` 32 6:8 :6:47 Green Ratio(g/C) 0.56 0.53 0.53 0.51 0.14 0.14 0.15 0.15 :Ca achy,(c`>)�i�eti9h: 368 1001. 9fi k Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.233 0.934 0.232 0.670 0.119 0.326 0.606 0.574 ;fin, :�:: "n iP' ' x1'5:4:`.4:407 4 x,.7:2 _ 92 ?>.I#2,:1 33 . V V, Back<of`Queue'(,_,qL,, /nw(..5q'th.peY o e)z :,_ .., 3. 7.1 �x _ ' Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.6 16.3 0.3 7.7 0.5 1.4 2.9 2.6 `uerS�tora ezRatio aR : -5'0=tkr ercentile 300: i0®`0°'.0:00 0 00= •;0,`00 Uniform Delay(d r),s/veh `11.3 17.5 18.2 14.6 30.3 31.2 31.8 31.7 liic�e`mentalDelay.lyd $),sY.veEi 0:1 ;98 0•.3=„ '0:4, 0x1; 0:3 0=$T: 0'0= Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Y' d s%ueh :4: :27x3_ `18:'5:' <324 ;Control D;e,ayRC K)r , A,, Level of Service(LOS) B C B� B C C C C Approach;®`elay;s/veh•/LQS` 25:9`. G' Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 23.7 C Multimoda`IResults. ' EB: WBNB SB:> Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B- cycl"eiLOzSj;S`cote/-LOS' _ =2:2 .B' 0:7 Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 201OTM Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:29.17 PM H'k /`2010 Signalized Intersection Res Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 ) Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other1 Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period �AM Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 I; Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name 1AM Build summer.xus Project Description = 11 =' i;�'.f:h r'!+"L d^ +R4i�' '��. �':'C*+"° "F?4^;Krr-yw. ""i'r c�?. ,x,.._;sz^,Tta^".;;.�;.;x, �,r5.s-s�a,.;.',y sf'6'7""�;�r"2':�i�"�c:':Fawt•,.�;} *r+Y gr .t-•-.rn.•,�„9^;+••c.-a.�.->-.. •D.ema"rid l i o rnato�n'.' "�„. ,. ,:� ;.�,--�- ;:'�F ',.EBs;, '�S,e; , z-�,r;'• •B•.•° su,"} >,�,,`�>•,' _:•?:*�, ,y..•. ,:SB Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R yu'dv�...a:' S `t`-^rW � `�'rr' „}S�.1 i�:."„ 9>„S�-r.."-;vx=':'.'.� 7K,s,r`;S.' '+.,, 4 w�'i•'-:;SF ";'xs '""l•T`s::�% .+.,.ti e 4^>.,7�T",2T2; 'i'vi-:�•;f�U [ �� '"�;.:,:, S.'emand(u�) veh/,h -� fi '. =s - .�.:w s �2- '51.2 -;1�1;' �6•;:,� - 6:y � �`5,• �1:4�-; ���'1�5� •70 F.e.ti.,.abuw.ki l?-.�.8,.,..�. s„�:r_ ,:�,d`�--zc.-,'sr''�'s. :-�s-�c�.`�,„a �..+-�..�rsia:•' `z:. 5.• -:uuv-.1c�S �«�'.v"S��;' .,,:w`�k`L:�,ti,�;:d .zcas.o-....•: ?.SI,' 91'Oa�11",- r•;« r •.,,K ;>r „mv,, B ell a y 'fa Cycle,s 52.3 Reference Phase ~ 2,� OiF'sef,sti-. ;0' RefeieneePoitit" ' 'Enti;. Green 0.3 1.4 20.0 10.6 6.0 0.0 ` Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Gap E/W Onq, Yellow 14.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0nA €�or�ceflod'e; Fje �;Si ni f Gap "_ O:i' Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -CO ' ' 11- •n`r"�kn`'•�•...fit.,..: ,•a-y�;;*;�'s�a,y:' � „":n vY}:`« „'�,.T " 10130­71' ':� >> i^`5 Tumer� esults ,m t aEL"'r<°ABs:. c•:, x,.; I�IB<T" -'SQL'` SBT _ t ,�.,.,, ,. .,t... �W.£.,.,-..,..,-A.,.abl..r. awr.a ,,.7 Assigned Phase 5 M 2 1 6 8 4 -a as '•"f:r:-r;` - P�,f .._ --:}:`'ri t, '3>..:~`: -�r a _ r"-"r'` 9� i rz �`.`�,'i?i��', c� _ �''•`°r•.- .r Y fs j<Gf 5,-,-.ase ,Nu bei `_r- _ :11s: _x._:= 0 .:1�1,`, :z4 U :, -;� •,:F0.0. S 1iQ0 :,>_.,35��: .,aJ f+. ..'t•:.'•, _.S'.- ,�..,.'s.,.,t[4 ,Y•„c:CG: .,3..6.,.T�5�,..:r ^,'.. � Phase Duration,s rv5.7 25.4 4.3 24.0 9.0 13.6 Ohage,Perod;`{<,''rYR c),s: 40' 40 4�U• 14:U Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.2 3.2 �G1je,�e�;Clearanee�:Time�(w9!%s.),�:s_a. _ .30,' ;'16;+7' -a `'2:1:�,t �:t •a 2:g;,-�- _ ;*�.�'8 Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 0.0 1 0.2 =r rte`.,"�`w"ga,:7, rc� .... ,.a i.:>.^o..v.-� �,�u ;i'-„"',.�"�'' 3`' ..,.u.,,..,:•a>,w�- _ •. �..,,rc's, - ��� .r= •�.> . _-.�=P - «:©'r88 wtix.`x`,a, Ca:..�n:' <� (.tiv.,.,�, -.,.>#._E as.:..a+�,.es.. ,:� ..•.a..fi•:"v�:i ...-..3.ves._w cif'..;, �.::a,?;..s...es....✓_3 ...a..». Max Out Probability 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 •r53 5='v'•. F `a:. }'^ ;•,, .,.. „-..,,.I r� -s,a•r^:.y�- ,-;:, "'n 'v„r ,. { �•n.,-i •r - 'MoVefne, tGYroup,Resul)_s E&' ;'` Wt B Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R 41• ri..,.:.�: ,'i ....e•,.w• _s,.-o,•.L> .:.v,..w.�, 8-:..Adjusted Flow Flow Rate(v),veh/h 57 611 7 610 16 32 76 70 =Ac��l:,•. - -,,.ani taaracax..:.i�:s ='��_ t� `y'^v- .:: ri",,1-:J i i ���, ,I. .2•..a•n_ - :� s;'-/-"� 3�,r:.�,�.-r. . aY l'E-�3':r,-Y'•f'r.,u�,- sf dSaturatlon P ow Rate `sem uefUh/lii; �18=1.Oy, 1893 181'0`_189,1 r�180�#W17�•8 1ij0-,.a.641 ; ...�:._ M,.�+..t•� ,. <�{gym �rS>>x..�l,.umn,, is a,•�.�.:,...� ;v..�....,w,d� �� `,�,,.,..�a a.<.`..zx= "zi�� _.a,�a v> ,d.. 3.'.�.,fi:-,",,.::ms`s C,. Queue Service Time(g s),s 1.0 14.7 1 0.1 1 15.4 0.4 0.9 1.8 1.8 cleXQuene Clearance�Tlnie: �'.c' '=s; - }_."1"D- 147 �.:0:1����'�{'�� Vr� •0':� s��•i�U9`��'� _ ::1.8.R.� F1i�8»` Green Ratio(g/C) 0.42 0.41 0.39 0.38 0.12 0.12 0.20 0.20 CsaPacity{c) ve(i/h' =27Q;- :;776;- 222",:_;724•' r 2`09; - 6;1> 332" Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.209 0.787 0.029 0.843 0.078 0.157 0.208 0.210 Bac ',of`Qrieiie "Q;j':ft/ln'='50:tM`'e�ec3;tile 8.1":;_ 2.7. _t17 �._ Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.3 5.1 0.0 5.5 0.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 �•>-r. �y,,,-;�q ,...,4t.t .,Y. _-%..Foa�:. "S`°i•. ��-,�-.-k. r,y '�,.�.Pik"- ,+, �'"''.': S:r"_�..-�- :.}.,, �-�-s.....y.,.o, - ..�. Qu''eo_e=Stora('7erRatroi:;RQ, n5`0 th;•ercentlle :O.00f :OY00'=: O OU. 0:00. .9.:.i.,.. �i�(r w ,)-{x. _�K s)%S n< v:4- �4:. - .:.5. .� r.i�x�f,ic.•'.a,»� o.-b-:.., _./.,L c Uniform Delay(d i),s/veh 11.7 13.5 m12.1 >14.7 20.7 20.9 17.4 17.4 liicemenfalbel_ays(=di)s%ueh.` - 'Qr1 07 -0:0. _ 1:1 01 SU1: ' t '01 `D1 ` Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Co`iifrol?�e'�ay(dr)ys%yen 11:8 ;14:1_ ':1;21:,'` 158` 20:7':::;_21.:0:,: "175:: 7`5' Level of Service(LOS) B B B B C C. B B Approach Delay;sXveh,%,IrQS.s 13 9;F B 15 9 : 7T: ; -, 1 17"77B Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 15.3 B "-!•n'�,r+a%„'-'7"` _ •-• it - f'., C"'..:"!•�,:^�,Z"'� ,-y..., - .,._ .w-.�.y.. -o�,.,;;..i,..n,-•y'"y �P=�r,.��,,. =Multimodal Results: = S Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B Sicyele LOS=S�coTe/FLQS= = 1k6..; A;' :145` Aj 06• 'A,,'= '0'.T , - rA Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights,Reserved. HCS 2010*"Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:24:08 PM Fl`l_2'2010 Signalized Intersection ResL�_=1 Summary General Information Intersection Information Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Other 7 Jurisdiction Mattituck I Time Period IPM Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 2017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 j Intersection Main Road @ Factory A... File Name IPM build summer.xus o 18 o Project Description 5 = �' IR, �" 's3'v�x �5" ,�.;'r;,X ,�';�>'�",'!-ate`_ {�.G;'(�.r . � r:4'w-R=ryM� s k'.. •�ic33 �h-�e-:^e.. ve-�3' �'"_.5�"•yy_nw.. _;,y...., lDe and In oration ..fi�,�f...��.�.�,.�<.<.=, .>•,: g:�; �i;:�•,"-�.,EBn,��"`. :r.�4Kc��' ,'`''8 r, �,.=_•• B�:,a,�,.r.•,=:g>,�;.; -���` Approach Movement L T R L T R L~ T R L T R w.sar. .K:rxr• +g' a'i+Y ,S,t x< ,r<..-. ,wv•Y.'i A`,.9 �'.,,:i ,.-. ti; .w,., -,,r•,n.. , !ia •Demand(� �:� �>: -�'. ;._. • � �,.`9�-`3�:�.•6'$��r�.�� � ��:�682.�,tl; 26�:>, �2 '33•• ' 49,F2 r`:71� „��8� :120 .rn� 5igrtal��l►i�ormat�°'ion��' :�:•=�_�-x -•-•-•�- `- - �-�.� . � � Cycle,s 69.6 Reference Phase 2 ,i ,. s ..- :gni Offset„=s,` ; �} eferince,`Poirit. Green 10.7 2.7 31.8 11.9 9.6 0.0 > ; Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Ga E/W On (, P _ Yellow 3.0 0.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 `�� >'' � �'= lir ' -r r� `kL'":4i S`. l=.ub.,.�>•`.;Y"`+':-:+'p' - +-4,'v>- J>6K `�.•.. ,{ Corte od Fixed= Simult Ga= N%sS"° On` Red 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ..wx_5 , .".W,a+ '�. ::�;-���"-X:! -�' _ w�:.s;ssi.?c;s;,=s:<ry� ;•��-. yn:T.r,L;•',-1, _�,x% �5�,3:.,. "4 5w. S, 1 rxT;..�-rw�s-,�,j. ,- `rimer,?ResultsB�L 'SBT Assigned Phase 5 �2 1 6 8 4 X40 i. c. 19:0 Phase Duration,s 6.4 38.5 3.7 35.8 12.6 14.9 :Chaim"'e Period;, YR =::s: z3a ;.a4;U`. Max Allow Headway(MAH),s �3.1 3.0 3.1 3,0 3.1 1 3.2 QiieueClearanceTime a 'sus :3t9, 41"' 4TM0 _` 82 <L.. ,.<4;. .....,aW✓rs.,.,na_,.eE.(.gr..a�,;... >x a's lk,,:fr...,1, �4'.L ,.`.:.• .t. rq .7 � .,fi.. Green Extension Time(g e),s 0.0 3.7 0.0 3.7 0.1 0.4 •^5: 1y^'YJe"*=-� - ..., -t,7 ; 1;0 - 99p s180 Max Out Probability 1.00 0'.01 0.26 0.01 0.00 1 0.00 -.�;-• � -�- - . -, . .__. ., ;�•.,.- . _ .�,:.;.,: •per.,� ��.,, ..Y.•<,..,•;_,� „,�...;,,ay. 'i"Vlove'"n ent Gr,,oi P,1R sults' Approach Movement L T R L T R L T R L T R i n`ed`Nlovement 'a ;.' : :'5=.::•::a '2 12:` '.�.�; �., ry16.,.. ;. = ;8;s.,;::_18 4'.. (4 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 101 783 14 770 26 57 77 161 j.a wl`t<1 iy a'S".£,>: .<.�:<e _ _- - '•? >•F-< � ..y. •C ,H"'S'': -`2 - c1 �'�'.:..V , ' S '.t. _ :Ad'iistei�sSatu�ation�Flow Ratew-s� ,veh/h'Iii=` -.81'0•__?4:1i882�' - -_ �4'18�1�®_ �1�888=• -•_ �•18_�®•*,1�T83:�:` .�8�1�y0`: ,1:658 Queue Service Time(g s),s 1.9 1 25.0 1 0.3 26.1 0.9 1 2.0 2.6 6.2 C;yc1e Queue C) aran'se• irne(:g.�);s_ ,li-0• ;;25 0.' " ' x0 3''; :26;1 '' ;.0 9; Green Ratio(g/C) 0.53 0.49 0.47 0.46 0.14 0.14 1 0.17 0.17 25;1: �93a" _ rF 197��$6zf Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.403 0.840 0.072 0.893 _ 0.105 0.230 10.250 0.569 - .y,,: J.�wf��.,.. - e. ,•.%r• r4>. _ .y ,4.,,d}a.,�,.j;, •,.,. _ .,^ �;a,.. ..,2 r r'r: °�, F:'-°'.. `jv'"b "F" •5 9; z `., ':Backrof:,Queu"e' !<Q. ;#t/In�(5';0t•#h� erLcent�le"° ;� 16:6_; 232,�,3 "�`= • ,2,F-�:2�3:31�. � 9 ��:`'�20 t,.,, F, Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.7 9.3 0.1 10.1 0.4 0.8 1 1.1 2.4 <.C2eieueStira a RafioR'G? .5UF-thl='ercenttl_e' :000- ;IJOU `- _ �0: © MQ:OQ- "rU 00. <d00' ''0:00"",wU:OQ' Uniform Delay(d r),s/veh 14.6 15.2 14.3 17.4 26.3 26.8 25.0 26.5 IncrerraentalaDejay(rd_• :f;slveh; 0.4' 1 5'' :;0 1; r'2-:1 0:1 '0.2 Q 2` 0°.7 ti, Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ConfrohDelay,(dg�;_§/veh; 95:0 ;1;67>; ;y14:4 `, f95 ;264 Y X6:9;:; ';25'c2r', .,21.-2°._ Level of Service(LOS) B �B B B C C C C .Appfoacki:Dela$!;;s/ueh7°LOS Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 19.3 B -Miltmodal Results 'EB= <WNB' SB Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.3 B 2.3 B 2.3 B Bicycle-_too'�'S o e/LOS, 1:9` Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 20101"'Streets Version 6.80 Generated.8/31/2016 2:30 17 PM F J2O10 Signalized Intersection Read_ Summary General Information Intersection Information -"A Agency Dunn Engineering Assoc. Duration,h 0.25 :s x Analyst CC Analysis Date Aug 19,2016 Area Type Others Jurisdiction Mattituck Time Period SAT Build PHF 0.92 Urban Street Analysis Year 12017 Analysis Period 1>7:00 Intersection IMain Road @ Factory A... File Name ISAT build summer.xus Project Description �^�•s- ,. .,-.,-�,a,..Ta;,�..c-.'N�-77TI" _ -_ .::_e;.. .�. �,,. n="�?•�,`tx �t'?.i.Kc T,': ,x -27 x3p •N y�:-Vit..:; rte: .,.. ;�� `?;g:�r,i. - De...�aidlnfo i ation.. .��, :,. _. ::` g !4!„ u.� .. ..r •,r L:s: S.tt.irkabi Approach Movement L T �R L T R L T R L T I R 4d' r;n s,:r','"';"�z � p ..�`;tiy�y .,•x.^ �m;�'�<x •;?'; ee. - .s-:-q,,:,�erimer :;W ""'.',a;- a;�.,• vY.,y, w ,::,,;,{'"'•-y- „`�.;..; . ®e amdu <k �* ,.%; ``AMUy.9•>4 183; 651 29 3 1;0.6 xw �a�. �r� ,,.•t,,.. " k Erx'� e rim �. _s t.:.*x•. S.$)=`.huh::ty,i*,:e:�'✓^Y7Y ,s..t�$'•'_ `:-'*..x5'.[%"Ss b '4... $All 3�,_-,-..�_ .-;�-<,.,>�{ � � ,� �.:a�*� i .. -...� Cycle,s 88.9 Reference Phase 2fl Otffset,r°s �5"'i :0;� ".Wroieiice PoiF t= °? ii J • • w,-_b t Green 1.8 2.1 48.8 12.0 11.3 0.0 Uncoordinated Yes Simult.Gap EM On11 Yellow 13.0 10.0 14.0 130 3.0 0.0 x •`µ."= +Foice�Mod.e' �;�, Sin,;�iii�fti�;Gapl/S;;.��O,Fr�-''_. Red 0.0 10.0 Inn 111.0 0.0 :k ,,-�"9?w 9�'�ti•a,�::._^::';Tr;^„• �.:r., -xT•_-_`�::i :'�"`•-s•;: :'r`tr x- ��`� wTaif'7"+^n,`r;.«:,`-�"l'€i A'_.Y'',y•a�""'3'ai�`.;;""°'°" .2� - -Tlrner Results; EBL' B#.< v nWBL,a aV�GBT=`" ;NBL ,; NBT "SB" iSBT Assigned Phase 5 2 1 6 8 4 ,Qsy�;y[.q'. der` :', ,:- ''• `:Q.- ', y 1?'i.,i.. 40+: ', :1U:0, 10:0 x' n ... ,i: r.f.: •� ?. ',9 !;C• .'•v.".,3.ak.nY.•,1 C.._- &Fe,..'niee. }+:' ' Sk ..k.}.r`.w Phase Duration,„s 1 6.9 54.9' 4.8 52.8 14.3 15.0 - "I' 3,0 J, z Max Allow Headway(MAH),s 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.2 Que",ue'Cleary"n•.,ce'7ine'(gss,)',,s, 4;:2'..';' 48: -''° 2�8:='`' ;2=79,= 1'0.2 Green Extension Time(g a),s 0.0 2.6 0.0 4.7 0.1 0.5 ,PtCw_ abili�?�o �5� ,.: X00 ` X0:94 •; 7f:00' Max Out Probability 1.00 0.66 0.83 0.03 1 0.00 0.01 �.,"'r',�a�i'ri*rr. ax�' "u `%1iL°ay7n��:F!�:�,-,;y rM,--.k��,*>rt:i�;F^�. _':c ry':i�<,"y r�di)a•kn;a<-•,1• ps'v'x+o-5°a),1.,„'`.+^^+5,`.r:^receZ T,�Y' ��.�B. �. :V Y'R"H.,qg�:g.w•.r.'I Cn'vo•ir:.s;." ". �Mo�emen��;G.Soup, ,Results•. � i - EB4�r,: __ _ _ .,; .,WB;�?_ •'-;.• �^_, � ApproachMovementL T R L T Rw L T R L T R A'ssigred?vloemeiat_ :5 =2- "1'2'> :' f %% '6`, 1:6 a: "`3; <;8" n1'$ :;7 r; 4. 14 Adjusted Flow Rate(v),veh/h 104 1035 36 739 34 79 164 163 A8°usfed'Safti�ation,FtowrRate's>,:veli/ki%In• ;1'g1Q: >1t$86, 1 :1'8r1Oj' 1=886'= :1;810'. t7$a1;; '-12810';; Queue Service Time(g s),s 2.2 46.2 0.8 25.9 1.5 3.6 7.7 8.2 iC`.cletQ'ueie%Cleaanee.7irri' 22 '"4'fi2 :tl'8 Green Ratio(g/C) 0.60 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 .a%' •C^r`>'1''�".:�.rr:�"3. �.r,�• -,s-'�',f•i2":➢7',"' _ -'t -S_^ i 7",':'r.''y - V''0�3?i :Ca'aci r,:c :ve /h'.. Yt 348; :1080• - _ 1 X1035" �: s`�• = -.P.,,,w�Y(,..�)isk.,�3.,,.- f; Volume-to-Capacity Ratio(X) 0.300 0.959 0.269 0.714 0.147 0.351 0.672 0.717 ,gack•of`Qu•eue Q, ft/IFl 50 the eheeitile; 18:8`.; 52:9: ;255:1;1` Back of Queue(Q),veh/In(50 th percentile) 0.8 22.1 0.4 10.2 0.6 1.6 3.4 3.4 v eu Stora`'e:Ratio"R<?t'S©ffh'"e`r'_ceritile ��0 00 "`0:00. - _ :0:00'=._Y:O U"0« Y0'00==0:60:; (._.O c_ 0" - )- _ U:,.�.> Uniform Delay(d i),s/veh 12.1 x18.0 21.2 14.9 34.5 X35.5 36.6 36.8 Inc'eme'taI Dela` d=?'r s%veh°r: ':02: ;:1yg :c U:4 1':51' y'' TT=©'1° ,"::0:3 j;2Jk Initial Queue Delay(d 3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 _ _,y>(sy:)�xs,.(�u�,,�i r�12.3- ;:34:7;x,;: _ 21,:6'•% �=1:6=4'�` .34:6 '''35`.8:<, _ -.3'7:8,,„;>'r38. Level of Service(LOS) B C C B C D D D Approach Delay;s/,vehJ.LOS 32:7 -c- 2--2" G D Intersection Delay,s/veh/LOS 28.3 C Pedestrian LOS Score/LOS 2.2 B 2.2B 2.3 B 2.3 B Bicycle L®S;Scof-=,LOS:• 2:4- • =B:. i A• 0:7 A 1:0 A Copyright©2016 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved. HCS 2010T'"Streets Version 6.80 Generated:8/31/2016 2:30:46 PM Intersection Turning Movement Counts August 2016 NP 36014-Sports Recreation,Mattituck File Admin/Reports/TIS.doc : 0 MAIN ST P`',WESTHAIWPTON;B�AdVix NEW YORK 11978 FILE NAME: ttVl TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION : Meir Reed- i ai&4y-Wvef Sigsbe TIME PERIOD: Afitl EXISTING YEAR: 1-20-1,51 HORIZON YEAR: t7I� DONE BY: G APPROACH ALT X CLEARS INPUT VALUES Na EXISTING 13 14 15 68 8 47 45 511 10 6 489 15 4.- pt tA OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FUTURE*- "1 15 mm- 4: $ 48 , . 46 4TI"i�E�X31»V: • ' .. SITE TRAFFIC 2 0 0 0 0 8 6 28 1 0 45 0 PASS-BY CREDIT 0 3111 E O"Tf�A[=FIG 'I 14 "I5 _ 7�f 8 56 =: ;52[- 561 ` -1 545 15 cocarioN: Scb ,� C� (��►� ,� MANUAL COUNT AM MID PM TIME l TO DATE g- 1[ I G DAY (U ROADWAY CONDITION �Z •Fl" [o -71/ cc_ MGev ��7 DATA COLLECTOR; " ��S rr PROJECT #: TIME MOVEMENT• --- - -- ' . ----- - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL ► I0 5 t 102- j oz7 ( I� SUB TOTAL 11 Z IG ( tz Z Int z z y Iz to io z q z z 5 gas .�— Z � 15 C? SUB TOTAL —�--,�—_ i�c1 I f i SUB TOTAL DOTAL _ COMMENTS: 1 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES .� WESTHAMPTON BEACH, N.Y. � DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES ! Site Code PAGE. 1 N-S Street: Factory Ave/ Slgsbee FILE None E-W Street: Main Road DAY OF WK : Thursday Movements by: Primary DATE- 8/11/16 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU IT RT THRU LT Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7:00 AM 11 0 5 1 102 1 1 1 1 0 104 7 234 7.15 12 1 9 1 122 2 2 2 1 1 125 9 287 7:30 17 0 6 1 118 2 1 3 2 1 143 12 306 7:45 17 1 10 1 126 4 3 2 1 2 118 14 299 HR TOTAL 57 2 30 4 468 9 7 8 5 4 490 42 1126 8.00 AM 16 1 12 2 131 2 4 2 2 4 137 10 323 8:15 18 2 8 4 119 1 3 4 4 2 123 9 297 8:30 15 3 12 3 124 2 2 5 3 1 134 15 321 8:45 19 2 15 6 115 1 6 3 4 1 117 11 300 HR TOTAL 68 8 47 15 489 6 15 14 13 10 511 45 1241 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAY TOTAL 125 10 77 19 957 15 22 22 18 14 1001 87 2367 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ...I.... VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 8:00 AM 0.65 68 8 47 123 55 7 38 East 7:45 AM 0.96 10 500 9 519 2 96 2 South 8:00 AM 0.81 15 14 13 42 36 33 31 West 7:15 AM 0.92 8 523 45 576 1 91 8 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.85 68 8 47 123 55 7 38 East 0.94 15 489 6 510 3 96 1 South 0.81 15 14 13 42 36 33 31 West 0.93 10 511 45 566 2 90 8 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N-S Street: Factory Ave/ Sigsbee FILE: None E-W Street: Main Road DAY OF WK : Thursday Movements by: Primary DATE. 8/11/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 8:00 AM - 9:00 AM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 8:00 AM 0.85 68 8 47 123 55 7 38 East 8:00 AM 0.94 15 489 6 510 3 96 1 South 8:00 AM 0.81 15 14 13 42 36 33 31 West 8:00 AM 0.93 10 511 45 566 2 90 8 Entire Intersection North 8:00 AM 0.85 68 8 47 123 55 7 38 East 0.94 15 489 6 510 3 96 1 South 0.81 15 14 13 42 36 33 31 West 0.93 10 511 45 566 2 90 6 Factory Ave/ Sigsbee N W--�—E S 74 68 8 47 L123 J 15 570 rMainRoad 510 489 45 L 6 511 566 Main Road 573 10 � 42 13 14 15 24 Factory Ave/ Sigsbee 68 MAIN STRgET,WE;STliAMPT0N BEACH,,NEW YORK 14.978 FILE NAME: IPK, TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION : lUl; it F. c. tt . a ry.AvetSigsbea TIME PERIOD: 'PM EXISTING YEAR: 1-240161 HORIZON YEAR: #f E7 DONE BY: . ..,,.=x.',.;.xy. . . APPROACH ALT X CLEARS INPUT VALUES ' E8V48. EXISTING 20 32 19 69 27 100 80 611 34 13 571 25 GROWTH Pt"E RENT tits 26 2.40 4 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUTURE ttNo BtJIL&WITH 31 �'9 Vii, 2$ OTHER OI V< SITE TRAFFIC 4 0 0 0 0 18 11 56 3 0 97 0 PA88-B CREDIT '• -0 0 0 a 0 -0 G 0 "E3UI LI•.3'TRAFFIq Z :33 'I 71 - .Z8 -120 8 �u -38 13 "612 261 FLOCATION: L COUNT: AM N MID PM TIME TO G �-P s t _l-fes \ DAYS ROADWAY CONDITION, DATA COLLECTOR; _ `l PROJECT #' `i QZ CvS r'-`� MOVEMENT-TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL 5 SUB TOTAL - 23 1�eL S 3 5 M5 2� t c —i 8 SUB TOTAL ., SUBTOTAL TOTAL _ FCOMMENTZ: 1 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WESTHAMPTON BEACH, N.Y. `� J DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N-S Street: Factory Ave/ Sigsbee FILE: None E-W Street: Main,Road DAY OF WK • Tuesday Movements by: Primary DATE- 8/09/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU IT RT THRU IT RT THRU IT RT THRU LT Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4:00 PM 25 15 16 9 130 5 2 10 7 11 132 20 382 4:15 32 7 9 7 166 2 8 4 5 7 144 20 411 4:30 21 8 18 6 147 4 4 14 8 9 184 21 444 4:45 21 9 17 7 123 3 4 5 4 5 146 17 361 HR TOTAL 99 39 60 29 566 14 18 33 24 32 606 78 1598 5:00 PM 26 3 25 5 135 4 3 9 3 13 137 22 385 5:15 23 6 20 5 141 5 3 5 8 9 145 23 393 5:30 19 7 8 2 127 2 1 9 6 4 147 16 348 5:45 22 3 21 5 102 4 3 7 3 7 144 22 343 HR TOTAL 90 19 74 17 505 15 10 30 20 33 573 83 1469 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—------------------------------------ DAY TOTAL 189 58 134 46 1071 29 28 63 44 65 1179 161 3067 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:00 PM - 6:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 4:00 PM 0.88 99 39 60 198 50 20 30 East 4:00 PM 0.87 29 566 14 609 5 93 2 South 4:00 PM 0.72 18 33 24 75 24 44 32 West 4:30 PM 0.85 36 612 83 731 5 84 11 Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.91 100 27 .69 196 51 14 35 East 0.87 25 571 13 609 4 94 2 South 0.68 19 32 20 71 27 45 28 West 0.85 34 611 80 725 5 84 11 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N-S Street. Factory Ave/ Sigsbee FILE: None E-W Street: Main Road DAY OF WK : Tuesday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/09/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 4:15 PM - 5:15 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ ... PERCENTS .._ FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 4:15 PM 0.91 100 27 69 196 51 14 35 East 4:15 PM 0 87 25 571 13 609 4 94 2 South 4:15 PM 0.6B 19 32 20 71 27 45- 28 West 4:15 PM 0.85 34 611 80 725 5 84 11 Entire Intersection North 4:15 PM 0.91 100 27 69 196 51 14 35 East 0.87 25 571 13 609 4 94 2 South 0.68 19 32 20 71 27 45 28 West 0.85 34 611 80 725 5 84 11 Factory Ave/ jjA N W--]—ES 100 27 , 69 L196 25 691 FMMainRoad 609 571 80 L 13 611 725 Main Road J - 34 F 71 699 20 32 19 74 Factory Ave/ Sigsbee r 6$MAW STRF.,ET"y WE' ST_R iM PTON SEAC",NEW YORK-,,1197$,. FILE NAME: PAT TRAFFIC VOLUME SUMMARY INTERSECTION : k6id@ Fadtory Avel 5v x TIME PERIOD: EXISTING YEAR: HORIZON YEAR: 2:017 DONE BY: CO ' APPROACH ALT X CLEARS INPUT VALUES ItIB SB E8'-, °' 18 EXISTING 26 45 26 147 43 88 77 807 33 32 551 28 v,v. `151-' >44seq :20 2.40 OTHER DEVELOPMENTS 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FUTURE OTHERpE SITE TRAFFIC 4 0 0 0 0 16 17 88 4 0 87 0 PASS.$Y-CREW 0 0 "BufW,,TRAWIC. 31 46 27 151 -44 . 106 96 914 38 33 5_1151 - �9 F : OUNT. AM MI PM TIME TO DAYROADWAY CONDITION, ria« adECTOR; PROJECT #: -T MOVEMENT- TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTAL I r tz - � •�� N ,og s 10. rr� $ !o t 15 Ic r5 r� —3 I�yc t� zt fes` �, `� 7_7 KR 19 SUB TOTAL IZ?a tK 13 Z1 �Jt I-? Z`i Co Kk E t`fz g �� zz ( f —Z-1 _ t SUB TOTAL i ► z� 3Z Z is Zz fus� 1 IC2 7_ _ Izc 5 Ll z _ lzc t� l 2 z2 —rL Zo tco SUB TOTAL TOTAL COMMENTS: 1 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES WESTHAMPTON BEACH, N.Y. � 4 T 07 DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N-S Street Factory Ave/ Sigsbee FILE: None E-W Street: Main Road DAY OF WK : Saturday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/13/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Time From North From East From South From West Vehicle Begin RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT RT THRU LT Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------—------------------------------------------ 11:00 AM 12 6 23 4 108 4 4 6 2 5 135 11 320 11 15 10 8 20 6 115 8 8 10 3 9 141 15 353 11 30 11 9 26 7 113 13 11 15 4 7 146 19 381 11:45 21 14 20 7 127 9 5 7 7 7 198 19 441 HR TOTAL 54 37 89 24 463 34 28 38 16 28 620 64 1495 12:00 PM 18 10 31 9 128 6 8 11 10 11 174 19 435 12.15 14 13 27 5 142 6 5 7 8 9 210 17 463 12:30 24 10 41 9 142 8 7 22 7 12 189 22 493 12:45 27 11 47 5 139 11 8 6 6 4 215 18 497 HR TOTAL 83 44 146 28 551 31 28 46 31 36 788 76 1888 1:00 PM 23 9 32 9 128 7 6 10 5 8 193 20 450 1:15 22 8 25 8 127 4 4 9 4 7 165 17 400 1:30 19 15 21 5 121 3 5 4 2 3 171 10 379 1:45 22 5 20 4 110 7 7 2 3 4 124 13 321 HR TOTAL 86 37 98 26 486 21 22 25 14 22 653 60 1550 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DAY TOTAL 223 118 333 78 1500 86 78 109 61 86 2061 200 4933 PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 11:00 AM - 2:00 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:30 PM 0.82 96 38 145 279 34 14 52 East 12:15 PM 0.96 28 551 32 611 5 90 5 South 12.00 PM 0.73 28 46 31 105 27 44 30 West 12:15 PM 0.97 33 807 77 917 4 88 8 Entire Intersection North 12:15 PM 0.82 88 43 147 278 32 15 53 East 0.96 28 551 32 611 5 90 5 South 0.67 26 45 26 97 27 46 27 West 0 97 33 807 77 917 4 88 8 4 � , uH DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES Site Code PAGE: 1 N-S Street. Factory Ave/ Sigabee FILE: None E-W Street: Main Road DAY OF WK : Saturday Movements by: Primary DATE: 8/13/16 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK PERIOD ANALYSIS FOR THE PERIOD: 12:15 PM - 1:15 PM DIRECTION START PEAK HR ........ VOLUMES ........ .... PERCENTS ... FROM PEAK HOUR FACTOR Right Thru Left Total Right Thru Left ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- North 12:15 PM 0.82 88 43 147 278 32 15 53 East 12:15 PM 0.96 28 551 32 611 5 90 5 South 12:15 PM 0.67 26 45 26 97 27 46 27 West 12:15 PM 0.97 33 807 77 917 4 88 8 Entire Intersection North 12:15 PM 0.82 88 43 147 278 32 15 53 East 0.96 28 551 32 611 5 90 5 South 0.67 26 45 26 97 27 46 27 West 0.97 33 807 77 917 4 88 8 Factory Ave/ Sigsbee N W---E S 150 88 43 147 278 J 28 665 Main Road 611 551 77 L 32 807 917 Main Road J 980 33 F 97 26 45 26 108 Factory Ave/ Sigsbee _ zyv °Cr® , 2o's Q Lti�cd�r4. �tulPi � .'4t Attorney at Law 1220 & 1295 Sigsbee Road Mattituck,NY 11952 A'v 118-18 Union Turnpike, Apt. 12E, Kew Gardens,NY 11415 1 p J (516) 503-5344 4� October 3, 2016 Chairperson Leslie Weisman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman: I previously wrote to you in June to oppose the granting of the variance to Sports East for the facility on Main Road just west of Sigsbee Road, and I strongly urge the Zoning Board of Appeals to find that the facility is not entitled to a special exception as an annual membership club. As a long time summer resident of Mattituck and the owner of 2 homes on Sigsbee Road, I know that the impact of the proposed facility would be devastating to the nature and safety of our street. No matter what the developer has said to date (and he has said a lot of different things over the course of his 3 applications for 3 different projects), I do not believe the facility will an "annual membership club" of the type contemplated by the R80 zoning use district. The sheer size of the proposed facility, and the number of amenities it will feature, will make it a natural location for public events such as tournaments and other special events. In order to make such a large facility economically viable, the owners will be forced into bringing in outside events, even if they deny that now, because the population density of the area simply will not support a "membership club" of this size and character. While my opposition to the facility rests on the traffic, noise pollution and congestion it will bring to our quiet residential community, what will be even worse will be the inevitable failure of the project. The facility as proposed would need a large number of consistently paid up members in order to turn a profit, and for a summer community,that is a very tall order. Should the business fail, we will be left with a huge empty building and land cleared of trees and animals. The 21 acre parcel in question will go from being a beautiful part of our town to an ugly eyesore and possible trouble spot from which no one will, least of all the town,will benefit. I ask the Zoning Board to find that a facility of this magnitude cannot realistically be a true membership club, in which case the proposed use does not qualify for the special exception < r and the application of Sports East for a variance must therefore be denied. Very truly yours, Linda AukI6 cc: Supervisor Scott Russell Southold Town Board All Members of the Southold Town Board Jo-Ann Lechner 1415 Marlene Lane ���, Mattituck, NY 72816 October 3,2016 Dear Ms. Leslie Weisman, Chairperson,ZBA,Town of Southold: r► I am writing to you because I have great concerns regarding the development of the 20+acre parcel of land owned by Mr. Paul Pawlowski and the proposal by him and his partners to develop this property into the Sports East Fitness endeavor. Mr.Pawlowski is in the process of requesting.that the zoning be changed from Residential to Business under the special exception standard. I have read his application and attended the April 250,monthly meeting of the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association which only adds to my concerns and more questions. My thoughts are based upon reading,research and attending the MLCA meeting. Nature of Business: What is this the nature of this Business? We now know that this facility will be a not-for-profit entity. The proposed developed property will be taken off the real estate tax rolls. Mr. Pawlowski answered this question at the meeting. He stated he is not asking the town to help develop this property,therefore indicating a not-for-profit entity should not be a problem. He and his partners will be using all of the Towns Services,making a very good return on their investment and paying no Federal, State and Local Taxes. This proposed project has been called a Membership Club;a Private Sports Club which will only be open to the Town of Southold residences;and an Athletic Club. Which is it? There are 244 parking spaces which the partner's project will be filled. A question was asked regarding bringing in outside teams to compete on the multiple courts.The response was that no teams will be brought in.There will be 5 outdoor tennis courts,one artificial turf field as well as a vast indoor facility. It was also stated that the teachers are very happy because they will have summer jobs. The Full Environmental Assessment Form provides:"Will the proposed action plan produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,operation or both." Response was"Yes;Outdoor multi use field and tennis courts will produce noise exceeding ambient noise levels during operation. It is likely that these noise levels would be generated between 7:00 am-6:00 pm." At this time there appears to be no outdoor lighting for the courts. However,it was stated that the outside courts will be open as long as there is daylight. This means during the summer when neighbors are trying to enjoy their yards or just home from work wanting quiet time the courts and field will be open until the sun goes down. The developers stated that they are modeling the facility after Southampton Youth Services recreation center.Southampton offers summer camp that is run by an outside organization. Based upon,the number of parking spaces; modeling their program after Southampton Youth Services,a not-for-profit;providing jobs for teachers during the summer;the vast outside fields as well as the size of this entire project; no intermural with schools etc.,this could lead to the conclusion that this endeavor will have a full summer camp up and running on this property,as does Southampton Youth Services. There would be constant noise from sunup until sundown. Mr.Pawlowski, has stated this is a private membership club. What does annual membership club really mean? It appears that any business that offers annual membership can open on property that has a zoning of residential with exceptions. For example BJs, Costco,Sam's Club are all membership driven. Any type of business can offer annual membership and say they are membership driven and will be beneficial to the community, Is this really what the town's forefathers were thinking when they placed the exemption for annual membership clubs? If the town approves this project on this land, it is opening up Pandora's Box as any large business with any type of membership can and will ultimately apply and or bring litigation against the town for the right to build on residential property that is also zoned for exceptions. Sewage and Water: The project is huge and will produce an enormous amount of sewage and water runoff from blacktop,building roof and the outdoor courts. Our bay and sound are already compromised by nitrogen pollution. Excessive nitrogen pollution from sewage has caused massive fish kills,turtle die offs,and toxic algae blooms,closing beaches and water bodies around Long Island. Nitrogen pollution threatens our environment,health,economy,and quality of life. Long Island's clean waters create jobs and generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year for our regional economy. Nitrogen pollution in water is directly tied':=Avelopment patterns,land use trends,fertilizes use,failing sewers, residential cesspools, and septic systems.In short—the majority of nitrogen is from sewage.Scientists agree that harmful toxic tides are being fueled by nitrogen from wastewater, including septic tanks and cesspools. The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation cites algal blooms and excessive nitrogen as the primary reasons many of Long Island's water bodies are impaired.These toxic algal blooms,often referred to as Red Tide or Brown Tide,can spread hazardous toxins, kill fish,and seriously impair water quality. In the spring of 2015,Governor Cuomo and the NYS Legislature allocated$5 million to create a plan that will tackle Long Island's nitrogen pollution problem.This plan will identify critical projects, including upgrades to sewage and septic systems,which are necessary to protect our water resources and our communities. Newsday ran three articles this week regarding how water ways need more environmental protection from sewage.These include Suffolk County as well as the Town of Brookhaven who wants to implement standards that will be stronger than the County. There have been meetings of our elected officials from the state,county and towns;they understand if nitrogen pollution is not reduced our towns we will lose two industries,fishing and tourism. This proposed project is very close to Peconic Bay and Laurel Preserve. According to the papers filed,this project does adjoin wetlands/water bodies that are regulated by Federal,State or Local Agencies and are over a sole source aquifer.The project anticipates a water usage of 15,000 gallons a day and 3,660 of raw sewage. How can we justify putting this enormous project in place when it will greatly increase nitrogen pollution from sewage and water runoff with no way to eliminate nitrogen pollution? Will there be a treatment plant established to take all nitrogen out of the sewage before it is returned to the ground? Will there be some type of water system where water can be captured, purified,and recycled? This proposed project requires substantial water. There is a water problem on the east end. Salt water is seeping into fresh. Last year the Town of'Riverhead requested that its'residence curtail water usage as their pumps were at maximum capacity. With the pull of so much water, how does the Town accommodate this project and protect our drinking water? Traffic; Noise;Air Pollution:Traffic Congestion-This area of Main St.is so congested it is almost impossible to get into and out of streets and parking lots.The Old Capital One building must be taken into consideration. This business property is sub-dividable and multi-use. There is also going to be additional traffic from the location of the Hudson City Bank site with the potential 2 story office building. The Department of Transportation would not approve any entrances or exits from the CVS parking lot on to Main Road because of congestion. This project will substantially add to the traffic congestion that already exists in this area. Why are the entrances and exits not on the side road that runs along the westward side of this property? This part of a Main Road resembles Riverhead with its'traffic congestion. I do not believe the Town of Southold would want to add to the congestion in this area which would affect all residence. Air–There will be increased emissions from buses,cars,delivery and garbage trucks entering and exiting the parking lot,as well as from the additional traffic on 25. There will also be increased emissions from these vehicles'sitting in the parking lot with their engines running. This must be taken into consideration with 244 parking spaces. Approximately 7 acres of trees will be removed. Removal of these trees will have an adverse impact to the community via air and noise pollution. Trees cool the air, land and water with shade and moisture thus reduce the heat island effect of our communities.A single tree can produce the cooling effect of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. One large tree can supply a day's supply of oxygen for four people. A healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon each year which reduces the"greenhouse effect',for an acre of trees that equals to 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide. Trees help reduce surface water runoff,decrease soil erosion and increase ground water recharge. r 6 V Y Each gallon of gasoline burned producet' -.