Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCostello, John A. 07/30/1985STATE OF NEWYORK ) ; SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ANNA T:~,T~T~A~ of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, 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 pub~iahed i? said Newspaper once each wea weeks successively, dayof Haroh ~3 ~5 t ANNM. ABATE, /~ ¢ / NOTARY ~BLIC, S~te ~f ;erin Ex~es March 30, [9~ Principal Clerk Sworn to before me thia 14~ da~of ~a~c~ 1~ 85 ANN M,A~TE '-/~ -- -- ~ . T~OTARY PUBLIC, S~te COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK ss: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for ................ /. ......... weeks successively, commencing on the / Sworn to before me this .......... ~ .~..~/. ..... day of .... ............ Notary Public BARBARA FORB~ Notary Public, State of New York Qu~lifi~ ~ Suffo~ Co~y ~mmission Expires M~ch 30, 19 ~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL ~TATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: March 11, :1985 APPLICANT: John Costello (formerly East End Associates) ADDRESS: 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 1.1944 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. PRO~JECT LOCATION: At the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48)' and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared 'on tl~is project and is on file. SE,Qt~ LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AV,~ILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Draft Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than April_,!4, '1985, C;ONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main' Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 JUDITH T..TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STA FISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: March 11, 1985 APPLICANT: John Costello (formerly East End Associa[es) ADDRESS: 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 1.1944 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. PROJECT LOCATION: At the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT:. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address lisl~ed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than April 14, :1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main~Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS OF JOHN COSTELLO (FORMERLY OF EAST END ASSOCIATES) LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK, BY THE ADJOINING INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GREENPORT LOCATION: 48.718 acres located within the Town of Southold at the southeast corner of the intersection of Moore's Lane and Middle Road (County Road 48) APPLI CANT: John A. Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 (516] 477-1393 As Successor in interest to East End Associates LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1800 PREPARER: DATE OF PREPARATION: Peconic Associates, Inc. Merlon E. Wiggin, PhD., President and Planners East Incorporated Arthur F. Brod, Jr., AICP, President One Bootleg Alley Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-0030 March 1985 JOHN A. COSTELLO 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 M~rch 11, 1985 ~s. Judith T. Terry S~uthold Tgwn Clerk Town Hall P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr s. Terry: In response to the T3wn Board's request of January 8, 1985, I am pleased to transmit fifteen (15) copies of the ~raft Environmental I%%pact Statement regarding the petition .for annexation of some 48.718 acres into the Incorporated Village of Gr eenpor t. Sincerely, J.%C: mgl cc: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Will,ams, DEC, Albany S~uthold Tgwn Building Dept. Southold Town Planning Board Tgwn Clerk ' s Bulletin Board Suffolk County Dept~. of Planning Suffolk CDunty Dept. of Health Services Village of Greenport William W. Esseks, Esq. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Sheet Letter of Transmittal SUMMARY 2.0 DESCRIPTI%N OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .1 Project Purpose and Need .2 Location of Proposed Annexation Parcel 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .1 The Natural Environment .11 Groundwater and Geology .12 Topography and Landform Page ii .13 Water Resources ................. 14 .14 Air Resources .................. 17 .i5 Terrestrial Ecology 18 .2 The Human or Built Environment ............ 20 .21 Transportation .22 Existing Land Use and Zoning .23 Community Facilities and Services .24 Demographic Factors .25 Cultural Resources 2~ 22 24 3~ 32 4.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION/MITIGATION MEASURES - - 33 .1 Impact on the Natural Environment 34 .11 34 .12 35 .13 35 .14 36 .15 .2 Impact on the Human or Built Environment Geology and Groundwater Topography and Landform Water Resources Air Resources Terrestrial Ecology ............... 36 .21 Transportation .22 Land Use .23 Community Facilities and Services .24 Demographic Factors .25 Cultural Resources 37 37 38 39 48 48 5.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS 49 .1 Alternatives to Annexation 49 .2 Alternatives to Proposed Development Program ..... 51 6.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENTS 54 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING iMPACTS ............... 