-)st 20 pounds of carbon. There are 244 park.-iv,paces. How many more pounds of carbon will be produced in this one small area that has more traffic congestion than it can handle. Noise-The project will be open,all week at 5:00 am;close Monday-Saturday at 10:00 pm;Sunday close is 7:00 pm. Outdoor fields will be available,at this time until dark. Plans have been made for 244 vehicles. There will be buses,delivery trucks,garbage trucks, cars and increased traffic. The trees that are left standing will block some of the noise,but they will not block all of the vehicle&pedestrian noise until dark at the field and 10:00 pm for the building. What will happen to the quality of life of the individuals who live in our community? Wildlife and Plants: From the application for zoning under the exception rule,the application provides,"Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of special concern."The applicant responded"Yes." Observing this property from Sigsbee, I have seen a turtle and a very strange snake living on this land.What happens to these animals or species of plants either listed or not listed via NYS's as rare or concerned? Conclusion: The plan for this project is huge. This project will produce much traffic congestion,sewage,water runoff,noise;all environmental polluters. The quality of life will not be the same for the families who live and travel around this area of Mattituck. I thought the people of our Town wanted to keep"that small town feeling"which includes respect for our neighbors,as well as keeping the two industries that add to our Towns coffer, namely tourism and fishing. These industries afford the Town with much of its revenues,with very little town services and in tum reduces every residences real estate taxes. Our Town is trying to cut pollution as it is causing destruction of our estuary and ecological systems which affects all residence of the Town of Southold. How is the Town going to address this vast project with forward thinking? This project,a not-for-profit,will have the availability of all Town Services paid for by Town residence,as the property will be taken off the tax rolls and the principals will benefit financially at the expense of the Town residences,many whom are on a fixed income. The Southampton Youth Services recreation center is not near a residential areas or a congested area. Maximus gym is also located in a business district. This project should only be allowed if placed in a business zone,all environmental issues must be addressed and every residence agrees to have a substantial tax increase. Many of the services that this endeavor provides are already provided by our Schools and Parks,which are paid for by real estate taxes. Suffolk Community College is at the final stage of providing a gym physicality which includes a pool. This land once developed would be an ideal hang out for teenagers as it is enclosed by trees. Will there by 24 hour guard service to stop the congregation of teenagers with and without cars? Based upon the facts above, I respectfully request that the change in zoning be denied. Respectfully / v Jo-Ann Lechner 6 C. FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLDOCT D BUILDING DEPARTMENT 6 2��6 SOUTHOLD, N.Y. NOTICE OF DI SA PPROYAL C.c � DATE: December 12 2 5 TO: Paul Pawlowski PO Box 783 Mattituck,NY 11952 ?lease tape notnce that your application dated December 4, 2015 For permit to construct a'ir_ivatc-§parts.club at Location ofproperty: ;-0R10.l ain iWad '�MAt(itucl( NY' County Tax Map No. 1000- Section 122 Block 7 Lots 9 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed use is subject to site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board and Special IJxce Tion al1',mal{ruin the Southold_Town Zoning Board=ol`t�pueals; t)ursuani`tti.-Article III,-2$0-1'3 B. .7 Yoii,ii5a ,now-apply fo t1WeL,.6gg&i'e9 directly: . •--- --- - -io�'azecl-Signatitre;---- Cc: File, ZBA,Planning Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require further review by the Southold Town Building Department. i OFFICE LOCATION: ro MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex ` 1 P.O.Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 �� �'� Southold,NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) Southold,NY Telephone:631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov U PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Donald J.Wilcenski, Chairman Members of the Planning Board Date: January 25, 2016 Re: Request for Planning Comments for ZBA#6914 Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9300 Route 25, :041's/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1000-122-7-9 The Planning Board has reviewed the Special Exception Application referenced above. As you are aware, the standards that the Zoning Board of Appeals considers for Special Exception uses, as outlined in Sections §280-14.2 and §280-143 of the Southold Town Code, relate to assessment of traffic and pedestrian safety, and potential impacts to natural resources, community character, and quality of life. All of these issues are examined in the State Environmental Quality Review (SEAR) process which the Planning Board will be conducting as part of the Site Plan review. The Planning Board has received a partial Site Plan Application and is prepared to make preliminary comments; however, the review of the applications should be concurrent. It is recommended that the SEAR analysis on this Site Plan be coordinated with the Zoning Board of Appeals as an involved agency to benefit the applicant. We reviewed the proposal for its consistency with the Town's Comprehensive Plan. Upon reviewing the draft Parks and Recreation Chapter completed as part of the Town's ongoing Comprehensive flan Update, the Planning Board found that there was strong support for a facility of this type to be located somewhere in the Town. An online survey was conducted regarding citizen support for added recreation facilities and 80% responded that an indoor swimming pool was a top priority. In addition, Goal 2.2 of this ` Snorts East Fitness Club Pape 2 of 3 January 26, 2016 draft chapter contains an objective to research how to attract or create a sports complex that includes an indoor swimming pool and recognizes that this would require private funding to accomplish. The draft Parks and Recreation Chapter referenced above includes an objective in Goal 2.2 that notes an overuse of the playing fields already existing in Southold Town and calls for the creation of more soccer fields. The subject application includes two soccer fields.Also, Goal 4 of the chapter is to initiate a town-wide wellness campaign to improve physical and mental health.Adding opportunities like the proposed sports complex is consistent with this goal. Although this is a draft of a future comprehensive plan that has not yet been adopted by the Town Board, there was considerable public input that was favorable to the goals. Another indication of whether a proposed development is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is how it fits into the current zoning. In this case, the use is considered by the Town's Building Department as fitting under the Special Exception section of 280-13 B as a membership club.,Under that section of the zoning code, the use must meet certain conditions, all of which the Building Department found to be met as indicated by the Notice of Disapproval, dated December 12, 2015, which makes no mention of any variances required. The use exceeds, or is able to exceed all the requirements in the Town Code for such a facility, including the minimum property size and setbacks. Although the proposed project initially appears to be consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan, it is a large project for this town, and potential adverse impacts relating to the development and operation of this site must be examined to ensure they do not degrade the health, safety and welfare of the residents and neighbors. Potential adverse impacts, including but not limited to, traffic, noise and groundwater pollution must be investigated to determine their significance, and whether additional steps can be taken to mitigate or remove the impacts entirely. A Traffic Impact Study will provide information about the amount and intensity of traffic the site will generate and whether there is any way to mitigate traffic impacts. Creating turning lanes to alleviate backups on Route 25 is one common traffic mitigation strategy. It appears that the right-of-way width for Route 25 at this location is wide enough to accommodate turning lanes; however, this is an issue that would need to be reviewed by the New York State Department of Transportation. Noise can often be mitigated by distance and screening. The large size of the parcel will allow for setbacks that are much larger than the code requires and maximizing the distances to existing residences may provide mitigation to noise impacts. Potential groundwater pollution from septic system wastewater could be mitigated through advanced wastewater treatment systems now available and permitted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. As mentioned above, the SEQR analysis will accomplish this investigation into the potential adverse impacts. Coordinating the SEQR review amongst the permitting Snorts East Fitness Club Paae 3 of 3 January 25. 2016 agencies, with the Planning Board respectfully requesting Lead Agency, is recommended. Thank you for this opportunity to provide comments. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact this department. AIAILIN ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS P.O.Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCENSKI L{ Southold,NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: ' WILLIAM J.CREMERS i Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY = _ ` 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III _ (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR a } '�'� ', Southold NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM- y `i To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals y From:; Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman T&jkk Members of the Planning Board r� Date:; May 31, 2016 '$ =� Re: Sports East Fitness Club Located at 9$00 Route 25, ±141' s/w/o Sigsbee Road & NYS Route 25, Mattituck. SCTM#1 000-122-7-9 : The Planning Board has been reviewing the Site Plan application referenced above. On May 2, 2016, the Board conducted the public hearing, and during that hearing heard concerns about whether the use, as proposed, is permitted as a Special Exception on this parcel. The Board would like to avoid having the applicant invest any more funds into this application until that question is answered definitively by the Zoning Board of Appeals. To that end, we would appreciate your response at your earliest convenience. .r. In the Planning Board's record are questions from the public about whether,the use, as s described by the applicant, is truly a membership club. Several people asked how such an apparently intense commercial use could be allowed in a residential zone, and if the intent of the annual membership club was to allow something like the project being proposed. They also questioned some of the finer points of how the club would'work, J r� including whether a day care or childcare was allowed, and whether soccer teams that weren't members would be allowed to play on the fields. For your convenience, we have =# attached a copy of the draft minutes from the Planning Board's hearing. The Planning Board, after reviewing the Town Code, and various definitions in the code, questioned whether the use, as proposed, could be considered an annual membership club. They are concerned about tournaments or special events that bring in a lot of non- members as participants and spectators, for example a soccer tournament with teams that aren't members, or a regional tennis tournament with outside teams. Would this then make the facility public and not an annual membership club?Also, if the public is ?' allowed to pay for a membership that is less than a full year (a daily, weekly or monthly membership), should that be allowed when the use is listed in 280-13 B (7) as an °c r U Lei U Y� Southold Town Planning Board Page 2 May 31, 2016 "annual membership club"? The Town Code sections reviewed by the Board are included below: § 280-13 B states that a Special Exception use includes: i (7) Beach clubs, tennis clubs, country clubs, golf clubs and annual membership F clubs and accessory playgrounds, beaches, swimming pools, tennis courts, recreational buildings and maintenance buildings catering exclusively to 3 members and their guests, subject to the following requirements: (a) No building or part thereof or any parking or loading area shall be located l within 100 feet of any street line or within 50 feet of any lot line. (b) The total area covered by principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed 20% of the area of the lot. (c) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less than three acres. f In §280-4 Definitions, there is this definition for a membership club: CLUB, MEMBERSHIP OR COUNTRY OR GOLF F An entity established for the principal purpose of engaging in outdoor sports, such as golf, tennis, swimming, fishing, hunting or similar activities, but not F including any form of aviation, outdoor trap, skeet or target shooting or motorboat I racing. There are also in § 280-4 these definitions, neither of which appear as uses permitted in the R-80 zoning district: RECREATIONAL FACILITIES k 1 Recreational uses characterized by predominately outdoor activities by patrons, r including but not limited to stables and riding academies, regulation golf courses and golf-related activities, tennis and racquet sport clubs, platform sports, baseball batting and pitching cages and swimming pool facilities. It shall not include such activities as racing, jai alai and amusements parks. RECREATION FACILITY, COMMERCIAL s An indoor or outdoor privately operated business involving playing fields, courts, arenas or halls designed to accommodate sports and recreational activities, such as billiards, bowling, dance halls, gymnasiums, health spas, skating rinks, shooting ranges, tennis courts and swimming pools. Does the use as proposed meet the definition of a membership club, .and fit the described use in 280-13 of an annual membership club? Prior to any further review of this Site Plan application, the Planning Board is requesting this question be answered by the Zoning Board of Appeals at their earliest convenience. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. We look forward to your response. Please call with any questions. Wy COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -4 . y Steven Bellone SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE Department of Economic Development and Planning Joanne Minieri Division of Planning Deputy County Executive and Commissioner and Environment STAFF REPORT SECTIONS A14-14 THRU A14-24 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Applicant: Sports East Fitness Club Municipality: Southold Location: South side of Main Road (NYS Rte. 25) — 141 'west of Sigbee Rd. Received: 4/28/2016 File Number: SD-16-01 T.P.I.N.: 1000 12200 0700 009000 Jurisdiction: Adjacent to NYS Rte. 25 ZONING DATA ® Zoning Classification: R-80 Minimum Lot Area: 80,000. Sq. Ft. Section 278: N/A © Obtained Variance: N/A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION • Within Agricultural District: No ® Shoreline Resource/Hazard Consideration: No ® Received Health Services Approval: No • Property Considered for Affordable Housing Criteria: No ® Property has Historical/Archaeological Significance: No • Property Previously Subdivided: No 13 Property Previously Reviewed by Planning Commission: No ti Minority or Economic Distressed No SITE DESCRIPTION ra Present Land Use: vacant Is Existing Structures: none 13 General Character of Site: level Range of Elevation within Site: 20-30' amsi 13 Cover: wooded, some clearing ® Soil Types: Plymouth series Suffolk County Planning Commission 1 June 1,2016 Range of Slopes (Soils Map): 0-8% 13 Waterbodies or Wetlands: none NATURE OF SUBDIVISION/ NATURE OF MUNICIPAL ZONING REQUEST Type: commmercial recreation site plan ® Layout: standard 13 Area of Tract: 20.82Acres ® Yield Map: o No. of Lots: 1 ACCESS Roads: Main Road (NYS Rte. 25) ® Driveways: private on site ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION © Stormwater Drainage o Design of System: CB/LP o Recharge Basins no 13 Groundwater Management Zone: IV 13 Water Supply: public © Sanitary Sewers: alternative low profile leaching galleys PROPOSAL DETAILS OVERVIEW —Applicants seek site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for a proposed multi-sport membership club consisting of an outdoor soccer field and five (5) tennis courts, an 82,500 SF building to include a pool, basketball court,soccer field and space for physical fitness activities. The proposal also includes approximately 12.86 acres of open space area. The 20.8 acres subject property is located on the South side of Main Road (NYS Rte. 25) approximately 141 'west of Sigbee Rd. in the hamlet of Laurel. The subject property is zoned R-80 (Residential; minimum lot size 80,000SF). The proposal conforms to the Town of Southold's R-80 district's set back requirements,lot coverage,open space, and maximum height requirements. The site plan application also provides 240 parking spaces which is in conformance with the Town of Southold's parking requirements. The subject property is currently a vacant wooded lot with some clearing to the central-southwest of the property. The proposed recreation club will be supplied potable water by the Suffolk County Water Authority. Sanitary waste water is proposed to be collected on site by a subsurface sanitary system using alternative low profile leaching galleys in order to increase the distance between the leaching structure and the effective depth to the ground watertable. The subsurface sanitary system is to be designed and built in accordance with SCDHS standards. All storm water drainage is proposed to be contained on site via a subsurface drainage system comprised of precast concrete catch basins, leaching pools and permeable areas(crushed stone). Prior to final site plan approval, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will be approved by the Town. Suffolk County Planning Commission 2 June 1,2016 Vehicular access to the proposed recreation club is to be from one un-signalized ingress/stop controlled egress to NYS Rte. 25 at the far southern end of the subject property and one right turn only(east bound) egress to NYS Rte. 25 at the north end of the subject property. The subject property is not located in a County regulated Pine Barrens zone or in a New York State Critical Environmental Area. The site encompasses no fresh water wetland areas.The development parcel is not located in a Special Ground Water Protection Area. The project site is located in Suffolk County Ground Water Management Zone IV. The subject property is located in an area mixed with residential, commercial, horse farming, and open space uses. STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAIC! CONSIDERATIONS: New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-1 provides for the Suffolk County Planning Commission to consider inter-community issues. Included are such issues as compatibility of land uses, community character, public convenience and maintaining a satisfactory community environment. The proposed development appears to be compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Immediately adjacent to the proposed developed is a mix of farmland uses (horses) and single family residential properties. The proposed recreation facility includes wooded buffers between it and neighbors to the east,south and west. Exterior lighting at the recreation facility is intended to be dark sky compliant. LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The Town of Southold is currently working on its Comprehensive Plan Southold 2020. The Town's 2004 Comprehensive Waterfront Revitalization Plan does indicate"residential"for future use of the subject property. It is noted that tennis clubs, annual membership clubs, swimming pools and recreational buildings are permitted special exception uses in the R-80 zone. SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS: The Suffolk County Planning Commissions has identified six general Critical County Wide Priorities that include: 1. Environmental Protection 2. Energy efficiency 3. Economic Development, Equity and Sustainability 4. Housing Diversity 5. Transportation and 6. Public Safety These policies are reflected in the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook(unanimously adopted July 11, 2012). Below are items for consideration regarding the above policies: As indicated previously,all wastewater from the proposed Sports East Recreation Club project is to be accommodated by a subsurface sanitary system using alternative low profile leaching galleys in order to increase the distance between the leaching structure and the effective depth to the ground water table. Advanced wastewater treatment including the possibility of innovative/alternative systems is appropriate for this site and continued review and dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is warranted. Suffolk County Planning Commission 3 June 1,2016 Storm water runoff from the proposed project will be retained on-site and recharged via a drainage system designed to conform to all applicable Town requirements. This system will include a subsurface drainage system comprised of precast concrete catch basins, leaching pools and permeable areas (crushed stone). It is the belief of staff that opportunities exist on site to incorporate additional best management practices to the treatment of storm water runoff. The petitioners should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission publication Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and incorporate into the proposal,where practical, design elements contained therein. Proposed clearing of the subject property of native woodland for the recreation facility is limited to approximately 38%of the subject site and is relatively close to the Commission clearing guideline for R-80 residentially zoned land (35%) for sensitive woodland habitat such as Pine Barrens. The subject site is not pine barren or any listed critical environmental habitat. It is the belief of the staff that with native vegetative landscaping the proposal is in accordance with best practices for greenfield development. There was not information in the referral materials indicating that the project will incorporate energy efficiency into the site design. The petitioners should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical, elements contained therein for the residential and community center components of the development. The applicant has put forth in submitted materials that the Sports East Recreation Club will not result in a substantial increase to traffic above present levels or generate a substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services. The applicant indicates that a traffic impact study will be prepared to address any increase in traffic or congestion. The study once completed is to be submitted to the NYS DOT for review. Suffolk County Bus Transit route SC-92 runs along Main Road (NYS Route 25). The applicant should contact Suffolk County Transit to coordinate bus service to the proposed development. Little discussion is made in the petition to the Town and referred to the Commission on public safety and universal design. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to public safety and universal design and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the site plan for The Sports East Fitness Club with the following comments: 1. Advanced wastewater treatment including the possibility of innovative/alternative nitrogen reducing systems are appropriate for this proposed development and the petitioner should be directed to continue dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regarding the use of innovative alternative wastewater treatment for the proposed development. 2. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission publication on Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein. 3. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical, applicable elements contained therein. Suffolk County Planning Commission 4 June 1,2016 4. A traffic impact study should be prepared to address any increase in traffic or congestion to NYS Rte. 25. The study once completed should be submitted to the NYS DOT for review. 5. Suffolk County Bus Transit route SC-92 runs along Main Road (NYS Route 25). The applicant should contact Suffolk County Transit to coordinate bus service to the proposed development. 6. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to public safety and incorporate into the proposal,where practical,design elements contained therein. 7. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to universal design and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein. Suffolk County Planning Commission 5 June 1,2016 •sem ,, Lei" ,;:•.;' RVai < Y:...S ''�'iv,,�e'. 2 "i,�'laF�^., a:3'•ns ex N�-;s�.. ...;.♦ a.t�.Fi`"., Y°'rva`.s.:„t-+ns:Y'• 'f-.S'.,z.,i � C 3(�}a' ~, a, f}>:"'^•A ��,a .,,a, iYn^`t„,�, ,"�,�+i`�... t'.gV�k"T ''. aifi "' b "J'•l'�i�3�C�^'t 0 ^'1, 'INV; Suffolk County Planning Commission ( June 1,2016 O Sigb6e koad] az� rZ.. V Nr R PROPO$1213 BUILDING Offi I M1,13 T I Mu�—,t MM, I Main Rbad Scale(lh Feet) 6,rlOnl 1,20 IIww Fuentes, Kim From: Leslie Weisman Forward Sent: Thursday,July 14, 2016 3:33 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Cc: Duffy, Bill; Lanza, Heather Subject: RE: Kim Bill Duffy is planning to call Charles Cuddy to explain that a code interpretation as requested by the planning board was related to a site plan before them, as applied for, and if that is no longer before them the, their request is moot. Moreover, the ZBA cannot reach a decision on the special exception permit without SEQRA being completed. E could change our lead agency to complete SEQRA if need be. Finally, I believe that the applicant himself could request a code interpretation.To do so he will have to submit an application for a code interpretation. Bill what do you think? Should we talk after you speak to Cuddy? Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Fuentes, Kim [mailto:kimf@southoldtownny.gov] Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 2:29 PM To: Weisman, Leslie; Duffy, Bill Subject: FW: See below email from Paul Pawlowski . . . . Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 -----Original Message----- From: Paul Pawlowski [mailto:pawlowskibiz@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,July 14,20161:48 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Hello With our ZBA application and sports east. We would like to keep it on the ZBA agenda. We would like a decision on the "use". Is this possible to get on the next agenda and or public hearing as we really want to confirm the "use" Please advise. Sent from my iPhone No virus found in this message. 1 Checked by AVG-www.avg.con, Version: 2016.0.7640/Virus Database: 4627/12614- Release Date: 07/14/16 2 wl ll� Fuentes, Kim From: Duffy, Bill Sent: Thursday,July-14, 2016 3:45 PM To: Leslie Weisman Forward; Fuentes, Kim Cc: Lanza, Heather Subject: RE: Yes, let's hold off doing anything and talk after I talk to Cuddy. As for Pawlowski's, request that the he still wants the use question answered, I agree with Leslie, he is not the applicant in that matter. However Leslie, I do not believe that the applicant can apply directly to the ZBA for a code interpretation, he can only appeal an interpretation. Only officials or boards can apply directly. Bill -----Original Message From: Leslie Weisman Forward Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 3:33 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Cc: Duffy, Bill; Lanza, Heather Subject: RE: Kim Bill Duffy is planning to call Charles Cuddy to explain that a code interpretation as'requested by the planning board was related to a site plan before them, as applied for, and if that is no longer before them the,their request is moot. Moreover,the ZBA cannot reach a decision on the special exception permit without SEQRA being completed. E could change our lead agency to complete SEQRA if need be. Finally; I believe that the applicant himself could request a code- interpretation.To do so he will have to submit an application for a code interpretation. Bill what do you think? Should we talk after you speak to Cuddy? Leslie -----Original Message----- From: Fuentes, Kim [mailto:kimf@southoldtownny.gov] Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 2:29 PM To:Weisman, Leslie; Duffy, Bill Subject: FW: See below email from Paul Pawlowski . . . . Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 -----Original Message----- From: Paul Pawlowski [mailto:pawlowskibiz@gmail.com] Sent:Thursday,July 14, 2016 1:48 PM To: Fuentes, Kim 1 Subject: Hello With our ZBA application and sports east. We would like to keep it on the ZBA agenda. We would like a decision on the "use". Is this possible to get on the next agenda and or public hearing as we really want to confirm the "use" Please advise. Sent from my iPhone No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG -www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7640/Virus Database: 4627/12614- Release Date: 07/14/16 2 Fuentes, Kim From: Fuentes, Kim Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 9:27 AM To: Duffy, Bill;Eric Dantes; George Horning; Gerard Goehringer;Jerry Goehringer- 2nd Opgnfli@gmail.com); Schneider, Kenneth;Weisman, Leslie Subject: email below re: Sports East Kim E.Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board ofAppeals Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 E-mail:kimf@southoldtownny.gov From: John Kramer [mailto JJk1235C�gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 9:24 AM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Re: Please specify Sorry, Thought I did. I would like to voice support for the Sports Complex application in Mattituck. This is something the town's people have been trying to get for at least 30 years that I remember. John Kramer On Friday, September 30, 2016, Fuentes, Kim<kimf@southoldtownn.gov>wrote: Hi John, I received your email message. Please specify the matter you wish to comment so I may forward same to the appropriate persons. Thank you. Kim E.Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold,NY 11971 1 631-765-1809.Ex 5011 a 1 E-mail;kimMsoutholdtownny.goov From: John Kramer [mailtoJjk1235agmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 1:11 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: We want this! Sent from Gmail Mobile 2 Richard and Marie Schulken 16 Capel Drive Dix Hills,NY 11746 RECEIVED 10435 Peconic Bay Boulevard Mattituck,NY 11952 OCT 0 3 2W September 30, 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Chairperson Leslie Weisman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals P.O.Box 1179 Southold,N.Y. 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman: Residents of the Sigsbee Road Community purchased their vacation homes for the reason they were enticed by the Beach and the Bay, as well as the privacy, security and beauty offered by the Musing Pond Preserve, 21 acres with nature trail, pond, and Osprey nest. These beautiful offerings are where generations of Sigsbee Road families call this are their summer home. With the planned facility,this will definitely change. We cannot begin to imagine what the Sigsbee Road residents will experience when we are adjacent to the proposed facility. This facility will definitely end up being home for large gatherings such as tournaments and other special events. The noise level will be excruciating. Many of our members are summer residents and our homes are vacant during the off season. Typically this is not a problem because our year round residents keep watch on the homes of their neighbors. Due to the exposure of a public area, security will definitely be an issue, the preserve property will be trodden and noise will be an absolute honor. Additionally, a major concern will be whether this proposed facility will succeed since it will require a large number of year round residents for membership. When we drive around the North Fork,we see so much vacant land along other parts of the community, and now the former Mattituck Airport property,we find it difficult to believe that this group cannot find a location in a more remote space. Needless to say additional problems will be traffic,noise pollution and congestion. If the facility as proposed does not work out,the property, complete with the proposed building and the destruction of trees in the wooded area will be left abandoned. Is this what we want for our Sigsbee Road community. Additionally, we cannot begin to imagine the interaction from the horses at Highwind Farms. That will be a horror! We hope the Zoning Board will conclude that this is not a good location for this proposal. If our summer homes are no longer viewed on a picturesque vacation site,they will cease to be of value. Friends of ours feel we are blessed having a home in Mattituck because it is not"The Hamptons". Is this what we are looking to become? Please do your best to prevent this facility from happening! Thank You 4M , Xand Richa d Schulken r- � Me4,'_(h4 .4 Fuentes, Kim From: Margaret Pisani <margypisani@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 6:59 AM To: mary eisenstein Cc: Fuentes, Kim; Matt-Lrl-Civic@optonline.net Subject: Re: Sports East Dear Mary, Thank you for your prompt reply and for including our comments.We will be out of town on the day of the,meeting and are grateful that our concerns will be heard. Regards, Margaret& Ed Pisani Sent from my iPad >On Oct 2, 2016, at 8:10 PM, mary eisenstein<Matt-Lrl-Civic@optimum.net>wrote: > Hello Margaret,Edwin, >Thank you for sending this to me. I am attaching as well as including it into the body of the email,the Special Exception Categories the Zoning Board of Appeals consider in making their determination. >The public hearing for the Sports East is at 1:OOpm October 6th at the Town Hall. Please be advised to be there with your,recommendations. Invite others to be there as well. > Regards, > Mary Eisenstein > I >Ge'neral >Special Exceptions Permits >The General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in >Section 280-142: >A. That the use will > nol prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or >of properties in adjacent use districts. 1 > B. iThat the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of > permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the > requested use is located or of permitted or legally established uses >in adjacent use districts >C. (That the safety, >the health,the welfare,the comfort,the convenience or the order of >the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. > D. That >the use'will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and > intent of this chapter. > E. That the use will > be compatible with its surroundings-and with the character of the > neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard >to visibility, scale and overall appearance. > F. That all proposed >structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible for >fire and police protection. >G.That the proposal shall comply with the > requirements of Chapter 236,Stormwater Management z > �` �6 > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:02 PM, Margaret Pisani wrote: > > Dear Board Members, >>We do not see how the Southold Town ZBA can adequately evaluate the Sports East proposal without the submission of a detailed business plan from Sports East. Mattituck has numerous vacant buildings due to relocated businesses and or business plans that were not prepared in sufficient detail to properly assess the viability of the geographic market, especially in the banking industry. Mattituck does not need more vacant buildings. >>We question whether a sports facility is viable on a full year basis,given the fluctuation of population and the very strong athletic programs in the local schools. We also believe many people enjoy the natural sporting environment of the North Fork, i.e. beaches, boating, hiking and biking. It is also important to assess the volume of customer assumptions in the Sports East business plan to properly evaluate traffic related issues. "Affordable" memberships need to be evaluated to determine viability compared to the related assumptions on cost and customer volume.We travel to Switzerland yearly where sports clubs are not viable due to the natural beauty of the country and the abundant availability of outdoor sports activity. >>Thank you for considering our observations on the need for a detailed business plan to be part of your due diligence process. >> Respectfully, >> Margaret Pisani >> Edwin Pisani >>7180 Peconic Bay Blvd >> Laurel, NY 11948 >>Sent from my iPad ><Zoning Board Jan 2016 General Special Exception Permit template.docx> 3 0-7 Fuentes, Kim From: Margaret Pisani <margypisani@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 1:02 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Cc: matt-Irl-civic@optonline.net Subject: Sports East Dear Board Members, We do not see how the Southold Town ZBA can adequately evaluate the Sports East proposal without the submission of a detailed business plan from Sports East. Mattituck has numerous vacant buildings due to relocated businesses and or business plans that were not prepared in sufficient detail to properly assess the viability of the geographic market, especially in the banking industry. Mattituck does not need more vacant buildings. We question whether a sports facility is viable on a full year basis, given the fluctuation of population and the very strong athletic programs in the local schools. We also believe many people enjoy the natural sporting environment of the North Fork, i.e. beaches, boating, hiking and biking. It is also important to assess the volume of customer assumptions in the Sports East business plan to properly evaluate traffic related issues. "Affordable" memberships need to be evaluated to determine viability compared to the related assumptions on cost and customer volume.We travel to Switzerland yearly where sports clubs are not viable due to the natural beauty of the country and the abundant availability of outdoor sports activity. Thank you for considering our observations on the need for a detailed'business plan to be part of your due diligence process. Respectfully, Margaret Pisani Edwin Pisani 7180 Peconic Bay Blvd Laurel, NY 11948 Sent from my iPad 1 76 Fuentes, Kim From: Mary eisenstein <Matt-Lrl-Civic@optimum.net> Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2016 8:11 PM To: Margaret Pisani Cc: Fuentes, Kim; Matt-Lrl-Civic@optonline.net Subject: RE: Sports East Attachments: Zoning Board Jan 2016 General Special Exception Permit template.docx Hello Margaret,Edwin, Thank you for sending this to me. I am attaching as well as including it into the body of the email,the Special Exception Categories the Zoning Board of Appeals consider in making their determination. The public hearing for the Sports East is at 1:OOpm October 6th at the Town Hall. Please be advised to be there with your recommendations. Invite others to be there as well. Regards, Mary Eisenstein General Special Exceptions Permits The General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 280-142: A. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. B. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the requested use is located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts C. That the safety, the health,the welfare,the comfort,the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. D. That the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. E. That the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance. F. That all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection. G.That the proposal shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 236,Stormwater Management On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 01:02 PM, Margaret Pisani wrote: 2 > Dear Board Members, > We do not see how the Southold Town ZBA can adequately evaluate the >Sports East proposal without the submission of a detailed business > plan from Sports East. Mattituck has numerous vacant buildings due to > relocated businesses and or business plans that were not prepared in >sufficient detail to properly assess the viability of the geographic > market, especially in the banking industry. Mattituck does not need > more vacant buildings. >We question whether a sports facility is viable on a full year basis, >given the fluctuation of population and the very strong athletic > programs in the local schools.We also believe many people enjoy the > natural sporting environment of the North Fork, i.e. beaches, boating, > hiking and biking. It is also important to assess the volume of >customer assumptions in the Sports East business plan to properly >evaluate traffic related issues. "Affordable" memberships need to be >evaluated to determine viability compared to the related assumptions >on cost and customer volume.We travel to Switzerland yearly where >sports clubs are not viable due to the natural beauty of the country >and the abundant availability of outdoor sports activity. >Thank you for considering our observations on the need for a detailed > business plan to be part of your due diligence process. > Respectfully, > Margaret Pisani > Edwin Pisani >7180 Peconic Bay Blvd > Laurel, NY 11948 >Sent from my iPad 3 General Special Exceptions Permits V7`� b The General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 280-142: A. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. B. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the requested use is located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts C. That the safety, the health, the welfare,the comfort,the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. D. That the use will be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. E. That the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance. F. That all proposed structures, equipment and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection. G. That the proposal shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 236, Stormwater Management SEP 2 9 20 0 16 To: Leslie Weisman As a resident of Mattituck I have many concerns regarding the proposed Mattituck sports facility. For one Mr. Pawlowski, is taking away our untouched land and wasting resources. He said it himself that we already have the Capitol one bank building that is vacant and directly across the street from his proposed site-so why not use this vacant facility that already has access to Main Rd and would have the least amount of construction impact on our local environment. Has there been given any consideration to the impact on traffic it will have if the Capital One building has full tenant occupancy, the proposed sports facility has full membership and outside rental occupancy,the current residential/business and tourist traffic. Is the Town of Southold requesting traffic impact studies that include these issues and possibilities from Mr. Pawlowski? He has also said that the membership would be affordable-well that is a very relative term by Mr Pawlowski. What may be affordable to him may be out of reach for many of the local year round residents. What is holding him back from making this info public-the approx cost of the memberships should be given with the full proposal. Why is the town of Southold not protecting their residents and finding out the membership costs? We the residents of the Town of Southold would like to know the proposed membership fees-then we will see how many local residents are in favor of these plans. Is there also a guarantee from Mr. Pawlowski that the use of the facility is limited to members only and that outside venues cannot be held there and that the facility cannot be rented, leased or be given at no charge for any use of these facilities. Why did the only member representing the'town of Southold not vote in the recent planning commission vote and all those that did vote are not even part of the town of Southold-whose_ town is this? Maybe a sports facility should be built in the residential areas of East Hampton and Southampton? What are the plans to buffer the noise from a soccer field that could conceivably have a crowd of 100+ people, cheering and playing from 5:30 am to 11:OOOpm on any given day or night of the week or weekend? Has the issue of noise pollution been addressed? There is a proposed 80ft wall—do we know how tall or thick they will be at time of planting. What type of fence or wall (which is also necessary) is proposed? There is also a lot of wild life(deer,fox,turtles)currently occupying this area, have plans been made by Mr. Pawlowski to relocate this wild life. This is a beautiful residential community,why is the Town of Southold allowing a developer to ruin it. What happened to the Peconic Land Trust Foundation? Why did we pay into this fund if they are not available to support the community when we need them? If this project is approved we are allowing Mr. Pawlowski to make Mattituck a commercial community that will be the host to large sporting events year-round and a large commercial building that will resemble that of an industrial park warehouse. If the Town of Southold is doing this for the increase in tax revenue than maybe they should look at other alternatives. For example—trim the fat in local government, increase waste disposal fees for non- residents, increase summer recreational fees for non=residents,etc... We the residents of Town of Southold need the local government to have`our backs and protect us from industrial invasions like this. Thank you for your time, Lynn Cianci 4 1 -t, MC-&. A- 1, Q A �l Fuentes, Kim MOM From: Jack Breese <jack@breese.co> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 12:49 PM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Sports East is a gift Hello- My name is Jack Breese, I am a homeowner in Southold (3689 Pine Neck Rd). I grew up in Southold,SHS Class of 1973, and live here part time now. My wife and I strongly endorse the Sports East project. Growing up here in the 60's and 70's there was a lack of activities and facilities especially in the winter, and the founders of Sports East are providing a set of recreation options for North Fork residents while asking very little of the Town. I believe the owners have and will continue to subsidize operation of this facility-it is important that the ZBA put the welfare of all resident above some manageable concerns of a few local neighbors. Thank you for you consideration and service to the Southold, Jack Breese 1 BOARD MEMBERS `L Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson �t®f ®�� /y® 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 �® �® Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer =_ Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider ��C®� �`b� Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2016: 1:00 P.M. - PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD #6976 - Request from the Southold Town Planning Board dated May 31, 2016, June 17, 2016 and August 25, 2016, for an interpretation, Pursuant to Town Code Article XXVI, Section 280-146(D)(1) as to whether the proposed uses, as applied for, on a site plan application from Sports East Fitness Club, and Zoning Board of Appeals Application #SE6914, proposing to construct an "annual membership club", meet the definition of a Membership Club as defined by the Town Code in Article III, Section 280-13(B)(7) Uses Permitted by Special Exception in a Residential Zone District, and Article I, Section 280-4 Definitions: Club, Membership or Country or Golf; Recreational Facilities; and Recreation Facility, Commercial. Proposed location at: 9300 NYS Route 25 (Main Road), Mattituck, NY. SCTM#1000-122-7-9. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: kimf(a_southoldtownny.gov Dated: SEPTEMBER 1, 2016 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By: Kim E. Fuentes 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095'Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 _,� ^ 1 � TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS o SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK Pkal iq t , I-Lg boad AFFIDAVIT" IV OF In the Matter of the Application of MAILINGS (Name of Applicants) SCTM Parcel# 1000- ®a a—-4 1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that: On the day of 20(& I personally mailed at the United States Post Officein ���-'•'"1 �e�_,New York, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN-RECEIPT--REQUESTED, a true copy of the attached-Legal Notice in Prepaid envelopes addressed to current property owners shown on the current assessment roll verified from the official records on file with the ( )Assessors, or( ) County Real Property Office for every property which abuts s crass a pub ' or rivate street, or vehicular right-of-way of record, surroundin / is p'pert . -y_ (Signature) Sworn to befo e m this KIM F. FUENTES day f � , 20( Notary Public, Stats c4 Wow York No.4811700 QuaWled in S ft*Coua Cot�e0lcabr FVEres,mil 3o, (Notary lic) PLEASE list on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet of paper,the lot numbers next to the owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed. Thank you. i • ■ Complete items 1,2,ana a.Also Complete A. Sign ure ❑Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X �. ❑Addressee ■ Print your name and address on the reverse C. ate of Deliv so that we can return the card to you. B. Re �Pri d ame) 5 ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. I delive a •ress different m item ? ' Yes f ( No 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ C/v MCI� s 7 3. Service Type I E3 Certified Mail ❑Express Mail � ❑Registered [3ReturnReceipt for Merchandise I, E3 insured Mail ❑C.O.D. I 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number { (transfer from service label) 102595-02-M-1540 PS Form 3811;,February;2004 i Domestic Return Receipt - —� N . SLEW hLT9 0000 0090 ETOL --CO—MPLETE THIS sECTION ON DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sign re ❑Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Addressee l ■ Print your name and address on the reverse i` so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) D toof elivQry ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, /�r Taj �l ); or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Nke. `1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No Matt' Boy, I «Sd . 3. Service Type .].�-t��(1� � ❑Certified Mail [3 Express Mail // I } a f i/ v ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise + ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. I 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes �I 2. Article Number (transfer from service laben PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt' 102595-02-M-1540 • SS69 'fi4`19 00OEl 090 E`COZ SECTIONSENDER: COMPLETE THIS ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature ` 1; item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X / ❑Agent 1 ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery j ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 1 or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes i 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No s ��.�,5 �ci net -• t , `bee 3. Service Type 13 Certified Mail EI Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. f i 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number i (transfer from service label) PS,Form 381.1,Eek Hary 7004 ninmestic getgett im R ^p'^* I EE00 5LT9 0000 0090, ETOL SECTION, COMpLjTE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERYSENDER: COMPLETE THIS I ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. lure f item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X dressee i ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. B. ace d, me) C Date o Delivery I ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, II 'or on the front if space permits. , Dc) d li�address diff-ren t ft+� d m 17 ❑Yes j 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,citeoelivery addres ❑No 1 0- c17 0 910 �l� n�, 3'rSelvice'f C�rtif ed Mail � ss Mail { k&)d egWFLT, alum Rece(pt for Merchandise 1 a ) JV ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. K 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (transfer from service label) Domestic RetUm.Recelpt 102595-02-M-1540 S PS Form 3811,February 2004_ ,i hhEg fi?-T9 0000 0090 ETH -- - ■ ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.AI' „omplete 7ASignatureItem 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Lam_ ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse I ❑Addressee so that we Can return the Card to you. . ceived by(Printed Name) C� to oftnl(6 elive f ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ���� �J;or on the front if space permits. (c D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 11 Yes 1. Article Addressed to' J If YES,enter delivery address below, ❑ No P� a 3. Service Type Aa y o��a E3Certified Mail 13Express Mail 13 Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 �OSEN■ER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION . . DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature ' item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Agent I ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee I so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Punted Name) ate of elivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ,/d-.j J / I or on the front if space permits. } lJ� D. Is delivery address different from item i? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No PC) 18'ry, sag 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail [3 Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Insured Mad ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number , (Transfer from service label) PS Form•3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-15401 20'IO 9Zj9 OR0,0 .0090 ETOL UAWLIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION (;QM1-LkJL -, ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. j3-s�� El Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X / (�r/ i El Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 19 ❑Yes 1 1 Article Addressed to. If YES,enter delivery address below, ❑ No b4.i-K 4c �® Sig bee f2 3. Service Type e , d �� E3 Certified Mail ❑ s Mail S\ka��,,�11 r1,1Vn� ` III [3ReturnReturn Receipt for Merchandise G ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) ' PS Form 3811-Februarv2nna n,—..+:,.- +.... -- — 2969 fiLT9 0000 0090 ETU. SECTION . SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION ( ®� t ' ■ CoA. Sign e gh mplete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete !' item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Ad s e, I ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. B.Received by(Printed Name) Date of Deliv zqA' ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, `F1�p r��Vt S,%d o 19 9M -a� or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different fro ite i? ❑Yes If YES,enter delivery address b low. ❑ No 1. Article Addressed to: _ 'S m L COAL- 1' 3. Service Type [3 Certified Mail E3 Express Mad ❑Registered E3ReturnReceipt for Merchandise V ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540; ' PS Form 3811,February 2004 '� 1 r= 62hQ fiLT9 0000 0090 ETU SENDER: coMPLiL_2THIS SECTION I COMPLETE THIS SL.-..,)'N ON DELIVERY 1 ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sign t 1 item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ! 13 Agent l ■ Print your name and address on the reverse v�, 0_4 ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. ' ed b Printed Na*I Y( C. to of eli ery ■ Attach this card to the back it the mailpiece, t1, yam{ „� C,`e � ( es, ' or on the front if space permits. �"1�-�5 �`'� l 4 D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? El Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No P0 &* ) pcp0 3. Service Type M 11`13 1`13 i VBG.. ❑Certified Mail 13 Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise , i ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. (, 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 1 2. Article Number, :;;; :; ;, :; (Transfer'froin service label) t t i E i t 1 1 i i 1 1; 1 i t t I i :1 r; P ph n i `13 �0 zs0o szT9 0000 0090 ETOL SECTIONCOMPLETE THIS . .ELIVERY i ■ Complete Items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Si atu item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. e d by(P�rof�kame) C. Date of Delivery f ■ Attach this card to the back of the mallpiece, tJ v fit) or on the front if space permits. j D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? ❑Yes i`1. Article Addressed to: If YYj��eit,9 hd�1 1F y�dreess below: ❑No Trnavja� � �O h � ��� t i 0181 Po rmy 3ba a 00 R 1 ❑ n ured Certi Me Exp e I ; RegisteredW Retu eipt for Merchandise } I .MaiP- ❑C.O J 4. s i tgd Deliver0 F e) ❑Yes 4 (� 2. Article Number' (rransfer from service label) PS Form 381;1:,;February2004 ;: Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 v=1 r►c r-i-`QUQu—tN9 a—E'CO Z COMPLETE THIS SECTION . SENDE %g.9114PLETE THIS SECTION 1 ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete, A. Signat ant item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.;; ; ❑ dre ■ Print your name and address on the reverse - Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Dat of Delivery r ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 19 111 or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from Rem 1? s 1 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: UUfio /T�I �I cc m- Gales 1 eOr, I a=' 3. Service Type +' ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 1 fir' ❑ Insured Mad ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes j2. Article Number i (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811` ' ' 'c Return Recei t 102595-02-M-1540 'LL + 900 54-29 0000 . 0090 ETU.'6MPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY __ s -SENDER: ■ Com le ', u. . :. . p t�e�tejris„�1,`2,and 3:Also complete. n t item 4 if'Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B.lege/day(Printed me) C a 'o� livery f � 111111 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �_U/l G J or on the front if space permits. i D. Is delivery address different from item 1? El Yes I. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below- ❑ No �U Fe�zIko Pal j3. Service Type /� ��� 1 13 Certified Mail 13 Express Mail (,(, d” ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 1 !� ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes i 2. Article Number ( (Transfer from service label) f PS.Form 381:1;,F,ebiruary 2004 i Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 1 s : 1t 5-ETO-56T9_000U UuAJu t'LUL- COMPLETE THIS I ri SECTION . ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. • n ture item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. 13 Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse Y� • ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Nam C. Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, �I�-640 ?IE D22-v u f or on the front if space permits. 9atl lJ� D. Is delivery address different from dem 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑No f 1 i . Service AL 1� l ❑ �Maif\6❑Expreps all j .A Ist ree�U ❑Retu ceipt for Merchandise o Insgfe�Mail ❑C.O. c® Restricted D ry?(E ctra ,e ❑Yes I � ( ' 2. Article Number ; i1jiji (Transfer from service`label) PS Form 3811,February;2004:: : :Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 I - ETEQ hLT9 0000 0090 ETOLNZ s� ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig ature Item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent I X � � ❑Addressee r ■_ Print your name and address on the reverse Iy so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name f Delivery 1 ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, -usr� LoMA0(7 � 2 `� 211 { or on the front if space permits. 4 D. Is delivery address ntfifro,_m item 1 .��Ye 0 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter deliv ddreel '�� ❑No �� I Stj l e LLC r6lLO cog'`� ,,, 3. Service Type � � i U",(' Certified Mail ss Mail I E3❑Registered ❑ n c�Irgs andise ❑ Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. i 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes l 2. Article Number ; i ;i i t ;i ; ; :: ''• ; ;;i i ; i l i i t i i i j_ (Transfer from'service label)•£ ?? l l? i t l?a i ,i?l'+'s? E i I' l t i t i ii E l PS Form 3811, February 200,4: Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 1 IRTTO- 54T9 '01700 0090 E-t10 L . A. Signature/ ❑Agent Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. X / ❑Addressee I ■ Print your name and address on the reverse C. Date of Delivery 1 so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) , I 11 ■ Attach this card,tqjtte;badk of•the mailpiece, (` or on the front,i#shade perm D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑Yes 1. Article Addre tj If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No lam - " ) `-" C 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail ❑Registered ❑Retum Receipt for Merchandise t�J i�Q _ ' [3 insured Mail ❑C.O.D. I f � 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes f 2. Article Number I (Transfer from service label) 1 TSEQ fiLT9 0000 0090 -ETOr! DELIVERY ' - A. Sig tur i + ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete ❑Agent item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired.' ❑Addressee �. Print your name and address on the reverse C. Date of Delivery { so that we can return the card to you. B eceived by Printed me) I ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, Uv- Ir or on the front if space permits. D. Is deliv ry addre s different from item 1? 11 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: [3 No i s6Uk ��• i 1 i'1 3. Service Type t e [3 Certified Mail ❑Express Mail 1 v I `!7 ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. J 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 7 I i 2. Article Number i (Transfer from service label) { ;;Domestic Return Receipt 102595-o2-M-1540; , PS Form_3811,February 2004 � ; ■ • ® 0 BOOM ® ® ® ■ ru e° ® �O 0e • . .? IM0 i� "i E"�° rl Postage $ �� j r� Postage $ ✓'-)i ?r� Certified Fee / s `� Certified Fee ?q y eturn Receipt Fee Postmark gK i P ` Postmark 0 ndorsement Required) ( 4 e a Here O turn Receipt Fee -Here ` „ 0 ndorsement Required) _- Restricted Delive Fee ry VIM ;`j, Restricted Delivery Fee ^10 (Endorsement Required) v p -.._ ��� Q (Endorsement Required) �tyti _p Total Postage&Fees �/ y 0 it rD Total Postage&Fees 11 Sent To s 0 • M hv� r / Sent To Street,Apt No; --------------------------- e-9 ------ 0 R Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. ty 1C I o' p -/ ¢` }�p N or PO Box No. City,State, P+ j""" City, t te.Z - ---------------- --------------- :ee ® ® A s ■ ■ U,) ®• - • e . .o- . .-. t1.1 ® ® ■ Q• Er 1;..�;. ;i :Fi'�• jl //sf R j •tea• tf�3 ° �;.�:�e :..�a f=ps r ��� ° ,.,�° ° u o� Postage rl Postage $ 0 ertlfied Fee C Certified Fee Postmark O um Receipt Fee "\ �-Here tum Receipt �f {, M (En sement Required) n orsement Required) eme r�� ` Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delive Fees (Endorsement Required) E 4 0 ( ndorsement Required) -D Total Postage&Fees $ � ,, -n Total Postage&Fees O M Sent To I-a �heJ V*�-ll M Sent To ---------------- = ^ •-- r --------- Street,Apt.No.; 0 Street,Apt lVo.; _ -"'"" or PC-Box-No. �/f� ( b f? t:? orPOBoxNo. �`� ------tate,----- S e - G S. 1i-t----(ve ell'= City,State,ZlP+4 ` G} ^ City,State,ZIPS,¢1� q `� g IC :ee eo. ' s MN O e, - " f M cIV, U10 Ln �S € rqXPosta e $ Postage rd l'"�'i3\• .E Certifie • y Fee , rpostmark �, Certified Fee / I etum Receipt Fee jr `\ Here ��-- 1:3 dorsement Required) 1 e_a = i turn Receipt Fee C 9 y PosI Tark _ (E rsement Required) ( SEP 1 ) Her � Restricted Delivery Fee y•, 0 (Endorsement Required) �=J Restricted Delivery Fee r �§ Dp (Endorsement Req., 0 Total Postage&Fees �✓ �''a.- � Total Postage&Fees � �,-,--` M Sent To �A1 ®f �� Ti m Sent To ------------------------- --------- p Street Apt.N. /1 In ��D� r� �l GV W or PO Box No. �y O Street,Apt No.; ----- tate,-IP+4----- ----- ----- City, - - k" --- -- f`- or PO Box No. State,ZIP+4 -Ld., -„ ®�/ y r Ciry,State,ZIP+4]� ""__ � /�.je/f1�K v� �- :ee e ■ ® A es ■ rru B• • 0 0 �O i",`Z -s. ;�-� •� ° - .f O (f-�� ��,° •I � t S'f - �� � •(;..y° f"=� U..) ° 'rte \`11 IL ` .i L;-,;." i ZQII,l IL w'.,,% Postage $^ I-a Postage $ 0 Certified Fee Certified Fee .,1 Post a%W s � Postmark eturn Receipt Fee `� ° V r Return Receipt Fee E orsement Required) D Endorsement Required) Here �O ; Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee 0 (Endorsement Required) (Endorsement Required) 0 ..D ))A Total Postage&Fees 0 0 Total Postage&Fees ti T(g Sent To MSent To `' f C ' ir 1�V� V��� �6.� ----rq \ k-0,j 11 � ( ------------------------------- O ------ - 0 Street,Apt.No; �/'� �� /° Street,Apt.No.; or PO Box No. (J or PO Box Na. �- � St _ ---------------------------- -------------------- - ----------------------------- Citi;State.ZIP+4 ,x/-17 - ---- City,State,ZIP+4 -PA- ------- -- 'V+ + e,k ) 1 ` :00 :ee ee. ee. _ ® , Lr lzi Ln it� int •� ,J--'z :.-� i;,,ij a �-0 171- p ;"r:, t.�• e�,� � • • o .J Ln Postage L 1 � �1.D ,dy��, Postage Certified Fee r y, Postmark d Certified Fee eetum Receipt Fee \\ � I 4�' ent Reqwred) SE13 9 1-Z eturn Receipt Fee f 05 ❑ y 0`1 tmer 1 7L1 er °� P i 0 ZYYtl� Restricted Delivery Fee p orsement Required) yee ED (Endorsement Required) r- - -� j Restricted Delivery Fee p �j p (Endorsement Required) 0 Total Postage&Fees � 7� "lit p Total Postage&Fees s M Sent To `` �y 0 p ��L_` _ ul�_ m Sent To +�L G � i�� ne ----------- —----- --- '!l ---- r-R ,� 1 , --- ------- f`- or PO Box No. f^-6 p Street,A t No; ------------- ------ +u --------- I`- or PO Box No. City,State,Zi ------------- 4"M - - - City,State, +4 0 ^ �-------------------- it � 0 i • , � o e ® , A, Ln r-R p p '=l ?^`�• � I< ;:-'v\ .I i;`;• ry � (t,}} +E^a• �.� i� ff� •�� 3� {,,.''f i •L.._`y"• I: l((En Postage $ Postage $ .�jft-Q ;pJ\ e 1 fVVI Certified Fee / pCertified FeeD1 um Receipt Fee ]Postm�tarrkgCtum Receipt Fee © Pos�t (Endorsement Required) SEP ! .He 0161 rsement Required) y M 1) Restricted Restricted Delivery Fee 4 1 SEP 9 e ti p (Endorsement Required) E:3 (Endorsement Reqwred) " li p y 0 Total Postage&Fees �Jo _ Csv0 Total Postage&Fees M Sent To Q K ftl Sent To J 17=11i V M Street Apt No.; �� ;' A �� — - G p Street,Apt.No.; �'--------------- � �. or PO Box No. [L or PO Box No. j�{,!,Q G o SI * `1._ ty,State,ZIPf q City,State,Z/ + - S ic,e L �� IV :.e e. as Ln r-9 ?0'--umm; Postage $ OEem.n, Postage $ .0 b, 7 Certified Fee rtified FeepPop Receipt Feeeceipt Fee / Postmad'k, pnt Required)' C`�j Required) 1 Herev p Restricted Delivery Fee p Restricted Delivery Fee Ji (Endorsement Required) E3 (Endorsement Required) IM E3 ,,,0 Total Postage&Fees $ _0 Total Postage&Fees s ���;� p C3 �y '�j °j ,/y� ��g vim" Sent To j Sent TO 14/ - 11 'G�l/1 !amu` `r'� r -,r-,��`�_! U' �- - Street,Apt.No.; p p / - � 7 pct Street A t No j or PO Box No. `p``++^^ or PO Box No. ity,Si----- ------ ---------Q Qr- -------------------- 17% ------------------------------- IIJa `_ City,State,ZIP+4 '/ 6 41 r ' Vl i l, City State, AN I Z(Ryq ,• 6��� r� 1AV' ' 0 ® ' s M e. E...I! `.."-X t f, .t ffi IE 3t t 3m.,d • • - • i co rte• F-:.•� •• tr� s• R• II 1-9 Postage $ ���� _ � < /9, Postage $ V ertified Fee t �r 1 r M Po rk ertN ified Fee M mReceipt Fee c't , Ir E3 ( d sement Required) /-® Postrgar ) R rn Receipt Fee � � p �, ! (E sement Required) Restricted Delivery Fee �� p 1% p (Endorsement Required) j p Restricted Delivery Fee p (Endorsement Required) i -0 Total Postage&Fees $ \ x ® p p %9 p Total Postage&Fees Sent Ti ��// 0 . m )`e Sent To - ------ ------------------------------------------------- �e �w ED Street,Apt No.; .