56 8.0 EFFECT ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES - - 57 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1 - SURVEY MAP OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION PARCEL FIGURE 2 - WATER RESOURCE DATA 11 FIGURE 3 - WATER RESOURCE DATA 12 FIGURE 4 - WATER RESOURCE DATA FIGURE 5 - TOPOGRAPHIC MAP 13 15 INDEX OF APPENDICES APPENDIX NO. 1 - SEQR DOCUMENTATION - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD APPENDIX NO. 2 - DOCUMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER APPENDIX NO. 3 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING WATER SERVICES AND PUMPING RATES AND AVAILABILITY A-1 APPENDIX NO. 4 - LETTER FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPENDIX NO. 5 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING TAX REVENUES - - - APPENDIX NO. 6 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION A-4 A-5 A-6 APPENDIX NO. 7 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING PROTECTIVE SERVICES APPENDIX NO. 8 - LETTERS PROM GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE A-7 A-8 APPENDIX NO. 9 - INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION DATA A-9 Section 1.0 SUMMARY This Draft Environmental Impact Statement examines the proposed annexation of some 48.718 acres north and east of, and contiguous to, the Incorporated Village of Greenport by said Village from within the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold. The DEIS also examines the impact of the coincident placement of this parcel, once annexation is effected, within the R-1 Residence zoning classification of the Village of Greenport through consideration of a hypothetical l?0-1ot, 1/4 acre single-family residential development on the tract. The DEIS reviews the natural and built environment of the annexation parcel and concludes that the parcel is physically capable, properly-located, and with the potential for a full complement of municipal services -- water, electrical, sewer, schools, fire and police protection, etc. -- to undergo residential development of the type and density forecast without significant impact or detriment to natural or man-made systems, or the surrounding development and land uses. In particular, the demands for municipal water and sewer service vital to achieve the development objective of creating quality sites for affordable housing while protecting the natural environment are available and deliverable without significant impact on these Village utilities. 1 The DEIS further examines alternatives to the proposed annexation and coincident "downzoning" of the annexation parcel from its present RA, 2 acre, classification in the Town of Southold to its proposed R-l, 1/4 acre classification within the Village. These alternatives include the following: (1) developing the property fully consistent with the limitations afforded by its Town- outside-Village location and its 2-acre density control; (2) negotiating with the Village for water, sewer and electric service outside its incorporated limits; and (3) presumably in combination with Alternative 2, securing density relief from the Town of Southold through either an incredibly broad "area variance" or the rezoning of the property to a higher density. None of these alternatives achieve the development objective of providing well-planned, properly-serviced, conveniently-located, and affordable home sites near the Village of Greenport as effectively, and in such a responsive timeframe, as the proposed action of annexation/rezoning to R-1. Apart from the proposed action (annexation/rezoning to R-i) subject to this Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the DEIS briefly examines the potential for a mix of residential and commercial, non-retail development on the proposed annexation parcel. The DEIS notes that a planned development with residential and commercia!j non-retail uses would be attractive for it would be consistent not only with the "affordable housing" objective shared by the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold, but would also address the concern of both 2 municipalities that permanent job opportunities be created within the community. Pursuit of such a development approach would require, following the effective date of annexation, an application to the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees for either a rezoning of some portion of the 48.718 acre parcel from R-1 to C-G, General Commercial, or the addition of a "planned development" article to the Village's Zoning Ordinance and the project-specific consideration of the developer's proposal under the planned development rezoning and site plan review and approval procedure contained therein. The present Owner, John Costello, has acknowledged the requirement for further environmental review should such course be taken. Both the residential and commercial portions of the development will occur under design review and maintenance covenants. No tax abatement, except for veteran and senior citizens exemptions benefiting eligible residential property owners, will be sought by the developer. This annexation proposal, because of its size, character, and location, has unique and generally different environmental impacts than similar type developments. The proposed action, in summary, will result in~ lo An increase in affordable housing. 2. No increase in protective service staff and equipment. 3. No loss of farmland. 4. No significant pollution of groundwater. 5. A connection to Village supplied utility services - water, sewage, and electrical - within Village franchise areas and its existing plant capabilities. 