�-� T'^ f7I or PO Bax No. 0 �t t/� Z re ,Apt.N ^ Street,Apt---- --- ---- StagIPt +" 1 a - �l�./( ---------- C. e i p or PO Box No. C. ,State, IP+171- 4 611U& � - - q7? A . ■ �0 - fTl m m a• ° ' FCertlfied U� d.:� �• I£^'t7r-9ge ` � Postage $ ee `PAQwf `� ertified FeeNY pFee $Here M (Endorsement Required) c_�Q turn Receipt Fee ) Postmark 0 JJ n orsement Required) H�( p Restricted Delivery Fee ' p Restricted Dehve Fee (Endorsement Required) �y ry o p (Endorsement Required) Total Postage&Fees _ p C31 r' M 1:3 Total Postage&Fees � Sent 1 ) /° L'•--- Sent To ' 1�� p y- /� - m ; M Street,A t � U C�� ��1 -----Cl ---t- ----- ✓ or PO Box No. f(/ 0 Street,Api.No; —_ 77 or PO Box No. �/a� r -- - ' City,State.ZIP+4 j )`� -- y4?l�n/� !V ' CI CdY Stat, lPr+f( (/J� , ry - - — - -- �O e . . es ® e . ■ p m C. �.... .,4 l, s $ 9 `.� ��pp ,�i� 4.' jj Il i. ',•• `,^,.-C.!f ..;J :--a r� �p Postage $ r�R Postage $ N� p Certified Fee MY ��- ertified Fee r'-- Postmark Postrttark 17- Return Receipt Fee p tum Receipt Fee �t ndorsement Required) �` \Fdere' r[ orsement Required) G kMels Restricted Delivery Fee { (� Loi 1 p Restricted Dave Fee Fee � "J j C3 (Endorsement Required) `Q 1 f p (Endorsement Required) C { E-3 ` J JJ EDTotal Postage&Fees 1 py- j Total Postage&Fees {T7Sent To '� 1 C�s IM 3! Sent To a r)�DC� , Street,Apt.No.; 1 ---------- -- or PO Box No. � �1 Street,Apt.No.; 1 or PO Box No. , 1 �-�-- r - - ---_--�--- ----J--- -- -------------------------- - O f,\ Cdy,S to ZI +4 r� ,{l ".t { -/�-- MUG 0��I G , P�/ f "(\� Cdy,State,ZIP+4Mli , ■• ' e nj B, • U1Da • s ..- r r•r I'1 IM CIO �" 1% i7[ 7f CO �f9,, • ( 3< 3�''�•3 jg - ,+q[ r7 { �- (Q) it !S l l�� ���;)�� J!,/ r� Postage $ ��.� �r &norsemen Postage $ f` /�-."•-•`'� -q j ertified Feeertifled Fee tt� jtmaf Pos� I .1 tum Receipt Fee Receipt Fee F1eYe� (Endorsement Required)t Required) p Restricted Delivery Fee J/ 0 Restricted Delivery Fee - �� p (Endorsement Required) 1 (Endorsement Required) / 7 E:3 ',•' _p Total Postage&Fees rp Total Postage&Fees s p ' O Sent To Sent To I ie— em, r _ � o G�t'y, Street,Apt No.; ' -- - - - Street Apt.No.; ^� (� or PO Box No. PQ x` or PO Box No. ,�/�_ '•" `�- ity,S ---- - j` +� C-- --- ,Zl + ---------------------- -------------------- ------- -------------- ee. City,State,ZIP+AAA 11„ ` AfU ' A'a ■ • ■ • ru Kimr • Q' s• ® •- cO 0-' • r:' I I( .S I."z -'3 'f £. �,n*S• ,: e� Postage $ ��)� r-9 Postage $ ertified Fee B 4 ` p Certified Fee Re n Receipt Fee 4Posim�rk)A (9' p um Receipt Fee l Post (Endo merit Required) _ Here<!i16/ � O (End Bement Required) �i{ }EF � _ �yHee�re co, 0 Restricted Delivery Fee Restricted Delivery Fee �� j (Endorsement Required) p (Endorsement Required) p p Total Postage&Fees ..-0 Total Postage m Sent To m Sent ToLIC - rl I Street,Apt No.; E3 Street,Apt No; or PO Box No. p or PO Box No. Pf- (� �y _�►'1a � '` ---- -w------�------- ----- -- ------- Crty State, +u l I'`I V4 - lel City,State.Z/P4 Ypb. I ! 7!✓ :oe ee. ` ve :ee ee. Jf X11 � _ i l�Jd�Jo NAB, 17-1 Ln � �����© :11111,yr-�11J� © » o,_ a•�''�' �,a;{;�,; ❑ D a - �O (.AAS°J llyLL.�7°11Gldi� a CCi,) IU1 P, '� t1 f�'LE c-:1 UU fly,. rl � Postage $ nPostage $ �� �y { I� Certified Fee �� Certified Fee +tq/ 5' �X_ C3 PT/ Postmarkrp � � 0 turn Receipt Fee Here urn Receipt Fee I Postmark orsement Required) f �01 ( dorsement Required) Here Restricted Delivery Fee SEP 1 5 EP5 2016. 1 f C3 (Endorsement Reqwred) Restncted Delivery Fee = p E3 (Endorsement Required) _ C3 w - / -�_) 0 Total Postage&Fees I ✓ 9Jf<.�. 1:3 Total Postage&Fees L$ Pr Sent To rTt Sent To --- N. J�,/� M - ----------------- ------------------------------ ---------------- or PO Bax No. �(`� �-�fl rJ Street,Apt.No.; s l 1 _5J_- -- - e--------- or PO Box No. l�� ��tl► i �- CirySt--------------------- r— P+ City State.Z1 4^ '"� �lJ aao t o o a a X17 ■ 66EV +It_'L9 0000 0090 ETD0 . -IPV ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X � Bq EAddressee so that we can return the card to you. ��� B. Received1;77:�Ab_ me C. Da of,Delivery ' 11111111 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, ��� �,� �or on the front if space permits. �� 1. Article Addressed to: rptm,e �1 D. Is delivery address diffe tR es ' If YES,enter delivery a�re below: �-I Tlo -T Inc. L�I✓1 � 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail r, J ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 11 Insured Mall ❑C.O.D. 1 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-42--M-1540 r_EEQ fir'-'19 0000 0090 E'[O?- SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. C��, ❑Agent ■ Print your name and address on the reverse ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. eq ived by( nted Name) C Daie of livery 111111111 Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, p C fj Z or on the front if space permits. ( `Y D. Is delivery address different from item 19 11 Yes 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below ❑No 66,s- 8A\/ aY W 4 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mail ❑Express Mail � toc o ' !�)I El Return Receipt for Merchandise v VVV��1 Y �.L/ir� 6 1 13 Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) 11 Yes r 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) ' PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt '102595-02-M-1540; 1 ------------ --- --------- SECTION- DELIVERY SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig ature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. Agent X Addressee ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Pri ted Name Date of Delivery ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. rent oma tem 1? ❑Yes D Is deliv ry dress 1. Article Addressed to If YES W r deliveSaddres bbee ow: ElNo 1]S Q�yy 3. Service Type q p t,n,,��/' E3 Certified Mail 13 Express Mail JvC�I/E� � ❑Registered E3 Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 1 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811 February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595.02-M-1540 0+100 S?-T9 0000 0090 ETU. SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION 1 COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY ■ Complete items 1,2,and 3.Also complete A. Sig re item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. - d ❑Agent i ■ Print your name and address on the reverse X ry ❑Addressee so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. D e of D live ■ Attach this card to the back of the mail iece, or on the front if space permits. p `D r�� M`'2`ba D Is delivery address different from item 1 ❑Yds 1 Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: ❑ No I ren*Pon s 3. Service Type ❑Certified Mad ❑Express Mail " a ❑Registered ❑Return Receipt for Merchandise 3 J��� 1:1 Insured Mail ❑C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) ❑Yes 2 Article Number (Transfer from service labeo PS Form 3811,February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-02-M-1540 I SO(/Tyolo BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD TOWN HALLo sv" FIRST-CLASS MAIL 53095 MAIN ROAD r»Ci30SG 09115/2016 SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971-0959 06.40 111111111 111111111111 ll�III III 111 7013 0600 0000 6174 8412 toe ZIP 11971 041L11242960 NAME IST N®TICELS£L,2—mom 2ND NOTICE RETURN " i r ieii a'—moo is FORWARD TIME RYr^ 1RTN 'TO SEND TIMPONE 360 STGSBEE RD MATTITUGK NY 111952-3302 ec D I RETURN TO SENDER i d- ����='���� �I �'i'��1��1>,��I1'��Il�ii'���ii��i,iel►l�iilllsi�eli�ll��is;��l�l�l � ,._ a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6q ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK AFFIDAVIT � OF esu�l In the Matter of the Application of POSTING (Name of Applicants) Regarding Posting of Sign upon Applicant's Land Identified as c SCTM Parcel#1000- ,IQQ® '® 1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) I, LA 151 Sresidingat ,New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: On the , day of � � � � 201 (o, I personally placed the Town's Official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application noted thereon, securely upon my property, located ten(10) feet or closer from the street or right-of- way(driveway entrance)—facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance,* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has remained in place for seven (7) days prior to the date of the subject hearing date, which hearing date as shown to be f��� r —J� t (Si nature) Sworn to before mq this dD Day of 01� KIM lt.FiLSNTEG Nolwy Public, State of Wear York No.4811709 QuaWisd in Suffolk County g otary Public) --�Cormrjveier, Expkas April 30, * near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passerby. q 50Ujy0lo BOARD OF APPEALS SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL neorostt' FIRST-CLASS MAIL 53095 MAIN ROAD 09!15{2016 e% �.�5 P.O.BOX 1179 �� 1 a e * �' cOUNIV SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971-0959 w�y� �� �o i 7013 060 ZIP 11931 000 6174 845 o��d 0411-11242960 I ' bet (U I ST rVeL44-.2016 2N® NOTICE RETURN U N S,L Ai M t U � UNABLE TO F- OR101A D a� - •-' i �3���6I7�dS����9�1t#7��1��l�;i���I117�1I���������1�,�;1�d 13J5�f F� a t F� alvag11FFDZ rQ9 BOARD OF APPEALS o m� SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL 1, o • 53095 XMN ROAD neoposv, FIRST-CLASS MAIL y�o aa� P.Q.BOX 1179 1 09/1512016 SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971-0959 a ® 1?06°46- 5 7013 0600 0000 6174 8368 Z1P 11971 041L11242960 - , - NAME IST NOTICE OCT 14 2016 _2ND NOTICE U-Tl LL Al N'tI:I RETURN UNABLE a 0 F=ORWARD � C-1 N WHOM Of SO(/l�ol BOARD OF APPEALS o �I SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL F 53095 MAIN ROAD •^•�CpCS.F,6' FIRST-CLASS TYIHIL P.O.BOX 1179 I �ycouffN 0 SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK 11971-0959 09/15/2016 1 �trt0 `e s' $06.46-a I .�.�a l 7013 0600 0000 6175 0095B boa ZIP 11971 041L11242960 i NAME.. r &VWO T(.S IST NOTICE OCT � � - ` \ 2ND-NOTICE RrTURN.___ RET'UR^ N TO SENDER UNCLAIMED �d( UNABLE TO PORWARD � _1197 ha"ft1'gp 7�y�'##ecttgq1y ¢§ Iy1}1ytY *1:�t�iG"t`-�3J �d , .:.•2�sV-•��� �y �hh'� I�{Enid;4(ti 1��Ih�f�i6{{fi��il6�tyi�ti���°i�siSgiull��! �!y�� � I 1 10 `-ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net September 6, 2016 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 -Public Notices for Thursday, October 6, 2016 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of The Suffolk Times. 1) Before September 19th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Southold Town Assessors' Office, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than September 26th: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Mailing (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, along with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available). These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later September 28th: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other`i-naterial, posting it at the subject property seven (7) days (or more) prior to hearing. (It is the applicant/agents responsibility to maintain sign until Public Hearing) Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, not more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is supplied for posting on both front yards. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before October 4, 2016. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Ends. NOTICE OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall , 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME : PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD #6976 SCTM # : 1 000- 1 22-7-9 VARIANCE : INTERPRETATION REQUEST : ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP CLUB DATE : THURS . , OCT . 69 2016 1 : 00 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between '8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765- 1809 #12972 �`�� er �D16 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS; COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successfully commencing on the 29th day of September, 2016. LEGAL NOTICE l- SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9e, THURSDAY,OCTOBER 6,2016 PUBLIC HEARINGS Principal Clerk NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN,pur- suant to Section 267 of.theTown Law and. Town Code Chapter 280(Zoning),Town of Southold,the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARDOFAPPEALSatthe me this day o 6. Town Hall,53095 Main Road,P.O.Box 1179,Southold,New York 11971-0959,on THURSDAY OCTOBER 6.2016, 10.15 A.M. ABSOLUTE IM- 9,15 AM. - DOUG GEROWSKI PROVFMFNTS INCJJOHN COSTAN- #6973-(Adj.from August 4,2016)Re- 742$8_Request for Variance(s)from quest for Variance(s)from Article XXIII, Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Section 280-124 and the Building Inspec- Building Inspector's June 10,2016,Notice for'sMay 19,2016,amended June 13,2016 of Disapproval based on an application CH A VOLINSKI Notice of Disapproval based on an appli- for building permit to construct addi- cation for building permit to construct tions and alterations to an existing single, NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK additions and alterations to an existing family dwelling,at;1)proposed additions No. 01V06105080 single family dwelling,at; 1) more than located at less than the code required qualified in Suffolk County the code permitted maximum lot cover- minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet;2) MY(.gmtn100180 401It+e pomo:y 99,7020 age of 20%,located at:2570 Clearview proposed additions located at less than Avenue,(adj.to Goose Creek)Southold, the code required minimum side yard set- 1130 A.M - A K AND JIM NA The Board of Appeals will hear all pe NY.SCTM#1000-70-10-29.2 back of 10 feet;and 3)proposed additions FAERBER#6991-Request for Variance sons or their representatives desiring icing t 9:20 A.M. - 9:20 A.M. - LAUREN more than the code permitted maximum from Article XII,Section 280-53 of the be heard a each hearing,and/or n BECK#6994-Request for Variance(s) lot coverage of 20%,located at:80 Dog- Southold Town Code and the Building to submit w from Artwritten statements before th Article=II,Section 280-124 and wood Lane(3200 Kenneys Road),South- Inspector's April 7,2016,amended Au- conclusion ri each hearing. Each heap the Building Inspector's July 12,2016 No- old,NY SCTM#1000.59-2-2, gust 8,2016,Notice of Disapproval based inn will not start earlier than designate tice of Disapproval based on an applica- 10:45 AAL • VIRGINIA & ME on an application for building permit to above. Files are available for review ate tion for building permit to construct addi- CHAEL BONTJE_0982---Request for construct additions and alterations to an ing regular business hours and prior i tions and alterations to an existing single Variance(s)from Article XXIII,Section existing nonconforming building with a the day la the hearing. If you have or t. family dwelling,at;1)proposed addition 280-124, and the Bdilding Inspector's nonconforming use to be converted to a tions please contact our office at,(631 located at less than the code required April 22, 2016, amended and renewed conforming single family dwelling,at;1) tions, le se o email: Kim office at,hold minimum side yard setback of 20 feet;lo- June 30,2016 Notice of Disapproval based proposed addition located at less than townnygov sated at:250 Pine aee Court,Cutchogue, op an application for a building permit to the code required minimum side yard Dated:SEPTEMBER 15,2016 NY.SCTM#1000-98-1-7.11 demolish and construct a new single fam- setback of 20 feet,located at:2072 Village ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL 9:30 AX - PETER AND,MER- Hy dwelling,at;l)proposed single family Lane,(adj.to Orient Harbor)Orient,NY LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, FniTH RUGG #6989 - Request for dwelling is less than the code required SCTM#1000-24-2-27 CHAIRPERSOP Variances from Article XXIII,Section front yard setback of 35 feet;2)proposed - - RD OF () single family dwelling is less than the code BY.Kim E.Fuente 280-122 and the Building Inspector i May gl y g 54375 Main Road(Office Location 6,2016,amended July 28,2016 Notice of required rear yard setback of 35 feet,lo- _Request from the 5outhoTown Plan- 53095 Main Road(Mailing/USPS Disapproval based on an application for sated at:805 Island View Drive,Green- ning Board date$May 31,72116 and June P.O.Box 117 building permit to construct additions port, SCTM#1000-57-2-23. 17,2016,for an interpretation;Pursuant g P Southold,NY 11971-095' and alterations to an existing noncon- 11:00 A.M,-iRA AND SUSAN AK- to Town Code Article )XVI, Section SELRAD#6986-R uestforVariances 280.146 1 as to whether the pro. 12972-IT 9/29 forming accessory building with acon- eq () (D)( ) P forming use by adding a second floor,at; from Article III,Section 280-15;Article posed uses,as applied for,on a site plan 1) proposed additions to the accessory 1V,Section 280-18;Article NMI,Section application from Sports East Fitness Club building will constitute an increase in the 280-116A(1), and the Building Inspec- proposing to construct an"annual mem- degree of non-conformance;located at: tor's June 21,2016,Notice of Disapproval bership club",meet the definition of a Munnatawket Avenue, Fisher's Island, based on an application for a building Membership Club as defined by theTown NY SCTM#1000-6-3-8.2, permit to construct new and legalize"as- Code in Article III,Sectio{} 13(B)(7) 9 45 A.M.-MARC AND DEIRDRE built.' additions and alterations to single Uses Permitted by Spgcialption in SOKOL#6992-Request for Variance(s) fancily dwelling and legahze "as-built" 'a Residential Zone District,and Aiticle Mem- from Article III, Section 28arian0-15; Ar- accessory in-ground swimming pool,at; 1,Section 280-4 Definitions:Club,ticle XXII,Section 280-10SC(3),and the 1)as built accessory in-ground than the swimming bership or Country or Golf;Recreational Building Inspector's July 8,2016,Notice Pool located in other than the code di- Facilities;and Recreation Facility,Com- of Disapproval based on an application quired rear yard,2) as-built"deck addi- mercial.Proposed location at:9300 NYS for building permit to construct accessory tion less than the code required minimum Route 25 (Main Road),Mattituck,NY. structures and erect a deer f fence,at;1) side yard setback of 15 feet,3)proposed SCTM#1000-122-7.9 other than additions and alterations located less than proposed additions located the code required 100 feet from the top the code required rear yard,2)proposed deer fence located in other than the code of the bluff,located at:4125 Nassau Point permitted side a rear yards;located de Road,(Adj.to Little Peconic Bay) Cu- 308 Park Avenue,(Adj,to Great Peconic tchogue,NY SCIM#1000.111-9-6.4. Bay)Mattituck,NY SCTM#1000-123- 7-7.3. BOARD MEMBERS OF SO U - ` Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson ho�� jiy® 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer C, 41C Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning ® ^�`�� 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider OIyCoum '� Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ' I TOWN OF;SOUTHOLD Tel.(631) 765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 August 30,2016 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead,NY 11901 RE: Sports East Fitness Club,9300 Route 25,Mattituck,NY Dear Mt,, Cuddy: I am in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2016 requesting that the Zoning Board of Appeals hold a public hearing to interpret Town Code sections 280-13B and 280-4, in relation to the above referenced application for a Special Exception Permit for an annual membership club. Your client does not having standing before the Board to make this request, since no disapproval from the Building Department has been issued,which is required for the Board to take such action. However,the Planning Board, as a town agency,may make such a request as of right which, as you know they did on May 31, 2016. Yesterday I requested and received written confirmation that, despite the withdrawal by your client of his site plan application,the Planning Board's request is still active. Therefore, our office has scheduled a public hearing for October 6, 2016 at 1:00 P.M. Please feel free to contact us with any questions you may have. Si ely ours, Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson cc: Donald Wilcenski, Planning Board Chairman Heather Lanza,Director of Planning William Duffy, Town Attorney Kim Fuentes, ZBA Assistant/Secretary CHARLES R.CUDDY AUG 18 2,016 ATTORNEY AT LAW ZONING BOARD OF AppF-ALS 445 GRIFFING AVENUE RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK Mailing Address- TEL. (631)_-b9-8X0 P.O.Box 1547 FAX: (631)369-9080 Riverhead,NY 11901 E-mail: charles.cuddy@verizon.net August 15, 2016 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Southold Town PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Sports East Fitness Club-9300 Route 25,Mattituck,NY SCTM#1000-122-7-9 Dear Ms. Weisman: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a hearing on the special exception application of Sports East Fitness Club on February 4, 2016. Prior to that hearing the Planning Board, on January 25, 2016, submitted a Memorandum to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In part the Memorandum stated: "Another indication whether a proposed development is consistent with the Town's Comprehensive Plan is how it fits into the current zoning. In this case, the use is considered by the Town's Building Department as fitting under the Special Exception section of 280-13B as a membership club. Under that section of the zoning code, the use must meet certain conditions, all of which the Building Department found to be met as indicated by the Notice of Disapproval, dated December 12, 2015,which makes no mention of any variances required. The use exceeds,or is able to exceed all the requirements in the Town Code for such a facility,including the minimum property size and setbacks." Following the hearing before your Board the Planning Board proceeded with site plan review,with the applicant submitting a full site plan. Four months after the January 25'11 Memorandum,the Planning Board submitted a second Memorandum dated May 31, 2016. That Memorandum requested the Zoning Board address questions related to the special exception application and sections 280-13B and 280-4 of the Town Code. Specifically the manning Board asked:"Does the use as proposed rneet the dz :itiOri:of a membership club,and fin the described use in 280-13 of an annual membership club?" I represent Sports East Fitness Club LLC and on its behalf I request that the Zoning Board of Appeals hold a hearing to consider the questions raised by the Planning Board in its May 31 Memorandum.While the applicant was surprised by this turn of events,it can only proceed upon the Zoning Board of Appeals determination. Thank you. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC:ik Enclosures X 10min WcClean 1475 Sigs6ee Wga4 Wattituck A'T 11952 r keevin.mccfean@gmad com June 29,2016 RECEIVED Chairperson Leslie Weisman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals JUL 6 5 2016 53095 Main Road (a q-7 P.O.Box 1179 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Southold,N.Y. 11971 re: Zoning variance request by Sports East Dear Chairperson Weisman: My wife,Mary,and I are homeowners on Sigsbee Road in Mattituck for the past 13 years. This letter is intended to voice our opposition to a request for zoning variance by Sports East for two principal reasons: 1. The traffic and congestion on the Main Road are already considerable,especially during the summer months, and will only be made worse by a facility of the size and scope described in the Sports East request.This will likely increase local pollution, impede local traffic flow, and raise safety concerns. 2. The prospect for success as a membership club is suspect, given the overall population of Southold for most of the year, existing competition, and what research suggests is a high customer turnover/attrition rate for fitness and health facilities.Thus,we can expect that the owner will seek exemption to open the facility to leagues,tournaments,and other -events. Some facts that suggest this as a likely outcome include: a. IHRSA,the International Health,Racquet& Sportsclub Association, a trade association, found that members do not travel more than 10 to 12 minutes, or about 5 miles,to a membership fitness club(http://www.ihrsa.orJresearch-fags/, item#7).Please note that the referenced site provides additional information, e.g., parking requirements,for a sports and fitness facility. b. Other research indicates that similar facilities experience a 24% customer churn— attrition—each year. (see http://www.dmnews.com/multichannel- marketing/national-fitness-clubs-fi ght-member-churn-but-better-marketing- integration-is-needed/article/199203/).Again,this suggests that the owner will be likely to seek other revenue sources in the not-distant-future. We hope that the Board of Appeals will consider the intermediate and longer term impact of a facility as proposed. In doing so,we feel the decision is clear: the proposed facility is not in the best interest of the majority of Southold residents, and will have a detrimental effect on the homeowners/taxpayers closest to the facility. Sincer C cc, Honorable Supervisor Scott Russell Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold NY 11971 Jo-Ann Lochner ►_ /t� 1415 Marione Lane .-Mattituck, NY April 27,2016 Dear M.s.Leslie Weisman-Chair Zoning Board of Appeals: I am writing to you because I have great concerns regarding the development of the 20+acre parcel of'land,owned by Mr, Paul Pawlowski and the proposal by him and his partners to develop this property into the Sports East Fitness endeavor. Mr.Pawlowski is in the process of requesting that special exception be given under the special exception standard. I have read his application and attended theApril 251"monthly meeting of the Mattituck Laurel Civic Association which only adds to my concerns and more questions. My thoughts,are based upon reading,research and attending the MLCA meeting. Natureof 8usiness:.'What is this the nature of this Business? We now know that this facility will be a not-for-profit entity. The proposed developed property will betaken off the real estate tax rolls. Mr, Pawlowski answered this; question at the meeting. He stated he is not asking the town to help develop this property,therefore indicating a not- for-profit entity should not be a problem.He and his partners will be using all of the Towns Services,making a very good return on their investment and paying no Federal,State and Local Taxes. This proposed project has been called a Membership Club;a Private Sports Club,-and an Athletic Club. Which is it? There are 244 parking spaces which the partner's project will be filled. A question was asked regarding bringing in outside teams to compete on the multiple courts.The response was that no teams will be brought in.There will be 5 outdoor tennis courts,one artificial turf field as well as a vast indoor facility. it was also stated that the teachers are very happy because they will have summer jobs. The Full Environmental Assessment Form provides:"Will the proposed action plan produce noise that will exceed existing ambient noise levels during construction,operation or both." Response was"Yes;Outdoor multi use field and tennis courts will produce noise exceeding ambient noise levels during operation. It is likely that these noise levels would be generated between-7:00 am-6;00 pm.", At this time there appears to be no outdoor lighting for the courts. However,it was stated that the outside courts will be open as long as there is daylight, This means during the surnmer'when neighbors are trying to enjoy their yards or Just home from work wanting quiet time the courts and field will bre open until the sun goes down, ` The developers stated that they are modeling the facility` after Southampton Youth Services recreation center. Southampton offers summer camp that is run by an outside organization. Based upon,the number of parking spaces;modeling their program sifter Southampton Youth Services,a not-for-profit;providing jobs for teachers during the summer,the vast outside fields as well as the size of this entire project;no intermural with schools etc.,this could lead to the conclusion that this endeavor will have a full summer camp up and running on this property,as does Southampton Youth Services. There would be constant noise from sunup until sundown, Mr.Pawlowski,has stated this is a private membership club. What does annual membership club really mean? It appears that any business that offers annual membership can open on property that has a zoning of residential with exceptions. For example BJs,Costco,Sam's Club are ai.l membership driven. Any type of business can offer annual membership and say they are membership driven and will be beneficial to the community. Is this really what the town's forefathers were thinking when they placed the exemption for annual membership clubs? If the town approves this project on this land, it is opening up Pandora's Box,as any large business with any type of membership,can and will ultimately apply and or briny litigation against the'town for the right to build on r residential property that Is also zoned for exceptions. r-- o7ti , Sewa eft.aand'Water:The project is huge and will produce an enormous amount of sewage and water runoff from blacktop building roof and the outdoor courts. Our bay and sound are already compromised by nitrogen pollution. Excessive nitrogen pollution from sewage has caused massive fish kills,turtle die offs,and toxic algae blooms, closing beaches and water bodies around Long Island.Nitrogen pollution threatens our environment,health, economy,and quality of life.Long Island's clean waters create jobs and generate hundreds of millions of dollars every year for our regional economy, Nitrogen pollution in water is directly tied to development patterns, land use trends, fertilizer use,failing sew'rse residemial cesspools,and septic systems.In short—the,majority of nitrogen is from sewage.Scientists agree that harmful toxic tides are being fueled by nitrogen from wastewater,including septic tanks and cesspools, The NYS Department of Environmental Conservation cites algal blooms and excessive nitrogen as the primary, reasons many of Long Island's water bodies are impaired.These-toxic algal blooms,often referred to as Red Tide or Brown'fide,can spread hazardous toxins,kill fish,and seriously impair water quality. In the spring of 2015,Governor Cuomo and the NYS Legislature allocated$5 million to create a plan that will-tackle Long Island's nitrogen pollution problem.This plan will identify critical projects,including upgrades to sewage and septic systems,which are necessary to protect our water resources and our communities. Newsday ran three articles this week regarding how water ways need more environmental•protection from sewage. These include Suffolk County as well as the Town of Brookhaven who wants to implement standards that will be stronger than the County. There have been meetings of our elected officials from the state,county and towns;they understand if nitrogen pollution is not reduced our towns vie will lose two industries,fishing and tourism. This proposed project is very close to Peconic Bay and Laurel Preserve. According to the papers filed,this project does adjoin_wetlands/water bodies that are regulated by Federal,State or Local Agencies and are over a sole source aquifer,The project anticipates a water usage of 15,000 gallons a day,and 3,660 of raw sewage. How can we justify putting this enormous project in place when it will greatly increase nitrogen pollution from sewage, and water runoff with no way to eliminate nitrogen pollution? Will there be a treatment plant established to take all nitrogen out of the sewage beforiz.it is returned to the ground? Will there be some type of water system where water can be captured,purified,and recycled? This proposed project requires substantial water. There is'a water problem on the east end, Salt water is seeping into fresh. Last year the Town of Riverhead requested that its'residence curtall water,usage as their pumps were at maximum capacity. With the pull of so much water,how does the Town accommodate this project and protect our drinking water? Traffic; Noise;Air Pollution:Traffic Congestion-This area of Main St,is so congested it is almost impossible to get into and out of streets and parking lots.The Old Capital Ole building must be taken into consideration. This business property is sub-dividable and multi-use. There is also going to be additional traffic from the location of the Hudson City Bank site with the potential 2 story office building. The Department of Transportation would not approve any entrancesz exits from the CVS parking lot on to Main Road because of congestion. This project will substantially add to the traffic congestion that already exists in this area,-Why are the entrances and exits not on the side road that runs along the westward side of this property? This part of a Main Road resembles Riverhead with its'traffic congestion. 'I do not believe the Town of Southold would.want to add to the congestion in this area which would affect all residence. Air—There will be increased-emissions from buses,cars,delivery and garbage tracks entering and'exiting the parking loft,as well as from the additional traffic on 25. There will also be increased emissions from these vehicles' sitting in the parking lot with their engines running. This must be taken into consideration with 244 parking spaces. Approximately 7 acres of trees will lie removed'. Removal of these trees will have an adverse impact to the community via air and noise pollution. Trees cool the air,land and water with'shade and moisture thus reduce the heat island effect of our communities.A single tree can pmduce the cooling effect'of 10 room size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. One targe tree can supply a day's supply of oxygen for four people. A healthy tree can store 13 pounds of carbon each year which reducesthe"greenhouse effect",for an acre of trees that equals.to 2.6 tons of carbon dioxide. Trees help reduce surface water runoff,decrease soil erosion and increase ground water recharge. Each gallon of gasoline burned produces almost 20 pounds of carbon. There are 244-parking spaces. How many more pounds of carbon will be produced in this one small area that has more traffic congestion than it can handle.- Noise•.The project will be open all week at 5:00 am;close Monday—Saturday at 10:00 pm;Sunday close is 7:00 pm. Outdoor fields will be available,at this time until dark. Plans have been made for 244 vehicles. There will be buses,delivery trucks,garbage trucks,cars and increased traffic. The trees that are left standing will block some of the noise,but they will not block ail of the vehicle&pedestrian noise until dark at the field and 10:00 pm for the building. What will happen to the quality of life of the individuals who live in our community? Wildlik.L d'Pllants,.From the application for zoning under the exception rule,the application provides,"Does the project:site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare,or as a species of special concern." ' The applicant responded"Yes."Observing this property from Sigsbee,I have seen a turtle and a very strange snake living on this land.-What happens to these animals or species of plants either listed or not listed via NYS's as rare or concerned? :Concunion;_The plan for this project is huge. This project will produce,much traffic congestion,sewage,water runoff,noise;all environmental polluters. The quality of life will not be.the same for the families who live and travel around this area of Mattituck. I thought the people-of our Town wanted to keep"that,small town feeling"which includes respect for our neighbors,as well as keeping the two industries that add to our Towns coffer,namely tourism and fishing. These industries afford the Town with much of its revenues,with very little town services and in turn reduces every residences real estate taxes. Our Town is trying to crit pollution as it is causing destruction of our estuary and ecological systems which affects all residence of the Town of Southold. How is the Town going to address this vast project with forward thinking? This project,a not-for-profit,will have the availabillty of all Town Services paid for by Town residence,as the property will be taken off the tax rolls and the principals will benefit financially at the expense of the Town residences,,many whom are on a fixed-income. The Southampton Youth Services recreation center is not near a residential areas or a congested area. Maximus gym is also'located in a business district. This project should only be allowed if placed In a business zone,all environmenta[Issues must be addressed and every residence agrees to have a substantial tax increase. Many of the services that this endeavor provides are already provided'by our Schools and Parks,which are paid for by real estate taxes. Suffolk Community College is at the,final stage of providing a gym physicality which includes a pool. i This land once developed would be an ideal hang out for teenagers as it is enclosed by trees. Will there by 34 hour guard service to stop the,congregation of teenagers with and without cars? Based upon the facts above, I respectfully request that this application should be denied. R©s ecifully, ; "Jo AAT'6chner 0 Leyla Szpara v 1830 Sigsbee Road,Mattituck,NY 11952 JUN 2 3 2016 43-30 44 Street, Sunnyside,NY 11104Y (917) 699-8233 June 20, 2016 Chairperson Leslie Weisman Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold,NY 11791 Re: Proposed Sports Facility in Mattituck Dear Chairperson Weisman: On behalf of my husband Paul and myself, and as proud new land owners ready to build our house in the residential beach community of Sigsbee Road in Mattituck, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Sports East project. I am concerned the existence of such an enormous facility will bring about undesirable outcomes impacting the environment and quality of life for residents and visitors. The removal of so many trees near the Husing Preserve behind our lot would be a detriment to the quality of life we seek in our community. Aside from how this project may affect residents personally, here are some important issues the Town Board should consider before making a determination: 1. With added noise and congestion,property values will likely decrease for many local homeowners. What will ensue is the reduction of property tax rates which I imagine would be disadvantageous to any of the Town Board's strategic plans; 2. The clearing of over 20 acres of trees adjacent to the Husing Preserve will have a negative environmental impact. Moreover, it will change the climate of the area, increasing pollution and contributing to global warming. The added traffic and congestion will only exacerbate this; 3. The facility will be an eyesore in a known rural community, changing its character-- especially for those living and vacationing nearby. I urge the Zoning Board to consider these critical issues and vote to deny the proposed Sports East project in its entirety. S erely, Leyla zpara Cc: Honorable Supervisor Scott Russell Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Southold Town Board PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Fuentes, Kim From: paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 08, 2016 5:54 PM To: Fuentes, Kim;Joe Slovak;Charles Cuddy; Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; don@briarclifflandscape.com; Chris Dwyer Subject: Re: Sports East Attachments: Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 5.30.50 PM.png; Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 5.30.58 PM.png; Screen Shot 2016-06-08 at 5.31.10 PM.png See attached as I am not the only one concerned by this all Today has not been a good day to say the least On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 10:33 AM, paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@@gmail.com>wrote: Hello Can you please read the attached memo from the planning board in January This letter specifically states that our application is consistent with the code, with the comprehensive plan etc. This letter along with the zba public hearing and along with the several conversations that I had with the planning board prior to spending any real money gave us the applicants the confidence to move forward with this site plan application , I still have no idea how the letter sent to the ZBA can even be drafted and sent? I still have not heard from one person from the planning board or the zba in a reply to an on my emails I have sent over the past week. I am extremely embarrassed by the fact that I have received over 100 emails and phones calls these past few days were our residents think this was approved and they are extremely excited and happy that it was approved based on the suffolk planning commission endorsement. Why Am I embarrassed is because we all have false hopes until this is back on track verses halted. I also want you to know that Southold Local just called me and they aware of the memo sent by the zba last week, I did not call them I want to point out and honestly I dont want anyone knowing about that letter as I think it is a problem . They asked me what I thought of the letter and as I have said to you I told them I was concerned as to why this letter came in the 11th inning as it contradicts everything we have worked hard on since November I have asked several times what is the next step? were is the pressure coming from and why was this letter sent now and not in the beginning I have mentioned the word "I" above I mean "we" On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 7:28 PM,paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com>wrote: To: ZBA Chairperson i From: Sports East Applicant Date: 5-31-16 To Whom It May Concern: I wanted to send a letter in response to the letter you received from the planning board today in reference to Sports East and the next steps. We respect that the planning board is trying to be cautious in their process and that is understood. However this letter is overall misleading and going backwards so to say. From what I understand the planning board was in the middle of making their SEQRA determination and that is why we spent the last several months putting together the assets and information they needed in order to do so. I say this is going backwards because why is this letter being sent now? I was told that we should have expected a SEQRA determination at the June 6h meeting and now it is May 31St and that has been put on hold? The letter sent raises concerns that I guess were asked at the public hearing that the planning board held or at least some of those concerns were mentioned and not all that were listed in the letter you received from the planning board. These are concerns and not facts and that is the point of my letter to you today. From day one the owners and applicant of Sports East have been consistent, the site plan has not changed and what we are proposing within that site plan has not changed and we have never changed what we are proposing both in the ZBA hearing, the civic association public forum, the chamber of commerce public forum and then at the planning board hearing. We have stayed on point with what we are proposing. Both in public meetings and within any local paper or article we have always made sure that what we are saying is what we have proposed and put forth in our application to the planning board and ZBA. This is important as we need a special exemption under the code and we not only want to comply we also know that we fit within the rules that would allow a special exception. This letter you received from planning is exactly what I asked the planning board in the early stages of the process before any major funding was spent on the site plan process. The process we took was as followed 1. Received a letter of denial from Building Dept. 2. Submitted application to planning board with a sketch plan only and was told that we would have to go before the ZBA prior to submitting a full application 2 3. Submitted application to ZBA as a"Special exemption is required" and met before the ZBA were I was told that they would allow planning board to become lead agency and render a decision on the SEQRA review before the ZBA would make their ruling on the "special exception" p 4. Submitted a full packet to the planning board which included a detailed site plan, landscape plan, septic plan, drainage plan, traffic study, letter stating we would do an alternative septic system, submitted to the SCHD and the NYSDOT for their comments and review all off which has cost us over $100,000 in order for an accurate SEQRA determination to be conducted by the planning board 5. Met with the ARB were they agreed with the overall application 6. Had a planning board public hearing May 6th were there was a tremendous amount of support before the board, 4 people were against and over 50 people were for it that showed up for the public hearing, at that meeting not one person voiced concerned about the the membership and how it is defined in the code" so not sure why that is in the letter SO MY MAIN QUESTION IS WHY IS THIS LETTER COMING NOW? THIS DETERMINATION I THOUGHT WAS ALREADY AGREED UPON AT THE FIRST ZBA PUBLIC HEARING AND THAT THIS WAS AN ALLOWABLE USE UNDER THE CODE 280-13 B BUT NEEDED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION , IF THIS WAS NOT THE CASE THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEARLY DETERMINED BEFORE WE THE APPLICANT SPENT OVER$100,000 IN ORDER TO DO THE SEQRA REVIEW, MY CONCERN IS THE MONEY SPENT, THE TIME SPENT AND NOW THIS LETTER AND THE TIMING OF THE LETTER??? I THOUGHT THE DECISION MAINLY COMES FROM THE SEQRA REVIEW AND THAT WE THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CODE AND THE DEFINITION WHICH WE FULLY PLAN TO DO As we have stated from day one and here are the facts of what we are proposing 1. We are proposing a private annual membership based club 2. We are proposing both indoor and outdoor use 3. We are proposing this on more then 3 acres of land 4. We will not exceed the allowable height requirements 5. This will be for tennis, swimming, and recreation under a private club 6. This will be exclusive to members only that are paying annually 3 The letter states concerns and not facts so why is this even an issue, people that are against will raise all sorts of concerns but does that change the facts? Does that change what were is applying for and have stated over and over again? As an applicant this letter is concerning not only for the timing of it but also what it says It raises concerns such as 1. Will this be for teams and buses and commercial use, we have consistently stated that this is not the case nor is this allowed under the code, 2. Is weekly and monthly memberships allowed? We have never said this nor have we proposed this, yes we gave a monthly cost breakdown but that does not mean it is a month membership it just gives an average cost per month for an annual based membership 3. Child day care? We have never stated child day care as if that was the intended use, my partner Joe Slovak mentioned we will offer child day care but that does not mean it will be a day care center we will offer our members just like Laurel Links and North Fork Country clubs offers we will offer child training for sports, sports education, child day camps however that child must be a member and be part of a family membership , similar to a golf clinic at the above mentioned clubs So I ask you to make your determination soon so that the planning board can get back to what we were all expecting them to be working on and that is the SEQRA review verses this late in the game question the code? As an applicant I don't even know how this is possible this late in the game after all this money has been spent and public hearings have been held. I know first hand that the planning board has been working hard on this application and I must say overall the process has been very good and very black and white, however this letter totally has undermines what we as the applicants have said and the course of action that has been taken 4 I would also like to mention and this is something we as the owners are proud of and that this has been very well received by the public, I would conservatively say that 85-90% of the Southold town residents are for this, we have received endorsements from the PTA, Southold Town PBA, Fire Departments, Chamber of Commerce, Lions Club,North Fork Wellness, Booster Club and a bunch of other important associations within our town, I would also like to point out the when it comes to SEQRA we have done everything in our power to reach a negative declaration as our proposal falls within all the areas to reach that declaration and have worked hard to be able to allow the planning board to reach that decision when it comes to impact, traffic, setbacks and safety. The DOT and SCDH both have expressed positive comments on our application . Again I don't understand why this letter was sent by the planning board at this time, I thought that this decision was to be rendered by the ZBA once the planning board submitted the SEQRA determination. Can we meet immediately to review because this letter goes against the process, it undermines what we have applied for and intend to do with Sports East and mentions concerns and not facts I want to also clearly state that I have respect for the planning board and why they do what the do and their internal process, I want to clearly state that the planning board and staff has been professional and with this letter I am simply asking why? things that were stated within the letter from the planning board to the zba it left me with no choice but to state the facts of what we are applying for and proposing . The goal of my letter is to reiterate the facts of our proposal Please let me know next steps, if we can meet meaning myself as applicant, the planning board representative and zba representative in a work session to discuss I thank you for your time Regards Paul Pawlowki Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 5 . u 1 631-850-5452 fax kPo Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax 6 Fuentes, Kim From: Fuentes, Kim Sent: Tuesday,June 14, 2016 10:46 AM To: 'Eric Dantes'; 'George Horning'; 'Gerard Goehringer'; 'Jerry Goehringer- 2nd Opgnfli@gmail.com)'; Schneider, Kenneth; Leslie Weisman Forward;Weisman, Leslie Cc: Duffy, Bill Subject: RE: Sports East-#6914, Proposed Mattituck sports facility Email from resident below Kim E. Fuentes Secretary to the Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 631-765-1809, Ex. 5011 From: Lynn Cianci [mailto:lcianci@coopervision.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 10:32 AM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: proposed Mattituck sports facility As a resident of Mattituck I have many concerns regarding the proposed Mattituck sports facility. For one Mr. Pawlowski, is taking away our untouched land and wasting resources. He said it himself that we already have the Capitol one bank building that is vacant and directly across the street from his proposed site-so why not use this vacant facility that already has access to Main Rd and would have the least amount of construction impact on our local environment. He has also said that the membership would be affordable-well that is a very relative term by Mr Pawlowski. What may be affordable to him may be out of reach for many of,the local year round residents. What is' holding him back from making this info public-the approx cost of the memberships should be given with the full proposal. Why is the town of Southold not protecting their residents and finding out the membership costs? We the residents of the Town of Southold would like to know the proposed membership fees-then we will see how many local residents are in favor of these plans. More importantly why did the only member representing the town of Southold not vote in the most recent planning commission vote and all those that did vote are not even part of the town of Southold-who's town is this anyways? Maybe a sports facility should be built in the residential areas of East Hampton and Southampton? Better yet how about this facility be built in Mr. Pawlowski's backyard with a 80ft tree buffer for privacy. What are the plans to buffer the noise from a soccer field that could conceivably have a crowd of 100+people, cheering and playing from 5:30 am to 11:000pm on any given day or night of the week or weekend ? Has the issue of noise pollution been addressed? Is anyone listening out there or is it too loud already that you cannot hear us. This is a beautiful residential community, why is the Town of Southold allowing a developer to ruin it. What happened to the Peconic Land Trust Foundation? Why did we pay into this fund if they are not available to support the community when we need them? If this project is approved we are allowing Mr. Pawlowski to make Mattituck a commercial community that will be the host to large sporting events year-round and a large commercial building that will resemble that of an industrial park warehouse. If the Town of Southold is doing this for the increase in tax revenue than maybe they should look at other alternatives. For example—trim the fat in local government, increase waste disposal fees for non-residents, increase 1 summer recreational fees for non-residents, etc... We the residents of Town of Southold need the local government to have our backs and protect us from industrial invasions like this. Thank you for your time, Lynn Cianci 2 Fuentes, Kim From: paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com> Sent: Monday,June 06, 2016 7:51 PM To: Fuentes, Kim; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Sakarellos, Elizabeth; Lanza, Heather, Cummings, Brian' A.; don@briarclifflandscape.com; Charles Cuddy; Charles Cuddy;Joe Slovak Subject: Sports East Attachments: 2016_5_2 Public Meeting Minutes.pdf,ATT00001.txt; 2016_5_2 Public Meeting Minutes.pdf To All While the below link is a nice show of support from our county planning commission and speaks volumes for the project I must-say as the applicant and a resident of southold town I am dumbfounded as to what has transpired in,the past week. I do not know what happens next and I simply can not understand were this phantom pressure against this_ application is coming from. Full disclosure is that I met with the town supervisor today to try and find some answers. I asked Mr Russell were the negative pressure was coming from in hopes of an answer or some assistance and he mentioned to me that he did not know we're it maybe coming from and that he would look into this matter for us. He mentioned which I understand that he cannot speak with the Zba on this matter as per town code however he would speak with the planning board. So I would like to ask you were this pressure is coming from as well? It is important to us as the applicant and to our. residents as there is a true gift at stake here for all demographics and.that is a privately funded , private sports club for our community. We are hoping to get some answers as now we are in the dark as to what happens next,we are hoping that Mr Russell will help out and any assistance you can offer will be greatly appreciated. As always we stay committed to this project and look forward to the next steps. We will wait for your reply Hello please see link. http://suffoIktimes.timesreview.com/2016/06/68206/proposed-mattituck-athletic-club-receives-its-first-approval/ 1 - 1 f Subject :Sports East To Whom: ZBA Chairperson and Planning Board Hello Attached is the "draft minuted from the planning board public hearing dated May 2nd I am sending this to point out the facts There was 5 people that spoke against this project, There was 12 that spoke in favor the project, When I asked whom in the audience was for the project more then 90 percent of the room raised their hands in favor. For a project this size I would say that only 3 showed up at the ZBA hearing against and 5 at the planning board and more then 100 showed up combined in favor. With a project of this size I would say that is good odds for the support of this project not to mention the endorsements we received from various associations in our town The concerns that were brought up were as follows from'Denise Giess,Joy Ellinghouse,Julie Amper,Jill Shroeder„Joe Lechner -traffic concerns -environmental impact and septic system -what type of club is it -this might be taken off tax roll in non for profit -noise -tree clearing -child day care -safety -nature of business After these people spoke they were told by the planning board chairman that most of these concerns would be handled through the SEQRA review? so again I question why has this been stopped? So these were the concerns that were brought up and these are different then what was written in the letter from the planning board to the ZBA? why are the concerns only written in that letter verse the many positive arguments made at that hearing? why aren't my responses to the questions in that letter? In all hearing and in this public hearing you can read that I clearly stated the following -we have mitigated any seqra concerns,traffic issues, safety etc -we are a private club and not public -the noise will not exceed the main road traffic -this will not be taking off the tax roll -this will be an annual membership club with both indoor and outdoor sports -there are no endangered species on the property -there is no daily,weekly or monthly memberships -there will be no sports teams or buses 2 We have clearly stated and understand that this proposal falls clearly under the 280-13 B code for special exception,we have done our part,we have spent all the monies needed so the planning board can do SEQRA and we have no idea why this was haulted over a few concerns which are natural in a public hearing setting Answers are needed and should be given to us as we have done our•part as the applicant and followed the rules and submitted the items needed . PLEASE KNOW THE CONCERNS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER TO ZBA ARE NOT FACTS AT ALL. Again I ask that we can all meet to discuss this matter. I have now sent both public hearing minutes were we the applicant define what were are applying for. Alos we dont even know what the next steps are now that this process has been stopped? Thank you Paul Pawlowski Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax 3 4A Fuentes, Kim From: pawl pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday,June 01, 2016 1:06 PM To: Fuentes, Kim; Cantrell, Elizabeth; Sakarellos, Elizabeth' Lanza, Heather; Cummings, Brian A.; don@briarclifflandscape.com; Charles Cuddy; Charles Cuddy;Joe Slovak Subject: Sports East Attachments: 2016_5_2 Public Meeting Minutes.pdf; 2016_5_2 Public Meeting Minutes.pdf Subject :Sports East To Whom: ZBA Chairperson and Planning Board Hello Attached is the "draft minuted from the planning board public hearing dated May 2nd I am sending this to point out the facts There was 5 people that spoke against this project, There was 12 that spoke in favor the project, When I asked whom in the audience was for the project more then 90 percent of the room raised their hands in favor. For a project this size I would say that only 3 showed up at the ZBA hearing against and 5 at the planning board and more then 100 showed up combined in favor. With a project of this size I would 'say that is good odds for the support of this project not to mention the endorsements we received from various associations in our-town { The concerns that were brought up were as follows from Denise Giess, Joy Ellinghouse, Julie Amper,, Jill Shroeder, , Joe Lechner -traffic concerns -environmental impact and septic system -what type of club is it -this might be taken off tax roll in non for profit - noise -tree clearing -child day care -safety -nature of business After these'people spoke they were told by the planning board chairman that most of these concerns would be handled through the SEQRA review? so again I question why has this been stopped? So these were the concerns that were brought up and these are different then what was written in the letter from the planning board to the ZBA? why are the concerns only written in that letter verse the many positive arguments made at that hearing? why aren't my responses to the questions in that letter? In all hearing and in this public hearing you can read that I clearly stated the following -we have mitigated any seqra concerns ,traffic issues, safety etc -we are a private club and not public - the noise will not exceed the main road traffic -this will not be taking off the tax roll -this will be an annual membership club with both indoor and outdoor sports -there are no endangered species on'the property -there is no daily, weekly or monthly memberships -there will be no sports teams or buses We have clearly stated and understand that this proposal falls clearly under the 280-13 B code for special exception , we have done our part, we have spent all the monies needed so the planning board can do SEQRA and we have no idea why this was haulted over a few concerns which are natural in a public hearing setting Answers are needed and should be given to us as we have done our part as the applicant and followed the rules and submitted the items needed . PLEASE KNOW THE CONCERNS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER TO ZBA ARE NOT FACTS AT ALL. Again I ask that we can all meet to discuss this matter . I have now sent both public hearing minutes were we the applicant define what were are applying for . Alos we dont even know what the next steps are now that this process has been stopped? Thank you Paul Pawlowski Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax z Fuentes, Kim \ .JUN 2 p 2o,6 D From: paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com> BY- Sent: Monday,June 20, 2016 12:22 PM To: Don Wilcenski; Lanza, Heather; Charles Cuddy,Joe Slovak; Steve Marsh; Cummings, Brian A. Attachments: Screen Shot 2016-06-20 at 12.06.25 PM.png Hello Should we schedule a work session to clear some confusion up , I think the seqra determination can be done with information you have with site plan , traffic study etc so thats one thing that doesn't effect the definition of our "use" however we the applicant definitely would like to clear the air on some confusion Since there is confusion with what we feel is amenities and sports offered for our members for sports east and it seems the planning board or even some public concerns feel they are "uses" should we schedule a work session to go over these items For us the letter that was sent to the zba talks about concerns for proposed "uses" and I think that is were we are confused. We the applicant think there is 1 "use" that we have applied for with multiple sports and amenities being offered to our members similar to other country clubs in the area. For instance we are applying for a private membership multi sport club with the following amenities tennis, basketball, pool, food cafe, locker rooms, gym, rock wall, batting cages, sports fields. The food service is for the members only and not open to the public so this is the same as the food service north fork country club and laurel links offers but not a full blown restaurant. The courts, fields and gym are what we are offering our members and these are the same offered at local clubs plus a few more but again this is to members only yes multi sports but again only 1 "use" So main question is we feel we have applied for a single use as defined is 280-13 item 7 and see attached only and will follow those rules To be clear we have not applied for and do not want the following which can be perceived as a commercial use and we realize and have always realized that this is not allowable as your letter states , again these items below are concerns but have never been part of our application 1. commercial club or open to the public type club 2. teams and local schools having tournaments etc at sports east 3. child day care services So yes these are different uses and something we have not applied for so question is while they maybe concerns why would the letter to zba state that the planning board wants to find out if these are allowable under the special exception code when this is not what we want? We have applied for the following use and only use i �7 Ech,clubs,'tennis clubs., country clubs,,golf club: ail membership;clubs and nd accessory Wa 'o eaches, swimming,, `bols., tehni§,bc �P ygr unds- b- ibrts,,466reational buildirigs.and"mainte,nance P IU.ildinds,c,catering Mehbers-and-'t' ke-W auests,."s6'bibctio,thLoUI 're Ments [No building,or part thereof"or'any parking or-loading.�qrea�shall.be:located within,1001-fept ofanry:,' `street lih e,',or within'6046et of anV lot line. 'T h e tota I'a r6 a cove re d-,by' principal a 6-d---a b61e`s' s',6 ry buildings,-shall not' x eed 66 '26% of ih' e,'a re a:of the lot., - lot area of I than,threeacfe§.: less Lrq9.,5u,c_...use s a_ll'occdpva,lwith-un...... So the work session would be great to clear this up , also if we need to change the scale of things we are willing to do that as well. We want to make sure that concerns of some of the public do not confuse what we have applied for. We also want to make sure the planning board and zba has the ability to approve this under the special exception code as well. As for the site plan we will work on scale if need be but have done a good job on setbacks etc to ensure proper safety and concerns for the public. This private sports club is being proposed to better our town, this is not for personal gain by the developers, this is not a burden on the tax payer, this is part of the comprehensive plan, this is in short an amazing opportunity for us all to enjoy. We will follow the code and want to make sure our application is clear and our intentions are clear. On our end we do not see this any different then the local country clubs that exist under the same rules except we are offering more. Please let us know if this work session can be scheduled so we can get this back on track Thank you Paul Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax Fuentes, Kira From: 15AP'A' paul pawlowski <pawlowskibiz@gmail.com> Sent: �,� Friday,June 17, 2016 6:31 PM To: \ 61 Lanza, Heather; Don Wilcenskr Cummings, Brian A.;Joe Slovak Cc: Charles Cuddy (charlescuddy@optonline.net); Fuentes, Kim Subject: Re:Town Attorney letter re Sports East Thanks for sending this letter Couple things concerning ? Mr Duffy says that the letter to the ZBA from planning board was done with the intention to get an answer from the ZBA early on in the process? This is completely wrong-we are not early in the process at all , we were very close to getting the seqra determination as we spent the last 4 months putting together the needed assets ( detailed site plan, landscape plan, drainage plan, septic plan, floorplan, submission to dot and health dept,traffic study etc) for the planning board to render the seqra determination? So how is this early in the process at all? This letter should have been before we spent the last 4 months and over 100,000 dollars putting together the details of a site plan? This is the most concerning part of all of this . There is no more money to save the applicant we have invested all monies needed to render this decision for seqra no other money can be spent on needed assets for this decision, the only time to save money was just after the sketch plan which was before the ZBA hearing was held and then after that hearing I asked if we could get the special exception decision prior to spending money and doing what was needed to do in order to render a seqra determination? The items mentioned in our application were the exact same items mentioned from day 1 such as tennis, fields, pool, rock wall, batting cage, etc. These items were put into the application early on and every step of the process we stayed consistent. The only gray area was when Joe Solvak mentioned child care and I quickly mentioned this is not day care this is programs for members of the club? In every public forum I have had I made sure to be accurate on what we are proposing and the keep things clear. Yes we are offering a variety of sports for our members - Laurel Links offers (tennis, swimming, golf,kids programs, restaurant, lockers, practice facility , instruction gym etc) We will offer the same however if they offered the rock wall, basketball and a multi sports field would that mean they are not a private membership club? I am confused by all of this because we have been upfront and direct with what we are offering to our members, we stated this clearly in the zba hearing and have always stated the same things in all meetings??? The process was this and what we followed by your direction 1 Build Dept letter of denial (where we clearly stated the intended amenities that we would offer) 2 Sketch Plan with further details for the planning board to review 3 ZBA hearing were we were told that planning would take lead agency on the seqra process and then zba would render their decisions after the get the seqra determination back 4 Develop detailed plans for the planning board this is the process that takes the most time and cost the applicant the most money as you need all the proper paperwork and engineering to render the seqra determination 5 Step 5 was to get the determination i 6. Step 6 was to get the ZBA determination once they were given the seqra determination Instead step 5 became step 6 without the seqra determination? So how is this early in the process we where at Step 5 ?? So while I appreciate this letter and respect why planning would ask the zba if the use was allowable under special exception I am totally confused as to why the process changed and why all of a sudden what we applied for from day 1 is in question? Or should I say what we will offer our members is in question? Also to be very clear I never once said as Mr Duffy's letter mentions that I said " the planning board said this is allowable under the code" in fact this is what was concerning from day 1 because members of the planning board always have said that that was up to the zba and in fact members of the planning board cautioned that this is not their decision to make so not once did I put words in the mouth of the planning board members. How is it that a membership club when it comes to sports and recreation cant not be deemed a membership club based on the amenities and sports they provide ?? How is it that the tune has changed so drastically and why did we change courses and stop short the seqra determination knowing that we have applied for the same thing from day I? Very confused and very concerning. Yes there was some residents that showed concerns att he planning boards public hearing however those same exact people showed the same exact concerns at the zba hearing as well which was in February? While I appreciate this letter it still doesn't tell us our next steps? I think it mentions that it is up to us if we want you to continue with the seqra determination or get the zba determination first? Wasn't the process to get the seqra determination prior to zba determination? I ask this this letter to the zba from planning board on May 31st this letter raised concerns about use and you wanted clarity and thats total fair game and part of the process however if you are looking for the special exception determination did we the applicant need to do the following over the lats 4 months ( septic system , drainage system, fully site plan with all details, traffic study etc) not one of those items which cost money to get are needed to determine if use was permitted so again how was this letter early in the process. We could have determined if the use was allowable with a simple outline of what we the applicant wanted to do within the grounds of Sports East - You dont need to know drainage calculations, you do not need to know tree lines, type of septic, traffic etc to determine use. For Seqra you need those items but not use. We would like to ask the planning board to finalize the seqra determination as thats the course we where on and we submitted the needed information for this decision to be made. I would also likely to sign an affidavit if thats whats needed to clearly state what we are offering our members if approved so it is very clear what sports east is intending to do and that is a private membership club with multiple sporting options . Not once did we say we would have teams, tournaments etc for local schools so I would like to somehow go on the record with this because I feel that yes these are concerns from a few residents this concerns should not be confused with facts similar. Our use is a private membership club and what type of sports and amenities should not determine use at all Thanks in advance for your time and look forward to the next step. 2 �jj On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 5:19 PM, Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>wrote: This letter is being sent regular mail from the Town Attorney's office. I thought you would appreciate a copy sooner rather than later. Paul Pawlowski 631-445-4348 cell 631-850-5452 fax 3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Z-4 Steven Bellone SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE 1 l Department of I I Economic Development and Planning Joanne Minieri Division of Planning Deputy County Executive and Commissioner and Environment STAFF REPORT �^�4 SECTIONS A14-14 THRU A14-24 OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Applicant: Sports East Fitness Club Municipality: -Southold Location: South side of Main Road(NYS Rte.25)—141 'west of Sigbee Rd. Received: 4/28/2016 File Number: SD-16-01 T.P.I.N.: 1000 12200 0700 009000 Jurisdiction: Adjacent to NYS Rte.25 ZONING DATA ■ Zoning Classification: R-80 ■ Minimum Lot Area: 80,000.Sq.Ft. ■ Section 278: N/A ■ Obtained Variance: N/A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION ■ Within Agricultural District: No ■ Shoreline Resource/Hazard Consideration: No ■ Received Health Services Approval: No ■ Property Considered for Affordable Housing Criteria: No ■ Property has Hlstorical/Archaeological Significance: No ■ Property Previously Subdivided: No ■ Property Previously Reviewed by Planning Commission: No ■ Minority or Economic Distressed No SITE DESCRIPTION ■ Present Land Use: vacant ■ Existing Structures: none ■ General Character of Site: level ■ Range of Elevation within Site: 20-30'amsl ■ Cover: wooded,some clearing ■ Soil Types: Plymouth series Suffolk County Planning Commission 1 June 1,2016 ■ Range of Slopes(Soils Map): 0-8% ■ Waterbodies or Wetlands: none NATURE OF SUBDIVISION/NATURE OF MUNICIPAL ZONING REQUEST ' ■ Type: commmercial recreation site plan ■ Layout: standard ■ Area of Tract: 20.82Acres ■ Yield Map: o No.of Lots: 1 ACCESS ■ Roads: Main Road(NYS Rte.25) ■ Driveways: private on site ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION ■ Stormwater Drainage o Design of System: CB/LP o Recharge Basins no ■ Groundwater Management Zone: IV • Water Supply: public • Sanitary Sewers: alternative low profile leaching galleys PROPOSAL DETAILS OVERVIEW—Applicants seek site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board for a proposed multi-sport membership club consisting of an outdoor soccer field and five (5)tennis courts,an 82,500 SF building to include a pool,basketball court,soccerfield and space for physical fitness activities. The proposal also includes approximately 12.86 acres of open space area. The 20.8 acres subject property is located on the South side of Main Road (NYS Rte. 25) approximately 141 'west of Sigbee Rd.in the hamlet of Laurel. The subject property is zoned R-80 (Residential; minimum lot size 80,000SF). The proposal conforms to the Town of Southold's R-80 district's set back requirements,lot coverage,open space, and maximum height requirements. The site plan application also provides 240 parking spaces which is in conformance with the Town of Southold's parking requirements. The subject property is currently a vacant wooded lot with some clearing to the central-southwest of the property. The proposed recreation club will be supplied potable water bythe Suffolk County Water Authority. Sanitary waste water is proposed to be collected on site by a subsurface sanitary system using alternative low profile leaching galleys in order to increase the distance between the leaching structure and the effective depth to the ground water table. The subsurface sanitary system is to be designed and built in accordance with SCDHS standards. All storm water drainage is proposed to be contained on site via a subsurface drainage system comprised of precast concrete catch basins,leaching pools and permeable areas(crushed stone). Prior to final site plan approval,a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)will be approved by the Town. Suffolk County Planning Commission 2 June 1,2016 Vehicular access to the proposed recreation club is to be from one un-signalized ingress/stop controlled egress to NYS Rte.25 at the far southern and of the subject property and one right turn only(east bound)egress to NYS Rte.25 at the north end of the subject property. �` lQ•"L" 1 — The subject property is not located in a County regulated Pine Barrens zone or in a New York State Critical Environmental Area. The site encompasses no fresh water wetland areas.The development parcel Is not located in a Special Ground Water Protection Area. The project site is located in Suffolk County Ground Water Management Zone IV. The subject property is located in an area mixed with residential,commercial,horse farming,and open space uses. STAFF ANALYSIS GENERAL MUNICIPAL LAW CONSIDERATIONS: New York State General Municipal Law, Section 239-1 provides for the Suffolk County Planning Commission to consider inter-community issues. Included are such issues as compatibility of land uses, community character, public convenience and maintaining a satisfactory community environment. The proposed development appears to be compatible with the existing land uses in the area. Immediately adjacent to the proposed developed is a mix of farmland uses (horses)and single family residential properties. The proposed recreation facility includes wooded buffers between it and neighbors to the east,south and west. Exterior lighting at the recreation facility is intended to be dark sky compliant. LOCAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS: The Town of Southold is currently working on its Comprehensive Plan Southold 2020. The Town's 2004 Comprehensive Waterfront Revitalization Plan does indicate"residential"for future use'of the subject property. It is noted that tennis clubs,annual membership clubs,swimming pools and recreational buildings are permitted special exception uses in the R-80 zone. SUFFOLK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION GUIDELINE CONSIDERATIONS: The Suffolk County Planning Commissions has identified six general,Critical County Wide Priorities that include: 1., Environmental Protection 2. Energy efficiency 3. Economic Development,Equity and Sustainability 4. Housing Diversity 5. Transportation and 6. Public Safety These policies are reflected in the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook(unanimously adopted July 11,2012). Below are items for consideration regarding the above policies; As indicated previously,all,wastewater from the proposed Sports East Recreation Club project is to be accommodated by a subsurface sanitary system using alternative low profile leaching galleys in order to increase the distance between the leaching structure and the effective depth to the ground water table. Advanced wastewater treatment including the possibility of innovative/altemative systems is appropriate for this site and continued review and dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services is warranted. Suffolk County Planning Commission 3 lune 1,2016 - Storm water runoff from the proposed project will be retained on-site and recharged via a drainage system designed to conform to all applicable Town requirements. This system will include a subsurface drainage system comprised of precast concrete catch basins, leaching pools and permeable areas(crushed stone).It is the belief of staff that opportunities exist on site to incorporate additional best management practices to the treatment of storm water runoff. The petitioners should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission publication Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and incorporate into the proposal,where practical,design elements contained therein. Proposed clearing of the subject property of native woodland for the recreation facility is limited to approximately 38%of the subject site and is relatively close to the Commission clearing guideline for R-80 residentially zoned land (35%)for sensitive woodland habitat such as Pine Barrens. The subject site is not pine barren or any listed critical environmental habitat.It is the belief of the staff that with native vegetative landscaping the proposal is in accordance with best practices for greenfield development. There was not information in the referral materials indicating that the project will Incorporate energy efficiency into the site design.The petitioners should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical,elements contained therein forthe residential and community center components of the development. The applicant has put forth in submitted materials thatthe Sports East Recreation Club will not result in a substantial increase to traffic above present levels or generate a substantial new demand for transportation facilities or services. The applicant indicates that a traffic impact study will be prepared to address any increase in traffic or congestion. The study once completed is to be submitted to the NYS DOT for review. Suffolk County Bus Transit route SC-92 runs along Main Road (NYS Route 25). The applicant should contact Suffolk County Transit to coordinate bus service to the proposed development. Little discussion is made in the petition to the Town and referred to the Commission on public safety and universal design. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to public safety and universal design and incorporate into the proposal,where practical, design elements contained therein. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval of the site plan for The Sports East Fitness Club with the following comments: 1. Advanced wastewater treatment including the possibility of innovative/alternative nitrogen reducing systems are appropriate for this proposed development and the petitioner should be directed to continue dialogue with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services regarding the use of innovative alternative wastewater treatment for the proposed development. 2. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission publication on Managing Stormwater-Natural Vegetation and Green Methodologies and incorporate into the proposal,where practical,design elements contained therein. 3. The applicant should be encouraged to review the Suffolk County Planning Commission Guidebook particularly with respect to energy efficiency and incorporate where practical, applicable elements contained therein. Suffolk County Planning Commission 4 June 1,2016 4. A traffic impact study should be prepared to address any increase in traffic or congestion to NYS Rte.25.The study once completed should be submitted to the NYS DOT for review. 5. Suffolk County Bus Transit route SC-92 runs along Main Road (NYS Route 25). The applicant should contact Suffolk County Transit to coordinate bus service to the proposed development. 6. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to public safety and incorporate into the proposal,where practical,design elements contained therein. 7. The applicant should review the Planning Commission guidelines particularly related to universal design and incorporate into the proposal, where practical, design elements contained therein. Suffolk County Planning Commission 5 Juno 1,2016 LII A'� fV3rT/e4N. V� J {ll -,mss- -cam'. F,ln,, t4 Mr, MWO _ i�J�. W-h+ ' rf'n_�;; !�ylJl!' _ Ii,�i il, ' .,tilji;l'�'',I' I!E I ,7 - _�,,,_ 2"1 ill. „- � pit L! 8 i IFAI ;yi1i'm'','� a !I it�ji G�ln l i111t11 I I im��°`JI`�g��i M N,_ G'i,_t 1, It I +! I n I - ;; Suffolk County Planning Commission ( Juno 1,2016 I 0 7 r.""gbee Road eX ,..e4 � -', t,M,F ,:"" 7 �• I `._;"?, I :.C"'U:, I °� �^�^ ! 3c;..75, 1"+GrZ3'"1�.3:`.A'.I ,S',�^� 2"'x 14e,'g.4rtS��^ _w°" ! ,,...n.. Ip _i �•^•." I"; ,I,+`�.:LY�;t' •: a;9'.: .oma--:I .x�,j!1'+__ =•:> _4�v wr ma ! �Y-� J:a,,.t — m.'�r�Y.�,.rr;r..r.�d.� ,€trv.* Y l PROPOSED BUIL13ING `!i •': �,�- t - + - Wil•+"' �� _ �7•` �__-."-•s..,r�`.`�`= - ! l,,.r< - moi%'.-;.. ' -- •-�;s. '�w. a.�� Y---- _-- - - -- - ~4+rosy._.�.,�...� �-""�"�,�... '�-`' .-""� ?rte,�_--• v+v�•--- � y��.,._.. t i cl7+M-"w .+��».�""- ^"'^rai'++�' ''1_ma.• _-wuBzaeRs�+1� I�" 1• �—H'"`''lYrvrrrvv i_rte.-...v�v� �'A.I ins y � .:+'r:�•v-HvyrTrry+n�+sti �••; — _ e � Main Road Scale(In Feet) 0 60 20 N O T I I' C _J Chairperson Leslie Weisman 9- Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeail S' �rZ, P.O. Box 1179 i.{,9✓ �� JECMIEVE] Southold, 7 11971 6- �jq �\k, JUN 2 0 2016 Dear Chairperson Weisman: BY.-- My husband and I live on Sigsee Rd. We are expressing our opposition to the request made for a Special Exception to create Sports East. We support the Zoning Board in its decision to closely examine the proposal and investigate if the owners will be entitled to Special Exception as an "annual membership" club. A large facility with a number of amenities, as the proposal indicates, will create a location for public and special events. It is likely that such special events will be deemed'necessary by the owners in order to sustain such a facility in order to make it financially viable . The 240 car parking lot is quite a tall order to fill with "members" at any given time. I do not believe this small community has the population necessary to fill all of the spaces with "Members". Thus creating a need to bring in revenue by some other means. The large parking lot can also create a trouble spot. It would be out of site of the main road and after hours of operation will invite all sorts of unwanted gatherings. This could lead to vandalism of nearby homes. We fear the noise and nightmare of traffic on the already congested road that this business would create. The current lovely property would be the home of a very large and ugly metal structure if the Exception is granted. If the project to is approved and eventually fails due to a lack of continually paid up "members"the result would be a profit less business . We ask what will we be left with?!?... a huge ugly building..... and then what??? We trust that you will conclude that the proposed use doesn't qualify for Special Exception as a Members Club Sincerely, John Toner Margaret Toner cc:Scott Russell,Supervisor Town Planning Board 1� L,01 ,'6 June 16, 2016 Chairperson Leslie Weisman 'Yc)CT,5 C,�9 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals O 53095 Main Road 0 Z 0 2016 P.O. Box 1179 JUN D Southold,N.Y. 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman: Our family purchased a second home on Peconic Bay Boulevard in Mattituck almost 25 years ago attracted by the picturesque area highlighted by the Sigsbee Road Beach and the Peconic Bay, as well as the privacy, security and beauty offered by the Hussing Pond Preserve, 21 acre preserve with nature trail, pond, and Osprey nest. These beautiful offerings have become a place where generations of the Sigsbee Road families call their summer home. With the planned facility,this will change. We cannot begin to imagine what the Sigsbee Road residents will experience when we are adjacent to the proposed facility. This facility will definitely end up being home for large gatherings such as tournaments and other special events. The noise level will be excruciating. Many of our members are summer residents and our homes are vacant during the off season. Typically this is not a problem because our year round residents keep watch on the homes of their`neighbors.' Due to the exposure of a public area, security will definitely be an issue,the preserve property will be trodden and noise will be an absolute horror. When we drive around the North Fork,we see so much vacant land.along other parts of the community, and now the former Mattituck Airport property,we find it difficult to believe that this group cannot find a location in a more remote space. Needless to say additional problems will be traffic,noise pollution and congestion. If the facility as proposed does not work out,the property, complete with the proposed building and the destruction of trees in the wooded area will be left abandoned. Is this what we want for our Sigsbee Road community. Additionally,we cannot begin to imagine the interaction from the horses at Highwind Farms. That will be a horror! We hope the Zoning Board will conclude that this is not a good choice for our community and the proposed use does not qualify for the special exception and the application of Sports East will be denied. Please do your best to prevent this facility from happening! IThank u e and Richard Sc ulken . 16 Capel'Drive,Dix Hills,NY 1-1746 , 10435'-Peconic Bay Boulevard;Mattituck,NY.11952 d- Attorney at Law 1220 & 1295 Sigsbee Road Mattituck,NY 11952 15 Little Neck Road Douglaston,NY 11363 (516) 503-5344 June 13, 2016 Chairperson Leslie Weisman JUN p 2016 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 8Y:-- Southold,N.Y. 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman: As the owner of 2 homes on Sigsbee Road in Mattituck, I am writing to express my opposition to the granting of a variance to Sports East, and to their proposal as a whole, and to express my support for the decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals to examine more closely whether the facility should be entitled to a special exception as an annual membership club. No matter what the developer has said to date (and he has said a lot of different things over the course of his 3 applications for 3 different projects), I do not believe the facility will an "annual membership club" of the type contemplated by the R80 zoning use district. The sheer size of the proposed facility, and the number of amenities it will feature, will make it a natural location for public events such as tournaments and other special events. In order to make such a large facility economically viable, the owners will be forced into bringing in outside events, even if they deny that now, because the population density of the area simply will not support a "membership club" of this size and character. While my opposition to the facility rests on the traffic, noise pollution and congestion it will bring to our quiet residential community, what will be even worse will be the inevitable failure of the project. The facility as proposed would need a large number of consistently paid up members in order to turn a profit, and for a summer community.that is a very tall order. Should the business fail, we will be left with a huge empty building and land cleared of trees and animals. The 21 acre parcel in question will go from being a beautiful part of our town to an ugly eyesore and possible trouble spot, and no one will benefit from that. I hope the Zoning Board will conclude that a facility of this magnitude cannot realistically be a true membership club, in which case the proposed use does not qualify for the special exception and the application of Sports East will be denied. Very truly yours, Linda A. Mule Jo Ellin haus�'1, Joy � � � D 2375 Sigsbee Rd JUN 2 0 2016 Mattituck, NY 11952 June 14, 2016 �Y;_ (0,1 �! --T to Dear Chairperson Weisman, 1 am writin2J`t©tlay to voice my very serious concerns`regar<dii�g the sats e�irriplex 0l�ojeet°that Pai�1 Pawlor� ki and-his-partners are asking to develop on the Main Rd. in Mattituck. Mr. Pawlowski seems to have garnered much support for this project and I'd like to believe it's because his motives are altruistic, seeing as he is a local developer. That said, there have been too many instances where he seems to be either misinformed or uninterested in the very possible negative outcomes of some issues surrounding the project. When traffic concerns were raised to Mr. Pawlowski at a meeting at the Town Hall, I was there and heard him assuredly promise that any study would be done in conjunction with the DOT. When the time came, Mr. Pawlowski chose a private firm to conduct a basic car counting survey in the month of March, 2016, seeming or not caring to understand that it was the height of the season that was of most concern. Therefore, his study in March was really of no use at all, and that's just not good enough for a place that kids will be walking or riding their bikes to and from. Of course there are environmental concerns that would take too long to address, so I'll just state the obvious: where there is overdevelopment, there is eventual environmental catastrophe. We see this time and again, in cities whose infrastructure is far beyond our own Fork's capabilities. Even one building, poorly sited can be the catalyst. Despite Mr. Pawlowski's confidence, there are no guarantees of commercial success.The ramifications of another failed business in exchange for a razed wooded lot are dire, as the Capital One building can attest, sitting empty across the street going on year four. Speaking of the Capital One building, it could have easily been remodeled to achieve Mr. Pawlowski's vision for this project, so his sports complex is a perfect example of a failure of both preservation and adaptive reuse. Finally, when the possibility of preservation was mentioned by Representative Krupski at a meeting held in Riverhead, Mr. Pawlowski rejected the idea out of hand, stating he did not have another commercial property in which to place the sports club. Several weeks later it was revealed that in fact it was he and his partners in the sports complex that had bought the large acreage located at the Mattituck Airport. This would probably be an ideal location for the sports complex. The preservation of the wooded lot on the Main Rd. would then be a possibility vis-a-vis a County purchase. In my opinion, this would define Mr. Pawlowski as sincerely altruistic. The zoning issue may be complex on its face, but perhaps that is because Mr. Pawlowski was disingenuous with his first descriptions as to what the "health club" would be. Whatever the case, it's ended up being an 80,000 square foot commercial business. Yes, it's coming through a special exception, but it might as well be a zoning change. If the Board allows this interpretation here, many developers will cite this in the future to convert residential zoning to commercial zoning with a mere special exception. It will be hard for the Board to control future requests just like this, savvy developers skating the thinnest ice imaginable in definitions and feigning the true accuracy and scope of their projects, until it's too late, built, and litigation is in the works for similar projects which may get denied. Developers are waiting and watching to see howthis area can be exploited. Please send them a clear message that this kind of exploitation will not be tolerated and to pursue adaptive reuse first. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely Fuentes, Kim �� From: Standish, Lauren Sent: Monday,June 20, 2016 12:51'PM To: Lanza, Heather; 'Don Wilcenski';Weisman, Leslie; Fuentes, Kim; Neville, Elizabeth; Rudder, Lynda; Duffy, Bill; Bob Ghosio; Doherty,Jill;Jim Dinizio; Louisa Evans;William Ruland cc: Silleck, Mary Subject: Comments re:'Sports East ,Attachments: Sports East_20160620114507.pdf, Sports East_20160620114556.pdf, SportsEast_ 20160620114637.pdf -Lb [ I LO Please see the attached public comments concerning Sports East. Thank you, Lauren W. StandiA Lauren M.Standish Confidential.Secretary to the Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 (631)765-1889 R'ILLIAM McQUAID DUFFY 'COTT A.RUSSELL TOWN ATTORNEY *QF S®(/Py -1 Supervisor bill.duffy@town.southold.ny.us STEPHEN F.KIELYTown Hall Annex,54375 Route 25 ASSISTANT TOWN ATTORNEY jr P.O.Box 1179 CIO stephen.kiely@town.southold.ny.us Southold,New York 11971-0959 ® a C Telephone(631) 765-1939 ` 0UN% Facsimile (631) 765-6639 OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY �l TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 17, 2016 Charles Cuddy, Esq. 445 Griffing Avenue Riverhead,New York 11901 Re: Sports East Fitness Club Dear Mr. Cuddy, This letter is written in response to your letter dated June 1, 2016, as well as in response to comments attributed to your client in recent news articles regarding the Sports East Fitness Club application currently pending before the Planning Board and Zoning Board of Appeals ("ZBA"). The Planning Board takes great exception to the accusatory tone of your letter. The Board's memorandum to the ZBA was factual, and the purpose specific and clear. The only purpose of the memorandum was to seek a determination from the ZBA on the important issue of whether the uses as proposed are permitted in the zoning district where the property is located. Your accusations that the memorandum was designed to influence another board and/or undermines your client's application before the ZBA are baseless and without merit. At the Planning Board's public hearing the applicant made a presentation, and comment was received from the public. Several members of the public questioned the overall use as being commercial, as well as a more specific use of the site for childcare. The statement in your letter that"no day care is offered" is in direct conflict with the statements of your own client. At the public hearing the applicant specifically identified childcare, for members, as a use that would occur on the site. In addition to daycare, the Planning Board has identified the following as proposed uses for the site from the application materials and statements from the applicant: indoor and outdoor soccer fields and tennis courts, classrooms for yoga and spinning classes, a rock wall, batting cages, a basketball court, a pool, locker rooms, a caf6, and childcare. The Planning Board's request of the ZBA is for a determination, pursuant to section 280- 146 (D) (1) of the Town Code, as to whether the uses as proposed at this site, meet the definition of a"Membership Club" as defined by the Town Code, or whether the proposed uses fall under another definition such as a"Recreational Facility" or a"Commercial Recreational Facility". Charles Cuddy, Esq. June 17, 2016 The distinction is an important one because while a Membership Club is allowed by a Special Exception in the zoning district where the property is located, a Recreational Facility and a Commercial Recreational Facility are not allowed. Despite claims to the contrary, this request for a determination from the ZBA is being made early on in the review process. Immediately after the Planning Board held its public hearing on the Sports East Application,the Board reviewed the application, the presentation by the applicant and comments from the public. This review, as well the members' years of experience on the Planning Board raised questions as to whether the uses as proposed fit with in the definition of a Membership Club. As I am sure you are well aware, the Planning Board does not have the authority to make a determination as to whether a proposed use fits within a particular definition or is allowed in a particular zoning district, only the ZBA does. Therefore, I recommended that the Planning Board ask the ZBA to rule on whether the uses are allowed. This request was made, in part, out of concern for the applicant. The Planning Board did not want to see the applicant spend time and money going through the entire environmental review process as well as the entire Special Exception process, without having the question of whether the proposed uses are allowed answered. The representatives of Sports East have made several statements claiming reliance on a memorandum from the Chairman of the Planning Board to the Chairperson of the ZBA. This memorandum clearly states that the Planning Board had only received a partial site plan at that time and the comments the Planning Board was providing to the ZBA were preliminary. Sports East has incorrectly claimed that the Planning Board stated that the use was allowed under the Town Code. The Planning Board never made that determination. As stated above, it is without authority to make such a determination. Rather, the memorandum simply recites that the Building Department stated the use was allowed. It should be noted that the Building Department's determination was based on a conceptual site plan that only showed some outdoor athletic fields and an open building. This is the normal process—a conceptual plan is submitted to the Building Department, followed by more detailed plans and public hearings so that the Board(s) involved in reviewing the application(s) can gather all relevant information. As stated in the initial comments from the Planning Board to the ZBA, the project as proposed is a large project for the Town. In fact the proposed building would be one of the largest buildings in the Town. In addition, it is being proposed for an area of the Town that is already densely developed. There are potential adverse impacts relating to the development and operation of the site that must be examined to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and neighbors. Charles Cuddy, Esq. June 17, 20,16, The Planning Board intends to continue their review under the State Environmental Quality Review'Act,unless you request, in writing, that we wait until the decision is made'by the ZBA on whether the uses, as proposed, are allowed in the zoning district where the property is located. Very truly yours, William Duff Y Town Attorney cc: Planning Board Zoning Board of Appeals Paul Pawlowski I—raolk—I PW OCT o5 2016 D 5. Impact on Groundwater and Surface Waters - Comment: ,.- Page S of 13 of the FEAF indicates that 15,000 gallons per day (gpd) of water will be used and 3660 gallons per day of sanitary waste will be generated Water supply is proposed to be from a 2"service line connected to the existing public water main in New York State Route 25. it is unclear how the 15,000 gpd was calculated and will be allocated on-site.'A response from the Suffolk County Water Authority was received May 25, 2016 The letter outlines concerns on water conservation measures including: 1. The use of low flow plumbing fixtures. 2.A concern about the 80 gpm to irrigate the property; described as "alarmingly high". Response: Our office has attached a spreadsheet that was used to estimate the water demand for the project. The usage calculations did not include low flow plumbing fixtures. The applicant would not be opposed to proposing low flow plumbing fixtures in order to lower the demand. The actual probable water demand for the project is 14,160 gallons per day based upon standards. The 80 gpm to irrigate is a standard flow and isnot considered alarmingly high according to published water usage standards(Sizing Water Service Lines & Meters by the American Water Works Association—M22). However, there concern should be mitigated by the fact that there is very little irrigation proposed just to water the plantings around the foundation of the building. The project proposes all lawn areas to be synthetic/artificial turf and all other permeable surfaces will be covered with wood mulch. Zero (0) fixtures were defined in the calculations resulting in a zero(0) gallon water demand for irrigation. 'Comment. The proposed action may have moderate impact on groundwater quality- Th e uality.The SUFFOLK CO LINTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WATER RESO URCES MANAGEMENT PLAN ((SCCWAIIP) 2015) identifies nitrate causing most widespread concern to the regions groundwater. ,The applicant has proposed the use of a single stage Bioclere or similar sanitary system that is expected' to reduce the N loads to groundwater by 80% over existing Article VI systems (to 10-15 mg/I). Note, however page 6 of 13of the FEAF indicates that a "Conventional SCDHS approved non-residential ... will be constructed". The technical performance (level of N treatment) of the Bioclere or similar system is currently unknown and must be identified. Response: The determination made on the impact of the project on groundwater quality by the Town only accounts for the system defined on the FEAF and does not acknowledge the written narrative dated March 14,2016 that specifically explains why the applicant submitted an application for a standard commercial sanitary system. As stated in the section of the narrative included below "The County asked that the applicant submit a standard system for the purpose of knowing that a conventional system can be installed at the site". It was never decided that a standard sanitary system would be constructed for this project. Like all alternative systems approved by the County, the owner needs to first demonstrate that the site can be supported by a conventional type system. This is the County's requirement which needs to be acknowledged by the Town. The narrative goes on to state that if the Town requires an alternative disposal system that the applicant would be agreeable to such a demand. Regardless, of the relatively low volume of effluent generated by the project. In fact, if residential homes were to be constructed both the demand on water and the generation of wastewater (impact to groundwater) would likely be greater. In order to come to the conclusion that the project "may" have a moderate impact on groundwater quality the Town would need to ignore the "as of right"uses associated with the property in Mattituck. When the applicant's engineer contacted the manufacturer of the Bioclere System, their engineers had concerns over the extremely low flow of the project and whether their system (or others) would actually be applicable. The engineer at the Division of Wastewater Management had similar concerns of the applicability of an alternative disposal system-to be proposed fora project that generates a third of the flow than what is normally expected by SCDHS standards. Regardless, the FEAF's narrative still offered to use an alternative disposal system to mitigate the concerns by the Town which does not result in a moderate impact on groundwater quality. From the Written Narrative dated March 14, 2016 which accompanied the FEAF; The new recreational building will generate approximately 3,680 gallons ofsanitary wasteivater per day (D2-1)). -The proposed site is not located within any public sewer district and will therefore use a subsurface sanitary system designed and built in accordance with SCDHS standards. The applicant understands the Town's concern of groundwater pollution from the sanitary system wastewater. The applicant's design professional has mei with the Suffolk County Department oj'17ealth Services to discuss the possibility of an alternative on-site sewer disposal system. The County asked that the applicant submit a standard system for the purpose of knowing that a conventional system can be installed at the site. The plan submitted to,the Health Department on March 14, 2016 uses low profile leaching galleys rather than conventional deep leachingpools in order to increase the effective-depth to groundwater. Although the site is not burdened by its size, proximity to the groundwater table and is not located near any regulated wetland, the applicant has contacted Aqua-Point (included as an approved advanced system in the SCDHS's Study) and is in the process of preliminary design (sizing of system, type of system) and cost fedsibility.for an alternative on-site sewer disposal system. Specifically, a single stage Bioclere installation would be installed to replace the standard septic tank feature of the conventional sanitary system design. If required, the alternative system would reduce the total nitrogen levels found in the normal effluent (bathrooms, showers, juice bar) by approximately 80 percent or from approximately 50 - 65 mg/1 to 10 — 15 mg/l. If(1) the Suffolk County Department of Health Services feels that this is an appropriate application for this site and (2) the Town of Southold requires such a system in order to issue a negative declaration for its determination of significance for this action then the applicant is willing to include such a system with the project. The proposed action may have moderate impacts on Surface Waters The proposed action may affect the water quality of water bodies downstream of the site of the proposed action. -Recent studies have linked on-site sanitary systems with contributing Nitrogen to surface,waters"and',, cumulative impacts could be moderate to large. In the Peconic Estuary,-after atmospheric deposition,. groundwater is estimated as the second largest external source of Nitrogen, to'taling_,21 percent of the -total 'Nitrogen load, or 7,450 lbs./day. Groundwater and-other nonpoint sources, are 'the.primary " contributors to water quality degradation of the,Peconic Estuary contributing to algal blooms and, hypoxia (SCHDS). The Peconic-Estuary,has experienced detrimental-changes from increased nutrient loads to,ground"and ultimately surface waters. Loge Dissolved Oxygen (DO) conditions (hypoxia) develop due to excessive levels of Nitrogen (N) and Phosphorous (P).•Hypoxia is a result from planktonic algae blooms that feed' on the nutrients. The"algae die and settle to the bottom-of the water body then decay, using up Dissolved' Oxygen in the process. The Oxygen levels frequently fall below the levels necessary to,sustainlife and = often results"in fish and shelyiishdie offs. The impacts of the alternative sanitary system on'down gradient -surface water must be assessed. -Response:, The applicant believes that the non-specific studies-referenced'to support the determination that has=been' made by'the Town again does not take into consideration that 1) the project is,not adjacent or near the Peconic Estuary although other residences are clearly closer, 2)the overall flow•from the project-is 1/3 of the allowed flow from the parcel and 3)the applicant has offered to install an alternative disposal-system' that would dramatically'reduce the total Nitrogen from'approximately 50 - 65 mg/1 to'10 15 mg/f as " stated in the FEAF narrative: If the project were to propose residential dwellings.the likelihood of alternative (nitrogen lowering) systems being used would none and the overall'total flow,from- all' conventional sanitary systems would be greater thus supporting a moderate impact to surface waters. The = ambiguous and non-site specific studies referenced hardly support the-determinatiou thatwas made by,the .Town. In fact, the specific nature of the project could easily support a more appropriate "low impact"to -- "surface waters based upon the three reasons listed. ' 6: Impact on Energy A moderate impact may result froin_ the consumption of energy. The proposed action 'will,-involve the lighting, -heating and cooling-of an 82,500 'square foot building proposing to use 1,734,480 kVA. Renewable energy generation to offset consumption has not been proposed. Response: " In an effort to mitigate the concerns of the Town relative to expected energy consumption, the applicant- would propose an alternate energy system on the roof'of the 82,500 square foot building. In the narrative -Sports East offered 'to use energy ,efficient lighting throughout the project, which happens-to be�the biggest consumer of energy on most projects and certainly on this project. The use'of automated controls will also be used on this project to conserve energy., Most projects that include the c_onstruction of an 'artificial turf field would include energy consuming ballfield lighting systems, this project does-not ' 'include such exterior lighting. Sports East is confident that all of the energy efficient and reducing ; features being proposed would result in a low impact to the consumption of energy. • Again, if the applicant proposes multiple residential dwellings the energy demand would increase while the likelihood of an alternate energy system being installed would be low. .7. Inipatt on Noise The project will introduce a new'activity, specifically sports courts and a playing field"that rnay'generate •`large crowds near current residential use and zoning, ,which in turn may create,potentially moderate noise impacts. Although the-applicant has identified several -elements that would mitigate noise,to a certain extent, the application does not idents an expected numeric threshold of noise and therefore'the, -potential impacts cannot be fully assessed. A noise study is recommended that includes: • The identified receptors. • The pre project ambient noise level in and around the project = •'The post project noise level in and around the project, including, the expected numeric threshold of noise generated by the activities on site., •How long'will the noise last(hours, days,permanently),and what type of noise-will it be'(steady'; or variable)? •-The expected effectiveness of the mitigation proposed and noise attenuation:- Response: The applicant would offer to conduct a noise study that includes the variables listed above`.• The noise study would offer measurable values rather than assuming that a potentially moderate noise impact would- 'result from the activities. It should'be noted that the noise-from the traffic on Route 25 is likely to be.' greater than the combined noise generated by tennis courts(by most accounts a relatively'quiet sport)and ,-private`use of the artificial turf field which is positioned near the roadway and away fromany residential;' 'dwellings.-A restaurant with a bar is situated directly between the proposed project site and Sigsbee Road (where residential dwellings reside);- Again, as stated before, the applicant is not proposing'any exterior court/ballfield-lighting systems and as such all activities during night time hours will.be conducted..- :indoors. 8. Impact on Plants and Wildlife j Moderate impacts-on plants and animals and associated habitats may occur, due to the parcel size, proximity-to area land uses and composition of vegetation. The action will result in the clearing'and or , disturbance of 7.96 acres of the 20.82 acres and d loss of natural cover types such as woodlands will- occur.' -The proposed action may-substantially interfere with nesting/breeding, foraging, or- over- wintering habitat for the predominant species that occupy or use the project site. The physical size of the area to be impacted is small, but the natural resource is unique to Mattituck and may play an important role in'the ecology of the area. The area forms an important assemblage of 'habitat types for avian and other wildlife species in a suburban area that has dwindling-wildlife ility. -To the east a high density residential neighborhood occurs. corridors, diversity and habitat availab ` To the south is a vacant parcel that with a mix of evergreen (species unknown) and deciduous-,trees. To the north SR-25, an assemblage ofparcels encircling'Laurel Lake occurs to the northwest of the parcel-` " providing large habitat benefits to area and transient wildlife. -The site is currently wooded with a large stand of hardwood trees and understory shrubs. The'large stand` of hardwood trees occurs in the north of the property and along the eastern property boundary.'An`early - successional f eld occurs in the south of the property and an area cleared of vegetation'is located in the`. -west resulting from a past development 'Todd-cut attempt on the property. There are no wetlands on-site. The parcel to the'west is mostly cleared and the use is an equestrian center. Small areas of vegetation remain. A large wetland system borders this parcel on the western boundary. The'wetland s'y'stem is accessible to wildlife occurring on the parcel. z'The following concerns have been identified. + A Wildlife (parcel bio-diversity) by a'qualified biologist has not been conducted. ,The presence or absence'of protected species has not been provided. Note that page 12 of 13 of the FEAF has a "Yes"response to E.2.p. "Does the project site contain any species of plant or animal that is listed by NYS as rare, or as a species of special concern?'' The identification of habitat on the parcel with the greatest function and values to area wildlife has not been identified = Y • The identification of existing and potential wildlife corridors has not been provided(f available).'' . A response from the New York Natural Heritage Program has not been provided. Response: The applicant,would -offer to conduct a comprehensive wildlife survey of the site to substantiate the' absence of protected species, greatest function and values to area wildlife. This would be a measure to mitigate the concerns'of the Town based upon very little evidence offered showing that these habitats arid' ; natural resources exist on the-parcel. It should be noted that the Applicant is preserving'roughly 70% of the entire site which is well in excess of•the minimum requirements by the Town. . 9. `Impact on Aesthetics A moderate impact to aesthetics`may occur as a result of this action. New York State Route 25 is a scenic', by-way; landscaping and building design should consider-aesthetics including building scaleand.mass in'.', relation to seasons, existing vegetation and view-sheds. . A visual impact study would better.assis't.the Planning Board is the assessment of potential impacts to aesthetics. •' A visual impact study from public vantage points has not been conducted.' The applicant would offer to conduct a visual impact study,of the site. It should be noted that the scale'of - 'the project is well below any of the Town's zoning thresholds and visual barriers are proposed on-all sides of the project. Additional screening is proposed.to supplement the existing-wooded areas that'are to remain: If the project is modified to a residential subdivision the overall area to be ,cleared,would increase thus creating a potentially larger impact to aesthetics. The building being proposed is consistent _ with many other pole barns and metal buildings constructed'throughout the Township. It should be noted = in your review of this project that the Southold Town Architectural Review Board already approved the -overall look of building and site plan which conflicts with your Department's determination. 10: Consistency.with Community Character Response: = We believe Sports East is consistent with the "character of the community" in a number of ways. Firstly, much of what we have modeled Sports East'on is the Town Comprehensive plan as it pertains to parks- and-Recreation.. In short the goal of-the study was to assess the state of recreational, educational, and leisure opportunities that currently exist as well as an examination of existing facilities. Additionally it looked to engage the public in ways to determine the types of recreational and leisure activities they envision for the future. We reviewed the surveys and read notes generated from focus groups as well as the goals and objectives of the report.`We also took into consideration an aspect of the final draft, which states the need to conduct a feasibility study that looked at the possibility of"creating collaborations of for-profit and non-profit partnerships that could make the creation and operation of the proposed multi-purpose complex financially viable". We at Sports East strongly believe much of what is being offered at the facility would satisfy the spirit and nature of the goals and objectives laid out in the comprehensive,town plan. Our vision also aligns with the town plan in that it is designed to serve members of our community, something that is clearly a goal and objective of the town draft as opposed to having out of town sports clubs using it. Secondly, we believe we are consistent with the "character of the community" not only in our philosophy and goals but in its physical presence as well. Fuentes, Kim From: Jen Giovanniello Becker <1234sons@optimum.net> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 9:14 AM To: Fuentes, Kim Subject: Sports East Attachments: we-want-sports-east_100516 pdf To The ZBA: Please see the attached petition in favor of Sports East. Thank you, Many Residents of Southold OCT_ D 51016 1234sons@optimum.net BY___ _�f v 1 October 4, 2016 Ai Ili rB 0 � Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Rd Southold, NY 11971 To whom it may concern, The people of the Town of Southold have started this petition in favor of building Sports East. The goal of this petition was to get at least 300 signatures. We got more than double that at 629 supporters from September 26 to October 5. Some of the reasons people want this is; this facility will add jobs to our community, the health benefits to all members, a safe place for kids to go, a local place for families to spend time together. Please consider doing everything in your power to make this come together for the benefit of the Town of Southold. Sincerely, Page 1 Residents who want Sports East Name From Comments 1. Judith Perez Peconic, NY Do all the activities out here on the north fork have to be alcohol related?? Why is it that vineyards, brewerys and moonshine are acceptable but a family place like sports east is not????? 2. Michelle Scheer Mattituck, NY 3. Regina Cartselos Southold, NY 4. Anteater Ants Sosnowiec, Poland 5. Matthew Ahearn Southold, NY This project has no downside for the town. I strongly think it will be a great project to approve. My family is looking forward to being members. 6. Miriam Site issues Vancouver, Canada 7. Dara Marchica Mattituck, NY 8. Alan Lambert GIBSONBURG, OH 9. RHODA Mattituck, NY MARCHICA 10. Kate Panetta Southold, NY While we all love our open spaces, we ALL need somewhere to go ;to train, to play, to hang out, to grow. This is much needed on the North Fork. 11. Melanie Keller Greenport, NY 12. Diana Jensen Greenport, NY We desperately need this on the North Fork for our children! And families and the elderly. But especially for our kids! 13. Erin Bednoski Southold, NY As a mother of three schools age children I greatly support this business! 14. Nicole Kruk Southold, NY 15. Tara Haas Mattituck, NY 16. Jennifer Place Southold, NY This is so desperately needed for OUR community. 17. Brooke Dailey New Suffolk, NY 18. Lynda Enstine Southold, NY If this can't happen on the main road, where can it happen? How about Seniors that would like some exercise and a therapy pool! 19. Leslie Benway Mattituck, NY It's absurd this youth and adult addition to the community has been withdrawn. 20. MaryGrace New Suffolk, NY Steinfeld 21. Debbie Wogan Cutchogue, NY 22. Debra DePaulis Cutchogue, NY Page 2 - Signatures 1 -22 Name From Comments 23. Meghan Cereola Riverhead, NY 25. Amy Fliss Cutchogue, NY 26. Dina Knudsen Cutchohue, NY 27. Steve Garms Southold, NY We need a place like this! 28. Christine U Romania, Romania 29. Mike Acebo East Marion, NY Drove numerous kids nightly to swim team practice in Mastic Beach, no facilities more local. Crazy 30. Ann Pisarelli Cutchogue, NY It would be a fantastic asset to the community 31. Patti Ahearn Southold, NY 32. Michael Kurtz Cutchogue, NY Winter Indoor Tennis would be excellent! 33. meredith little new suffolk, NY 34. Lisa Kurtz Cutchogue, NY Pleeease pass this sports facility proposal. We have had drunk kids crash their cars into our lawn on our quiet country road more than once. Young people and old need healthy alternatives to getting high and getting drunk and crashing their cars! An indoor winterized athletic facility would be incredible for everyone. Young and old. Everyone knows that seniors who are active live linger happier luves! There are literally zero indoor/winter activities on the North F. It would also be great for the heath if other local businesses like restaurants, sports stores, clothing stores, spa facilities, massage clinics, builders, maintenance folks....it is a win win. Please pass this! 35. Donna Fallon Mattituck, NY 36. Sarah Nappa Southold, NY 37. Margaret Brown New Suffolk, NY This is something the community really wants and needs! 38. Dawn Williams Mattituck, NY Wonderful idea!! 39. Mindy Ryan Greenport, NY My name is Mindy Ryan. I've lived and worked on the North Fork for over 30 years and currently live in Greenport. I was a lifeguard for the Town of Southold in 1984 and 85. 1 took my lifeguard classes at Southold Town Beach. I remember at the time thinking how odd it was that we had to drive 60 miles to the pool at Montauk Downs to take the water portion of the'test. Was this really the closet pool around? As I got older I struggled to find ways to stay physically fit. During my pregnancy in 1996 1 was desperate for exercise and felt fortunate to have a swim membership at 7 Z's in Flanders. The indoor pool was very short in length but (continues on next page) Page 3 - Signatures 23 - 39 Name From Comments 39. Mindy Ryan Greenport, NY (continued from previous page) certainly better than nothing. I continued to search for an indoor pool as my daughter grew up, one winter traveling the 30 miles to the Hampton Inn at Brookhaven where we had a pool membership. My daughter eventually followed in my footsteps and took her lifeguard certification course. Those classes were 25 miles away at the Brookhaven National Lab. Over the years I've followed and supported proposals to build a YMCA with an indoor pool in various locations including Greenport, Peconic, Laurel, Aquebogue, Riverhead and Calverton. So many proposals and all of them shot down for one reason or another. When the YMCA at Laurel Lake was being picked apart I stood up at a meeting very similar to the public comment meetings we have had for Sports East and said "please, put the YMCA in my backyard"! I am very excited about the Sports East proposal and support this project 100%! It has everything I've dreamed of in a sports facility and more. The thoughtfulness in planning goes above and beyond. I'd like to thank Mr. Pawlowski for his continued and persistent effort to do something good for our community. I admired his desire to do good even before I heard about this 3rd proposal for his Matttituck property. An indoor pool on the North Fork has been a dream of mine for 20 years. Mr. Pawlowski, Mr. Slovak, Mr. Marsh, thank you for your dedication to this project. 40. Shawn Williams Mattituck, NY We are very lucky to have a developer in our town willing to take on this project 41. gabriela cutchogue, NY samolewski 42. anne bialeski mattituck, NY A facility for an entire community no matter your age sounds like something that would be worth having! Why is it that we can approve facilities that are for drinking but something that would be beneficial to one's health is not okay?? 43. Bill Stuckart Cutchogue,,NY This is one of the only things I wish we had on the North Fork that would actually be of beneficial use to everyone in the community. We need this now! Page 4 - Signatures 39-43 Name From Comments 44. Amber Sidor Greenport, NY If mattituck can,have a huge CVS, which is a waste of good space, a 7/11, a McDonald's, and a Starbucks why can't it have a health facility like#SportsEast that will BENEFIT all of its year round residents especially the children! Please sign the petition! Keep the kids off drugs and off the streets! I say this as resident for over 38 years and as a mother of three! 45. Isabel Araujo Mexico, Mexico 46. Ellie Kellershon Mattituck, NY 47. Deana Finora New Suffolk, NY This is a much needed facility that will benefit the entire community year round . 48. diane bellavia mattituck, NY this would be a wonderful place for us "locals"!! 49. Jen Giovanniello Southold, NY 50. Deborah Jamesport, NY This would be a great place for our children and all of our Cavanaugh-Schultz families! 51. Tracy Weiss Cutchogue, NY Paul is a local guy who understands the needs of the community. I believe the planning board is so fearful of change that they cannot look at the North Fork as a growing community which needs young blood and updates. 52. Patricia Kelly JAMESPORT, NY Everyone on the North Fork would benefit from this type of facility. I drove our children great distances for sports because our community lacks this type of alternative destination. 53. Maureen Decker Cutchogue, NY You guys are being nasty to,Mr. Pawlowski. His is a great idea for the community. 54. Britta Babashak Southold, NY 55. Jean Marie F. New Suffolk, NY Yes PLEASE!!! 56. Joseph Decker Cutchogue, NY Make the North Fork Great Again 57. christine harmon Southold, NY We need this desperately for the sake of our children! 58. Ryan Springer Mattituck, NY A sports complex is badly needed in our community. There is no reason to deny this project. 59. Jonathan Decker Fort Lauderdale, FL Sports East is a great idea. Stop playing politics, Mr. Russell. 60. Linda Laurel, NY Topalian-Damiani 61. Susan M Laurel, NY We NEED Sports East. Lets GO!!!! 62. Alicia Rivera Mattituck, NY 63. Carly Walker Westport, CT We need this amazing facility in our town. A healthy town equals a happy one. Let's make this happen!!!!! 64. Maryanne Ure Callander, United Kingdom Page 5 - Signatures 44 - 64 Name From Comments 65. Christina Southold, NY Gianopulos 66. Nicole Alloway Southold, NY 67. Peter Stern New York, NY We need Sports East in the North Fork for our children. 68. Ashley Rutkowski Laurel, NY 69. Elizabeth Doroski Mattituck, NY 70. Lisa Springer Mattituck, NY 71. Marnie NEE YORK, NY This would be a great addition to the North Fork for Wasniewski children, teens and adults. I truly believe it would have a positive impact on the entire community and fill the need for something that is missing. 72. Jayne Martin New Suffolk, NY This would be a wonderful asset for our community. 73. Brianne Hart Southold, NY 74. Amerika New Suffolk, NY Williamson 75. Jeri Woodhouse Orient, NY Exactly what our community needs for all ages to exercise, swim and keep fit 76. Haley Rolle Riverhead, NY 77. Kim Pawlowski Laurel, NY Our town needs this! 78. Mary Kathleen Cutchogue, NY Fohrkolb 79. Jason Wahl Mattituck, NY 80. Lisa Penny Southold, NY 81. Stephan Mazzella Peconic, NY This would be a wonderful addition to the north fork ! Kids need a place to congregate with there families and friends. 82. Sally Kahn Southold, NY 83. Karen Heck Mattituck, NY 84. Tracie Onufrak Mattituck, NY I am a parent of competitive athlete kids and this would be a wonderful place to have for my children and our• community. 85. Anna Audioun Mattituck, NY 86. Michelina Da Mattituck, NY As a young couple looking to put down roots and start a Fonte family, my husband and I bought our first home and moved to Mattituck in August, 2015. We were absolutely disheartened to hear that Sports East was denied by the Town. Sports East would provide a healthy and positive outlet for children, teens, and adults. It would provide another place for us to engage as members of a small, tight-knit community and would also create many job opportunities within. After a long day of work, the very last thing that I want to do is go to Riverhead to attend a fitness class or go to the gym, not because of the drive, but (continues on next page) Page 6 - Signatures 65- 86 vlql'� Name From Comments 86. Michelina Da Mattituck, NY (continued from previous page) Fonte because I have to leave Mattituck to participate in something healthy that isn't offered within my own community on the scale that it should be. It's sad that our own town—a great one, one that my husband and I chose over every other town on this Island - is choosing to limit its community members, forcing them to go outside of a place we call home. Please reconsider investing your thoughts and approval in Sports East as the members of our community are investing our futures in this great town. 87. Beth Santilko MATTITUCK, NY Absolutely !!!!!! 88. Mariya Southold, NY A very much needed all year round sports complex that will Kemper-Reiss benefit the entire community!!!! 89. Nicole Fitzgerald Cutchogue, NY 90. Maureen Cutchogue, NY Lademann 91. Evelyn Conklin Mattituck, NY 92. Keith Kraus Riverhead, NY 93. Christine Smith " Riverhead, NY 94. Laurie Kasprzak Fairport, NY 95. Timothy Bialeski Laurel, NY We need this for the town and north fork. 96. Kim McDonald Mattituck, NY 97. Meghan Cushman Mattituck, NY 98. Gwen Groocock Cutchogue, NY I have watched one proposal after another fail to launch for 20 years. We want a club facility like this NOW, for our kids, and for ourselves. It's utterly ridiculous that we don't have this yet. The town needs to do its part to make this happen. 99. Michelle Clark Mattituck, NY 100. Natalie Hough Mattituck, NY We need a facility like Sports East in our community! 101. Kristine Rodriguez Cutchogue, NY 102. April Brown Greybull, WY 103. Carrie Blair Cutchogue, NY 104. Stephanie Villani Mattituck, NY 105. Marco D Mattituck, NY 106. Amanda A Baiting Hollow, NY 107. Devon McKnight Greenport, NY It would be great for the generations of children to come. Something actually for the people who live out here and not just not the tourists. 108. Debra Dolan Cutchogue, NY 109. Catherine Palasek Rocky point, NY 110. gina gilmour Mattituck, NY Page 7 - Signatures 86- 110 �ql 0 Name From Comments 111. Ellen Honig Cutchogue, NY This is a necessary addition not only for the children, but also for all families living on the North Fork. 112. Jenette O'Rourke Calverton, NY 113. Margaret Read Mattituck, NY So needed for adults and more importantly the children.. 114. Anneen Voegel Cutchogue, NY 115. Kimberly Fabb Mattituck, NY 116. Ellen Pawlowski Mattituck, NY It would be a great asset to our local community for all, and generations to come! 117. Lisa Nemschick Cutchogue, NY 118. Candice Schott Greenport, NY We NEED this! We WANT this!! 119. John Read East Marion, NY OMG Do it for the children!!!!! 120. Sofia Zachariadis Mattituck, NY 121. Cori Pearsall Cutchogue, NY 122. Jennifer Hagen Huntington sta, NY 123. Jessica Brennan New Suffolk, NY This would be a great addition to the north fork. Let's find a way to make this happen! 124. Heather Engels Southold, NY 125. Nicole Helf Southold, NY 126. Damon Rallis . Southold, NY 127. Mike Horowitz huntington, NY 128. Patricia Burrows Mattituck, NY Such a facility is long overdue for our North Folk! 129. Lisa Thornton Rockville Centre, NY 130. Charles Baker Orient, NY 131. Christine Cutchogue, NY I support this application. This town should be welcoming Kosmynka this proposal as a gift. It is for the health and well being of the community. Worried about traffic and noise? Look at - the wineries. That is traffic with people drinking all day. This is not a traffic situation at all. Let's getting moving people. Stop PROCRASTINATING!!!!! 132. John Vahey Mattituck, NY This facility is urgently needed on the North Fork, and we are lucky that the developer is local, and has proven to be responsible and sensitive to the community. I urge the Town Of Southold to work with the developer and the community to expedite this project. 133. Rachel Johnson Cutchogue, NY 134. Elise Berkman Cutchogue, NY 135. Holly Fisher Mattituck, NY 136. Mary Cutler Mattituck, NY 138. Donna Goldense Southold, NY Page 8 - Signatures 111 - 138 Name From Comments I 139. Suzanne Laurel, NY We want sports east! Vegliante 140. Alyssa Reed Shoreham, NY 141. Liz Burns Southold, NY 142. Jim Ryan Greenport, NY 143. Carol Nakamoto Hampton Bays, NY 144. LINDSAY D Laurel, NY 145. Rebecca Jens Riverhead, NY 146. Cara Campbell Orient, NY 147. Amy Cipolla Brooklyn, NY Good health and fitness is something that should be available to all. People should not have to drive to a different town to achieve good Heath and fitness. 148. Anne Pawlowski Mattituck, NY 149. Catherine Abbott Mattituck, NY 150. Ethel McKenna Southold, NY I support the Sports East project. Once again the town has allowed a small group of residents decide what is best for everyone else. During the meetings about the project some of those against the project said that hat residents could swin at the complex LIU is building the n the SCCC campus in Riverhead. They broke ground on that complex last October. There has been no further progress on that complex. 151. Jessica Murphy Mattituck, NY 152. Derek Bossen Peconic, NY This is needed out here. The impact will be minimal on the community but the benefits will be enormous. 153. Elizabeth Fletcher Mattituck, NY this would be good for both young and old. 154. Charmaine Southold, NY Strabge 155. Monica Halpert Ny, NY LET'S GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!mi 156. Jolene Thompson South jamesport, NY This would be a great asset to our community, not only does it promote and active and healthy live style it gives our kids something to do. 157. Marc Lamaina Greenport, NY Would be a great for everyone. This would bring so many benefits to the North Fork... year round! 158. Dotti Stevens Greenport, NY 159. Mary Kirsch Mattituck, NY It would be a great pass time for the winter , our local residents ofages need this facility! 160. Molly Jernick Cutchogue, NY 161. Danielle Walker Greenport, NY 162. Gretchen Goodale Laurel, NY We need this in our community now! 163. J M Southold, NY Page 9 - Signatures 139- 163 . i 611 Name From Comments 164. Madeline Laurel, NY Sports east would provide a great environment for our Froehlich community and for families to engage in positive and healthy activities 165. Caroline Cutchogue, NY Manwaring 166. Sabrina Born Southold, NY 167. Julie Mazzaferro Greenport, NY 168. Philip Bianculli Southold, NY 169. Alexa Suess Greenport, NY 170. Mary Slovak Laurel, NY 171. Jaime Legault Manorville, NY 172. Michael Cooper Southold, NY 173. Anthony Jarrin Coral Gables, FL 174. Douglas Castoldi Mattituck, NY Jr 175. Elizabeth Christy Mattituck, NY I feel that Sports East is so necessary for our community. I love that the children will benefit from the facility, but I especially like the fact that we as senior citizens will have a place to help keep us healthy. We are so excited to see Sports East come to our hometown. 176. Cindy Wickham Mattituck, NY 177. Libby Koch Southold, NY 178. Robert Place Southold, NY We desperately need this for the North Fork community so badly. It will be a place for people of all ages-to engage in something healthy. 179. Greg Masem Mattituck, NY 180. Scott Dinizio East manon, NY 181. Karri-Lynn Dennis Riverhead, NY 182. debbie morris south jamesport, NY 183. Julien Eberle ingff, France 184. Peter Orlowski Mattituck, NY 185. Laura E Eydeler North Babylon, NY 186. Craig Fredricks Mattituck, NY 187. Jean Heimroth Aquebogue, NY 188. Maureen New Suffolk, NY I am definitely in favor of this going forward. However, Cacioppo believe it needs to be financially accessible to our community in order for the whole family to enjoy and exercise together. 189. Susan McKenna Cutchogue, NY 190. Eileen Benthal Riverhead, NY Page 10 - Signatures 164 - 190 Name From Comments 191. Christopher Rehm Riverhead, NY 192. Jon Schusteritsch Cutchogue, NY The north fork needs a place like this for our kids as well as our families. 193. Ewelina Mlot Peconic, NY 194. Deanne Glover Jamesport, NY 195: Elizabeth Palasek Rocky point, NY 196. Debra Horton Cutchogue, NY 197. andi parks cutchogue, NY 198. Erin Van Gelder Mattituck, NY 199. Nancy Torchio Cutchogue, NY 200. Carrie Rittberg Mattituck, NY This facility will be a benefit to our children and adults in our community. Please consider this for our future and the health of our population. 201. Lena Desantis Mattituck, NY 202. Victoria Johnson Greenport', NY 203. Chrissy W!Isberg Mattituck, NY A space where our kids can learn to work with others, build healthy bodies, and play is so necessary in our community! 204. Andres Puerta Greenport, NY Neeed Sports East 205. Jeanine Warns Cutchogue, NY Can't wait till it opens!!! 206. Nancy Dwyer Southold, NY 207. Cynthia Peconic, NY Cichanowicz 209. Jill Zappulla Laurel, NY WE SUPPORT SPORTS EAST!!!!!! 210. donna finnigan Aquebogue, NY 211. James Hinsch laurel, NY 212. Susanne Meehan Southold, NY 213. Trevor Zappulla Laurel, NY It's all about being ACTIVE and HEALTHY!!! 214. Robert Patchell Southold, NY 215. Brenda Walters Mattituck, NY 216. Aimee Horsburgh Greenport, NY 217. Joanne Handel East Meadow, NY 218. Steve Marsh New Suffolk, NY 219. Brian Reiss Southold, NY This community needs something like this badly! 220. Eileen Kapell Greenport, NY WE NEED SPORTS EAST! 221. Stephanie Mincieli Laurel, NY 222. Michelle Greenport, NY The kids need this out here Santacroce 223. Shane Alexander mattituck, NY 224. Dianne C Cutchogue, NY Page 11 - Signatures 191 -224 Name From Comments 225. Kimberly Palermo Riverhead, NY 226. Kelley Blanchard Southold, NY 227. Robert Taylor Cutchogue, NY 228. Frank Glover Jamesport, NY 229. Tracy Welch Greenport, NY We need something like this out here! There's nothing to do out here during the winter time. Our kids, even us as parents would enjoy the facility a lot! 230. Judy Blanchard Riverhead, NY 231. Devon Annabel Mattituck, NY 232. Tara Seifert Laurel, NY Sorry I can't attend the meeting but I would like to express my 100%full support for this project in our community. There is nothing but pure benefit for all our members 233. Frank Dellaquila Mattituck, NY 234. Daniel Cutchogue, NY This is an absolute necessity for the East End of North Stasiukieiwicz Fork. I grew up in the 90s out there. Wish we had this when I was a kid, I would have drank less beer and lit off less fireworks. Dan 235. MaryGrace Finora Laurel, NY This is definitely needed in our community. 236. Mary Lynn Hoeg Mattituck, NY 237. Paul Pawlowski Mattituck, NY 238. Lisa Murray Greenport, NY 239. Kate Moisa Mattituck, NY 240. Carmine Arpaia Cutchogue, NY Do the right thing for kids for once 241. Scott Czujko Mattituck, NY 242. Joseph Aiello Mattituck, NY Great O O Can't wait!!! 243. Christine Klipstein Southold, NY 244. Chelsea Chalone Mattituck, NY 245. Megan Kruszeski Greenport, NY 246. Matt Shaw New York, NY Please make this happen! 247. Stacy Young Mattituck, NY 248. Ilana Finnegan Mattitick, NY 249. Caitlin Kapell Greenport, NY 250. Hailey Schadt Southold, NY 251. Sarah Olsen Cutchogue, NY 252. Margaret Byrnes 'Laurel, NY Sports East would be the best thing to happen to Southold town in a very long time !!! 253. Julia Kiely Mattituck, NY 254. Gloria Saavedra Greenport, NY The community needs this! 255. Lauren Kollen Southild, NY Page 12 - Signatures 225-255 Name From Comments 256. , Sue Connolly Southold, NY 257. Shannan Maida Riverhead, NY 258. Mary Mott Cutchogue, NY 259. Joanna Lane Cutchogue, NY 260. david horton brooklyb, NY peasants unite against the elites... capitalism for the masses 261. Adrienne Rehm Mattituck, NY 262. Don Connolly Southold, NY 263. Chris Rehm Mattituck, NY 264. Robert DiGregorio Cutchogue, NY 265. Ann Griffiths Orient, NY 266. Douglas Conklin Southold, NY 267. Erin Frohnhoefer Mattituck, NY 268. Michelle Rempe Southold, NY 269. Brian Becker southold, NY This is needed for our community, young to seniors, going to SCCC is not an alternative. 270. George Navarro Brentwood, NY 271. Olivia Stein Riverhead, NY 272. Bob Tapp Greensboro, NC This is a huge bonanza for the North Fork community. 273. Timothy Cutchogue, NY It's imperative to give the youth of the East end something MacDonald productive to do in the winter months. 274. Joseph Aiello Mattituck, NY Much needed for the children and familys on the north fork!! 275. Joseph Fuchs Cutchogue, NY We need this facility, the benefits far outweigh any of the self-serving objections I've heard! 276. Pauline Meehan Long Island City, NY 277. Deborah Zuhoski Mattituck, NY 278. Linda Owen Greenport, NY 279. Kim Shaw New York, NY 280. Sarah Perez Wading river, NY 281. Jane Kreiling Cutchogue, NY 282. Lucas Kosmynka Cutchogue, NY 283. John Kalin Flanders, NY It will greatly enhance the pool of available extra curricular activities of east end schools! 284. Allison Ford Southold, NY 285. Jamie Kalin Flanders, NY 287. Sallyann Gray Southold, NY This would be great for the kids! 288. Karen Hokanson Southold, NY 289. Joanna Mazzella Peconic, NY Page 13 - Signatures 256-289 Name From Comments 290. Sharon Cutchogue, NY Schoenstein 291. Molly Waitz Mattituck, NY 292. Cade Patchell laurel, NY 293. Lisa Salmon Mattituck, NY This would be an amazing benefit for the community and provide the town with health and wellness opportunity and kids to have a place to go and meet people and live healthy. We need this in the town and it will provide employment opportunities and a place for adults and seniors to go as well and be healthy and improve their wellness. This has amazing benefits for everyone and should be developed without a question. ' 294. Connie Tobin Southold, NY This would be a tremendous asset to our community and more importantly for our children 295. Jennifer Mattituck, NY Nemschick 296. Lorraine Warren Mattituck, NY 297. Nicole Mercurio Mattituck, NY ; 298. Dan Russo, Mattituck, NY 299. Stacy Paetzel Cutchogue, NY My daughter has had trouble finding a sport she loves, but wishes she could be on a swim team, but unfortunately, that's not currently an option for her. She's in 6th grade at Cutchogue East, and it is my hope that she will be able to enjoy this community center before she is grown up! It is my hope that Town officials will so what they are able to support this project. 300. Jeannie Malone Jamesport, NY 301. Colleen Hughes Greenport, NY This is really needed! All of our children have nothing to do come winter time. And as a parent this would be an outlet for them, instead of just idling around. 302. Liz S Southold, NY The benefits for all in our community is immeasurable. 303. Olivia Leitch Southold, NY 304. Maille Mcdermott Mattituck, NY 305. Erin Schule Wading River, NY I grew up in mattituck and graduated from MHS in 1992. We never had the opportunity to experience a sports center like this. Others had to travel to find sports clubs. This is a wonderful idea to benefit the community. 306. Jilian Deerkoski Southold, NY 307. Tim Radin Cutchogue, NY 308. Shawn Williams Mattituck, NY 309. Rich Albanese Southold, NY We need it—move,our community forward please 310. Lori Miller Jamesport, NY 311. Peter Mcguire Cutchogue, NY Page 14 - Signatures 290 -311 Name From Comments l t UIY� 312. Matthew Rolle Riverhead, NY 313. Kerri Chituk Laurel, NY We think as a young family that this proposal would add greatly to the kids and adults of the community and their health. It's always great to have fun things to do close by. 314. Melissa Southold, NY We need a place like this for both adults and kids Hyatt-DeSimone 315. V. R. Mattituck, NY 316. Amy Prager Mattituck, NY Sports East will be great for our kids, our families and our community! Please continue to fight for this community project to come to fruition! 317. Barbara Reuschle Reuschle, NY 318. Sherri Demchuk Mattituck, NY Our community needs this facility !!! 319. Barbara Cutchogur, NY Domaleski 320. Brad Tyler New Suffolk, NY 321. Adrienne Weber Cutchogue, NY Seniors desperately need this mostly for water therapy and arthritis issues. 322. Aron Schwartz Cutchogue, NY THE NOFO NEEDS more facilities 323. SUSAN Toman SOUTHOLD, NY Our Families and Youth need a healthy place to play to have healthy interaction and this sports complex offers this;there will be opportunities for all, no matter their economic status. In a time where there is the largest epidemic of heroin killing youth -this should not even need a petition to be moved forward - if anything we should have more places and programs that promote healthy recreation and socialization. 324. Janice White Deer park, NY 325. Danielle Mattituck, NY It is essential that our community have something like this Stepnoski for the public to use. It not only will give youth another outlet to exercise but also adults and the entire North Fork as a whole. Growing up here, I have learned that community programs such as this sports facility will only have a positive impact. Creating a public good such as this one also can cut costs for individuals who cannot afford pricey gym memberships as it will be afforded by taxes. Not only that, but it can be intimidating for individuals to join small gyms and this will provide the oppurtunity for those to freely exercise without judgement. 326. Jill Dinizio East marion, NY 327. Mark Timmins Southold, NY `This community needs more recreational facilities for our -community to gather, commune, compete and exercise. 328. joanne Bennett huntington station, NY Page 15 - Signatures 312-328 Name From Comments 329. Jennifer Mattituck, NY This is a much needed facility. I'm not sure who really McNamara needs it more because everyone would benefit from Sports East. 330. Alison O'Malley Cutchouge, NY 331. Laura Mott Cutchogue, NY 332. Rahul kumar hyderabad, India 333. Siobhan O'Neill Brooklyn, NY 334. Rose Connolly Southold, NY Such potential for strengthening body and mind of our local community!! 335. George Giannaris Cutchogue, NY 336. Joseph Green East Moriches, NY Thank you for doing this-there is so such good that can happen by your success. 337. Lynn Eckhardt Southold, NY 338. Dina Reilly Southold, NY 339. Maureen Brisotti Cutchogue, NY 340. Toni R mattituck, NY 341. Victoria CristinA Brooklyn, NY It will give more students the opportunity to be able to participate 342. Donna Mosquera Southold, NY I may not use the facility but I think it's a great idea and much needed on the north fork 343. Russ Magnussen mount sinai, NY 344. Maureen Davomo Orient, NY 345. Christina Lindsay Cutchogue, NY 346. Michael Cutchogue, NY Lademann 347. Laurel Kolsby Greenport, NY 348. Paola Aiello Mattituck, NY 349. Denise Mahon Mattituck, NY 350. James Gilbert Mattituck, NY 351. Kim Garcia Mattituck, NY 352. Kevin Mahon Mattituck, NY 353. Megan Conklin Mattituck, NY 354. alfred delaney mattituck, NY 355. Polina Kemper Deerfield Beach, FL 356. Lauren Gilbert Mattituck, NY I am a North Fork native, grew up here and am now lucky enough to be raising my family here. As crime and drugs have become more prevalent here we need to step up as a community and bring more positive things to our hometown. We need to give the kids more things to do so (continues on next page) Page 16 - Signatures 329 -356 Name From Comments 356. Lauren Gilbert Mattituck, NY (continued from previous page) they can focus on the good and not fall into the bad. The kids need this, the community needs this. Do the right thing and make this happen. 357. Maureen Q Cutchogue, NY 358. Anne Hack Port Jefferson Station, NY 359. Joe Sieczka Mattituck, NY 360. Karen Danzer Southold, NY 361. Dylan Glover Jamesport, NY Please! 362. Janelle Gerle Cutchogue, NY 363. Robyn Cox Mattituck, NY 364. Susan Duff Riverhead, NY This is so important to the community. 365. David Hoffman New York, NY I am a weekend resident in Southold where I own a home. 366. Irina Phillips Mattituck, NY 367. Joseph Basani East,marion, NY 368. Megan Gevinski Cutchogue, NY 369. angela dwyer southold, NY 370. John Hickey Greenport, NY 371. Susanne Southold, NY Messana 372. Susanne nigro Huntington, NY Please consider all the children to benefit from,this. 373. kaitlin liegey huntington, NY 374. Brian McNamara MATTITUCK, NY 375. theresa gillan garden city, NY 376. Molly Kowalski Mattituck, NY 377. Leigh Dowden Laurel, NY 378. James Cox Mattituck, NY 379. Denise EI Chaar Cutchogue, NY WE-NEED A WINTER SPORTS FACILITY FOR OUR KIDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 380. felix bialeski mattituck, NY this would be a great benefit to all of our community. 381. Jennifer Italia Mattituck, NY 382. Samantha Gavin Riverhead, NY 383. Paula Doka Southold, NY 384. Pasqualina Southold, NY This will be a great benefit to everyone in the community. Berkowitz 385. CLARISSE Orient, NY we miss sports plus...lets bring some good to our town! ARMSTRONG keep kids off the streets!! Page 17 - Signatures 356-385 Name From Comments 386. christine Huntington Station, columbano NY 387. Brian Tobin Southold, NY 388. Mariana Lukacova Moldava nad Bodvou, Slovakia 389. Kathleen Goggins Southold, NY I so want an indoor pool for winter swimming. Our town Nickles has wanted one for years and there is always an obstacle. A sports center provides a goal oriented center for our youth. And our old folks as well. Very necessary. 390. Taylor New York, NY Gildersleeve-Black 391. Mike Breheny Aquebogue, NY Desperately needed ! 393. Kerry Ruggi Southold, NY We are new parents and moved to Southold to raise our family. Both my husband and I were on D1 athletics teams in college and could only have reached that level of competition with the infrastructure for athletics we each leveraged in our respective communities. We Need this type of facility to expand opportunities for our kids for their health and future. 394. Vicki Stern Woodstock, NY What good be better. Exercise is THE#1 stress buster. Stress leads to all kinds of destructive behavior. 395. Maria Zahra Mattituck, NY 396. Syd Dufton Cutchogue, NY 397. Virginia Motto Laurel, NY 398. Steve Haggerty Laurel, NY 399. Carissa Booker Calverton, NY 400. Thomad Coscetta Southold, NY Wanted by the public 401. Jeannette Judge Southold, NY 402. Kathleen Delaney Mattituck, NY I seems that all that gets build here is for the tourist not the residents. Our kids need a Sports East. 403. Kathy Driscoll Mattituck, NY Our community needs this complex for all ages. It will benefit everyone. It will give the children a place to meet to be physically active and engaged with each other in a safe environment. 404. Victoria Eddings Massapequa Park, NY 405. Amy Kiely Mattituck, NY Let's do this 406. Susan and Don Cutchogue, NY The residents of this community need and want this McAllister 407. Joe Slovak Laurel, NY 408. Alicia Hamilton Cutchogue, NY 409. Jessica Santiago Jamesport, NY Page 18 - Signatures 386- 409 Name From Comments 410. Joann Demarsico Southold, NY 411. John L Feldmann Cutchogue I, NY 412. Lisa Shevlin Miller place, NY 413. Robert Leighton Mattituck, NY Senior Citizens for Sports East! 414. Kathleen Kubacki Riverhead, NY 415. Courtney Mcguire Sputhold, NY 416. Maegan Boger New York, NY 417. Christopher Ruggi Southold, NY 418. Joanne Hiney Southold, NY 419. William and Jan Mattituck, NY Such a wonderful idea! Morris 421. Pam Moore Bohemia, NY 423. Joann Nickich Cutchogue, NY 424. Dantre Langhorne Greenport, NY I'm a basketball player! Love all sports. During the winter there is no place to really play with my buddies! This would be a great place to do that. 425. Dylan Solo Southold, NY Much needed please! 427. Katherine Graham Mamaroneck, NY 429. Diane Ammirati Mattituck, NY This is greatly needed for people of all ages!!!! 430. Kate Moore Southold, NY 431. Laura Ruggiero Bronx, NY 432. Ryan Case MATTITUCK, NY 433. Jill Chichotky Baiting Hollow, NY 434. Wendy Fisher Riverhead, NY 435. Barry Berkman Mattituck, NY really a terrific proposal--would enhance the quality of life for so many in the community! 436. Jacqueline Laurel, NY We want Sports East for OUR children who live here ALL Zappulla year!!! 437. Janet Hands Orient, NY The positives for this project far outweigh the negative. Please don't give up we need this facility! 438. Alison Clark Atlanta, GA 439. Eric Linker cutchogue, NY I hope there is a pool for diving and swimming lessons and ability to practice baseball in the winter months. 440. Stephanie Shelter Island, NY Montgomery 441. Elisa Musitano Huntington, NY 442. Sterling Smiley Greenport, NY 443. Matt McCarthy Albany, NY - 444,. Eileen Cushman Mattituck, NY Page 19 - Signatures 410 -444 Name From Comments 445. Jennifer Mcgreevy Peconic, NY We need something for the young people in our area it won't cause too much traffic no more than pumpkins 446. Cory Dolson Ridge, NY 447. Emmie Karam Southold, NY I would have preferred a Y, but that is not to be. We need something like this on the North Fork. Families and individuals have to waiting while people argue and gnash their teeth! Let's think about what the people want and what families need. 448. Aileen Bloom Huntington Station, NY 449. Linda Mercurio Mattituck, NY 450. Cristina Kazan Mattituck, NY the North Fork needs Sports East. 451. Patricia Burns Cutchogue, NY 452. Erin Kaelin Southold, NY 453. Joseph McCarthy Southold, NY 454. Robert Fisher Cutchogue, NY This facility would be a wonderful addition to the North Fork. Lets put in a facility that can help people stay healthy. Kids need it, working adults need it, seniors need it. Swimming, a fitness center, tennis and field sports, this will be a great addition to our community. 455. victor Rerisi Greenport, NY 456. Joseph Mattituck, NY Bendowski 457. Audrey Dwyer Cutchogue, NY 458. Mary Kalich Mattituck, NY This is a very needed resource for the health and well-being of our community. 459. a Fishbein Aquebogue, NY This sure beats another seven eleven. A state of the art gym would be great to have just a couple of miles away and afterwards I could get a pizza at michaelangelos 460. Stephen Laurel, NY O'Shaughnessy 461. Erick Haas Mattituck, NY 462. Brian Green new suffolk, NY 463. Greg Couch Mattituck, NY This is a no brainer project with these guys willing to outlay the monies to make it happen. We travel 30 miles west to this type of facility multiple times a week. This is needed and would be greatly supported by the local sports community. 464. Sean Charters Greenport, NY It's a shame we don't have something like this already. 465. Noreen Fisher Cutchogue, NY 466. Tom Stevenson Orient, NY add my name to the list of supporters for Sports East Page 20 - Signatures 445-466 �q7 b Name From Comments 467. Patricia Gallagher Mattituck, NY This is a win-win opportunity for everyone, especially our seniors! I truly hope Sports East is approved. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 468. Eileen Talbot Mattituck, NY Great fascility for all ages. 469. Michael Warlan New Suffolk, NY 470. Richard Kohut Greenport, NY 471. Lady Perdigon Laurel, NY Mccarthy 472. John Spellman New suffolk, NY I support sorts east 473. Robert Fabio Cutchogue, NY Let's get this sports complex built instead of focusing and stuff that doesn't matter. Let's keep the North Folk a place where people have facilities and want to raise families 474. Eve Hansen Cutchogue, NY 475. Jaime Martilotta Greenport, NY 476. Amy Cirincione Mattituck, NY Our community needs this for our children. 477. david mineo Mattituck, NY 478. Chris Larkin Greenport, NY 479. Liz Laurel, NY My husband & I recently made our Laurel home our O'Shaughnessy primary residence. We would have loved to move here fulltime years ago but both my children were on a quest to play D1 lacrosse and there simply were not the facilities out here to achieve that goal. They both attended top notch universities on scholarships. As empty nesters now we would love access to a exercise facility for ourselves and more importantly so that future generations will be able to compete with their peers further west. We 100% believe that keeping busy and involvement in sports is a huge advantage in keeping kids off the drugs that are so prevalent in our society today. 480. Sanford Friemann New Suffolk, NY IT IS LONG OVERDUE TO HAVE SUCH A STATE OF THE ART FACILITY THAT APPEALS TO EVERYONE 481. James Zappulla Laurel, NY 482. Rommel Reyes East Marion, NY 483. Katie Linkner Evergreen, CO My family summers in the area and we want this facility for our children to enjoy. 484. Susan Bloom Laurel, NY Any facility that will provide activities for children and teens and keep them away from drugs should be supported. There is little for children do do here in the winter especially 485. Erik Daly Cutchogue, NY 486. Ami Opisso Mattituck, NY 487. Matt Opisso Mattituck, NY A much needed facility and great for our children! Page 21 - Signatures 467-487 Name From Comments 488. Nancy Swett Jamesport, NY I'm not a resident of Southold Town, but I live 5 mins away from this proposed facility. I implore the Town of Southold and the developers/developers to continue to work together to come up with a plan everyone can agree to. This is a much needed community amenity for the health and happiness of families here. There isn't enough for young people to do, those of us who try to exercise here in agritourism country roads take our lives into our hands, and residents need and deserve some consideration here. Thanks to all who are getting behind this project! 489. M Daniel Kelly Cutchogue, NY 490. Abigail Corrigan Mattituck, NY 491. Maria Smith Mattituck, NY 00 Looking forward to swimming without driving forever , thank you so much for thinking about others good luck. I am with you 492. Jack Breese Southold, NY I strongly endorse the Sports East project. This is a gift to the North Fork, the town has a responsibility to make this happen for all residents. 493. joanna campo Riverhead, NY Looking forward to a close to home tennis facility. 494. Michael Reed Greenport, NY 495. Tisha Burrows Mattituck, NY 496. Rose Anasagasti Southold, NY 497. Denise Chuisano East Marion, NY 498. Elizabeth Finne Cutchogue, NY 499. lori ruthinoski southold, NY we live in paradise 3 months a year. What is there for the kids to do the rest of the year. We have 2 skate parks in southold town for only a hand full of teens. A pool would be used by hundreds! Please!!!! 500. John Kramer Greenport, NY Been waiting for this for 30 years!! 501. Lucy Steele Orient, NY Tennis courts at last! How could we not have had something like this before now? 502. Joe Wysocki Orient, NY Approve this ASAP so they can build this much needed facility! 503. David Perrin Mattituck, NY 504. Alan Kahn Cutchogue, NY 505. Nicole Haggerty Laurel, NY 506. Jaclyn Hinderliter Mattituck, NY 507. Theresa Connell Southold, NY The pool and sports complex will be an asset for the whole community. Many thanks to all those who work to make this a reality. 508. Judy Thilberg Mattituck, NY 509. Cheryl Polak Riverhead, NY We need this. Page 22 - Signatures 488-509 Name From Comments 510. Joe Wiederman Greenport, NY 511. Cynthia Kaminsky Mattituck, NY 512. ali Oakes Bernardsville, NJ 513. VIRGINIA CUTCHOGUE, NY SUROZENSKI 514. Jeannette Mattituck, NY We've needed this for a long time !!!!!! Olmsted 515. Sandy Sonta Dix hills, NY 516. Wendy Zuhoski Mattituck, NY I support Paul P. 517. Jennifer Fowler Peconic, NY 518. Janique Nine Mattituck, NY 519. Regan Batuello Cutchogue, NY 520. Dave Kapell Greenport, NY 521. Anthony Laurel, NY Rutkowski 522. Candee Ulmet Riverhead, NY 523. Kate Bicknell Southhold, NY 524. Laurie Johnson Mattituck, NY 525. Michael Wiggin Riverhead, NY I need a local facility with an indoor pool for therapy from cancer surgery. I've been in favor of this site since day one and wasn't too surprised when it appeared to be shot down. 526. Elizabeth Murphy Mattituck, NY This is a project that will benefit the whole community- please find a way to not only approve it but to actively support it. 527. Curtis Dwyer Southold, NY 528. Patricia Hocker Southold, NY 529. Maura Mcfeely Saugerties, NY 530. Chris Giunta Wading River, NY 531. Jacqueline Cutchogue, NY Berkoski 532. Arline Wiederman Greenport, NY We have nothing remotely close to this out here, what are we supposed to do when it's not beach weather ? This would offer fun, safe alternatives for young and old alike 533. Jacqueline southold, NY Ruggles 534. Allan Schule Wading River, NY 535. Ellen Coster Mattituck, NY A wonderful venue for all ages 536. Carol Czujko Mattituck, NY 537. todd plymale mattituck, NY Page 23 - Signatures 510 -537 Name From Comments 538. Kyle Freudenberg Mattituck, NY 539. Elizabeth B Cutchogue, NY We need Sports East! It will be great for our community! 540. Gina Tyler New suffolk, NY We need this for our community! 541. Nan Schade Southold, NY Southold Town needs this project to move forward !! 543. Catherine Cutchogue, NY Pearsall 544. Jason Luhrs Southold, NY 545. Betty Friemann Cutchogue, NY This would be the best future for our community. Adults Familes Kids. Betty 546. Allan Connell Southold, NY We desperately need a 25 meter pool on the north fork so that people can do laps 547. Jeanmarie DiNoto Southold, NY I have written a letter to the editor which appeared in the Suffolk times supporting Sports East, and have attended a meeting at Village Hall. I very much wan this to be approved. 548. Raymond Conklin Cutchogue, NY Everyone is searching for answers to the drug epidemic. Exercise (particularly swimming) can be a positive addiction to take the place of negative ones. 550. Rani Peck Southold, NY 551. Mary Pinker Southold, NY I have health issues and swimming gives me lots of relief. 552. Filiz Reed Riverhead, NY 553. Denise Calderone Baiting Hollow, NY 554. Mike Hughes Mattituck, NY 555. Bernadette Moran Riverhead, NY A sports center would benefit all ages on the North Fork 556. susan Halladay Mattituck, NY 557. Jennifer Case Mattituck, NY 558. Suzie Auer Mattituck, NY Southold needs a place for usevtobuse during the winter 559. Shirley Sieverman East Marion, NY 560. Lisa Vicinanza Southold, NY 561. Tom McCaffery Mattituck, NY What better way to keep our children and community involved in healthy activities! 562. Erik McKenna Cutchogue, NY 563. Drew Fohrkolb Mattituck, NY 564. Wendy Carley Southod, NY 565. Honore' Mcllvain Cutchogue, NY Super! 566. dennis warner mattituck, NY 567. Chris Tomiatti Southold, NY I have been hoping for a pool on the North Fork for a long time. Having a proper size pool for swimming and water aerobics/exercise year round is wonderful.for all ages. For (continues on next page) Page 24 - Signatures 538 -567 61-7� Name From Comments 567. Chris Tomiatti Southold, NY (continued from previous page) the young a place to be. For others with different physical issues, swimming is wonderful. 568. Aidan Walker Southold, NY 569. James Fogarty Cutchogue, NY This project will benefit all age groups in town, and provide youth activities which we have been talking about for decades. Town planners and developers should work together to streamline this project. We finally have something that everyone seems to want. It improves or quality of life. Get er done! 570. Joe Read Southold, NY 571. Alex Mitrotasios Southold, NY We need this 572. Carol Beaugard Southold, NY 573. Andrew Folts Cutchogue, NY There is nothing like this on our side of the island and it would benefit our children and community. Don't let the syndrome of"not in my back yard" cause this project to fail. 574. Robert Feger Greenport, NY A project like this is long overdue on the North Fork. 575. Lara McNeil Greenport, NY As a dietitian-nutritionist I encounter so many North Forkers that would truly benefit from the low impact exercise that a pool offers. As someone else said, don't let the "not in my backyard" mentality squash this much needed project. 576. Susan Duffin Cutchogue, NY Our kids desperately need a place like this to go to. 577. Dale Moyer Mattituck, NY 578. Kerri Arm Westhampton Beach, The health benefits of swimming are many. Would be great NY to bring that opportunity to many that don't wish to maintain a pool at home 579. TJ Mazzaferro Southold, NY 580. Sharon Wren Southold, NY We desperately need an indoor pool! 581. Keri Pearsall Cutchogue, NY 582. Janet Auer Southold, NY 583. Ginny Bergen Southold, NY 584. Judy Riedel[ East Marion, NY 585. Brendan Walsh Mattituck, NY 586. Charlotte Jungblut Southold, NY Availability of a indoor pool year round would be fantastic. 587. William McFeely Brooklyn, NY 588. Denisr Gagen Southold, NY 589. Ann Finora Mattituck, NY 590. Allison Mehan Cutchogue, NY 591. Daniel De Mato Cutchogue, NY This town needs this facility Page 25 - Signatures 567-591 Name From Comments 592. Cheryl Schneider Cutchogue, NY WE NEED THIS!!! 593. Lisa Tooker Laurel, NY This would be fantastic for our community! It would also keep young minds busy instead of being brought down by local boredom. 594. Ellen Ramirez Seaford, NY 595. Sue Given New suffolk, NY 596. Doug Corrigan Mattituck, NY" This is a no brainer. Let's get this passed, and build , something that benefits all age groups. Kids in sports, stay out of courts. Let's go!! 597. Jay Wickham Mattituck, NY 598. Gail Tiska-Flurry New Suffolk, NY Very much needed in this area 599. Jane Mulrain Mattituck, NY Let them build this I! We need it. 600. Robin Mccarthy Riverhead, NY 601. Lisa Massoud Riverhead, NY 602. John Wasniewski New york, NY We summer in the NF and having a sports facility would be a great addition to the community. 603. Faye Reynolds Mattituck, NY 604. Jane Flinter Mattituck, NY 605. Jean M Osmer Southold, NY 606. Tim Mcmanus Cutchogue, NY 607. Tom cahill Cahill Mattituck, NY Sorely needed 608. Marylou Cahill Mattituck, NY A heathy option for the community. People of all ages will enjoy this facility. 609. Nancy Reeve Mattituck, NY Could enjoy winter tennis on the north fork 610. Scott Worth Laurel, NY 611. Patricia Lowry New Suffolk, NY 612. Helen Tynan Southold, NY 613. Wayne Phillips Mattituck, NY 614. Dina Lawson Mattituck, NY This project is long overdue. Our kids have nothing to do. Perhaps this could prevent future drug,use 615. Alexandra O'Mara Cutchogue, NY What possible valid reason could there be to stop this project? It will be a wonderful addition to our community. 616. Kevin O'Mara Cutchogue, NY 617. gary nolan cutchogu, NY This community certainly would benefit! 618. Corey Solinger Mattituck, NY 619. , FREDDY CUTCHOGUE, NY MARKHAM 620. Packy Markham South Boston, MA 621. Kathleen McCabe Southold, NY Southold Town residents deserve this facility!! Page 26 - Signatures 592- 621 Name From Comments 622. Deborah Roth Southold, NY There are many reasons to keep this: promoting year-long health and fitness for all ages in a safe environment. I want to provide as many positive and enriching opportunities to keep us all safe, healthy and engaged in our community. This facility would help make it easier for me to stay in Southold town as my family grows. 623. Daniel Southold, NY I want this facility badly as well as my family. Mendelsohn 624. Norine Southold, NY Pennacchia 625. Gail and George Southold, NY Seniors in particular need a place to exercise and workout Starkie and swim in an indoor environment . Please do this for all of us finally 626. Ellen Wiederlight New Suffolk, NY 627. John Hansen Southold, NY 628. F Marc New Suffolk, NY A facility like this is long overdue for the north fork Wiederlight 629. Laura Zehil Southold, NY 630. Theodora Laurel, NY I believe this complex would be a wonderful addition to our Marangas community for all ages. Hope we have foresight to add to our community.... 631. Barbara Meyran Mattituck, NY 632. ERIC HUBBARD CUTCHOGUE, NY I think this will me a good thing 633. Leslie Benway Mattituck, NY 634. Jennifer Mauro Riverhead, NY A facility like this would be a great addition to the communities of the east end. We often have to travel to get to participate in these activities, this would allow us to spend more time in the place we call home and bring others to here as well. 635. Moira and Mike Southold, NY This would be a wonderful assest to our community! Goscinski 636. Merry Lou Minnick Laurel, NY This would be a great addition for the community 637. Tim Clark Greeport, NY 638. Joan Woods Hampton Bays, NY 639. Robert Paasch Mattituck, NY 640. Heather Campbell Orient, NY This would be fantastic for the community's kids and teenagers Page 27 - Signatures 622- 640 BOARD MEMBERS OF SCUT Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson �� plo 53095 Main Road• P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Eric Dantes Office Location: Gerard P.Goehringer G Q Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank George Horning �p ® ae' 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider CQuffm Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631) 765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 December 1, 2016 Heather Lanza Planning Department Town of Southold Re: ZBA Application#6976, Southold Town Planning Board Dear Heather; Transmitted for your records is a copy of the Board's December 1, 2016 Findings, Deliberations and Determination, the original of which was filed with the Town Clerk regarding the above application for interpretation. If you have any questions,please call the office. Sincer y, Ki E. Fuentes Zoning Board Assistant Encl. cc: Building Dept. MATCH SEE SEE SEC NO 114 _LINE k,, Poi �'4D \gd1 I o-00— Jas — 02y4 c �3 yV ` 1.4 a sca 16 IA(c) 1 -�j"� � Eb pG� lel-CAI �Y1ll�i� � +^ � ^ ccb 15 ,J 16 41 446 i 17 J^ ...�.r 23.2 , 18 9 / CL `f r1 he- rP as raT ry`o •� g 'p` 19g •7" ! J ab 'e "., aS`��r'b�s O 's .O a ,5 " r• 20 " W y o rs, ¢/ 25 2 Z. ,BA(c)—">"> 9CF•59^se`•Ca 21 PIP �s / �• �'� ���'+ m+o�'31; `, ^�^'� —� ! ( � y� = 9�( n z d �m a% s' 'ss >z, � �(V�. � e ,�, y'�;+• rho 1� l rX,ry- v ii y „b 'n 'n •' °' - y 3y 1V \ P IV I�) ,^/ /��/ 9 S 36.4 rVa'""+ qe .p �.. —+f' 0 $ C 1— "14a�j 26 �28 A 29 30 31m 32 me � � xI 14.3A(c) 1 LEGION 1RD $ (5oy /COUNTY OR.--j 7, s 37nz B 48 SUFF3 1�(c)m � � � OjCf �C � I{^ I ^g 38 e 6 x I i 4 1O�G�dgP 6 �JJ I �l 1 6 i' bC 19A .�8�$" g Ill — � {'�^ � a 0 / �f ` s 9 - 10 14Lk �1 19 �(41f 2 �.r. J j N ON 221 \ 7.SA / te� 23 XN 13 8A(c) TOWN OF 9 SOUTHOLD CR ryh 208A Y• '�Nav,ERuwt 1 \ Q 0a m 7Q` G>- 68 66 s" L9 67 O 3y 1.0A(C) 7 � f a +. 41 cl+ �cl d SAP\' 89 518A 19 s _py FOR PCL NO 9F SEE SEC NO 12000019 —————————————Z---------------------- 7 LINE n1ArcH—Z LINE SEE SEC NO.126 / 9tlim1[NgE Um --SW-- HrtlnN 06NG Wn --H-- IINLf550fUlnN O1HERMSE ALLPROPERRES NOTICE COUNTY OF SUFFOLKO FRE YFTMN THE FOLLOMNOOSTRICTS /y�y C fhF[Ia,M Lx ——F—— Rv,u.e Oacl Lew ——R—— SHWOOL 11 O S1ER yA+/n (�-w J'Y MNNTENANCE ALTERATION SALE OR Real Property Tax Service Agency µyl.y p.,�a yq --W-- Dulny ln.e --HST-- E •n TI DISTRIBUON OFANY PORTION OF THE uo.r ` county Center Riverhead,N Y 17901 SUFFOLKCOUNTY TA%NAP19PROHIBr1ED—GUT—EN PER—SION OF THEe.a:.v __....-o....._..F,...,_..____.._...�..__,�.....:....-��..-. ...._ .-�,.-....k�,...;s.__'-".___....,.,..,»:.i.,:.:... ._...._...._.._,w_.....M.... ............�.....,.__,.:._�W ...._......�.�...�°.~.w�.�. .w..,_m....w....,...._._,..__.. �sW......._.....�....__....»._v...._.�....._..