6. An increase in tax revenues without a significant increase in demand for taxpayer provided services and a projected decrease in the school tax rate. ?. An increase in school population without a corresponding significant increase in facilities and operating costs. 8. Potential for job opportunities. 9. An increase in traffic volume that can be accommodated by the existing road and street networks. 10. Potential for developing a significant on-site source of potable water that would augment the Village's municipal water supply. Section 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION East End Associates submitted a petition on November 7, 1984, to the Southold Town Board in accordance with Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code. This petition requests the annexation of approximately 48.718 acres within the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. Upon such annexation, in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Greenport, the parcel would be zoned R-t Residence District. The Southold Town Board and Greenport Village Board conducted a public hearing on the annexation petition on December 6, 1984. On January 8, 1985, the Southold Town Board determined, in its role as lead agency, that the proposed annexation action is a Type I action that is "likely to have a significant effect on the environment". Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 NYCRR, the Southold Town Board advised the petitioner that the preparation and filing of a draft environmental impact statement would be necessary prior to further consideration of the annexation petition. See Appendix No. 1. John Costello acquired the subject parcel on February 15, 1985, and has become successor in interest to East End Associates. See Appendix No. 2. 2.1 Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed anneMation is to afford the prospective developer an opportunity to create well-planned, properly-serviced, conveniently-located, and affordable home sites near the Village of Greenport. These proposed sites would provide an opportunity for a younger family to find an affordable, municipally-serviced building lot so the family could remain on the North Fork, perhaps build their own home and contribute "sweat equity" as an important component in their housing investment, and increase both the labor force and the buying population for businesses in the eastern portion of the Town of Southold. Annexation into the Village will allow residential development to occur under the R-1 Residence District zoning requirements of the Village of Greenport, thus allowing an approximate density of 3.5 dwelling units per gross acre that is both appropriate with municipal water and sewer service while still being compatible with the desired character of a single-family residential neightborhood. Annexation will also permit the proposed residential lots to be developed with municipal water, sewer and electricity without incurring additional hook-up charges applicable to Town-outside-Village properties. These additional charges, estimated to be $4,3~.9~ per lot, coupled with greater land cost attributable to 2-acre zoning within the Town of Southold, make the objective of providing affordable housing 6 sites far less attainable were the parcel to remain within the unincorporated portion of the Town of $outhold. Annexation will also permit hook-up to electical, sewage, and water without petitioning for approval of service connections that are outside of the Incorporated Village. Historically, the time for approval of these requested utilitiy connections has been lengthy. 2.2 Location of Proposed Annexation Parcel The proposed 48.718 acre annexation parcel lies at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of County Road 48 (North Road) and the easterly side of Moore's Lane within the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold. The parcel is contiguous to the Incorporated Village of Greenport along its 1384.04 feet southerly boundary and its 1523.22 feet westerly boundary. The parcel is fully described by a survey prepared by Van Tuyl and Son, Licensed Land Surveyors, and dated May 7, 197~, and the metes and bounds description provided below (Figure No. 1) and as provided below. Ail that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, with the buildings and improvements thereon erected, situate, lying and being near the Village of Greenport, Town of Sothold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: C~ BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road, also known as Middle Road or County Route 48, with the easterly side of Moores Lane; RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes i0 seconds East, along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet~ RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees ~2 minutes 10 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 985.1~ feet~ RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road 312.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fteetfield". RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees 01 mimutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said last mentioned land 714.~4 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane~ RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING. Section 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Natural Environment The principal natural resources which contribute to the environmental setting or context of a particular site are its geology, topography and landform, water resources, air resources and terrestrial ecology. 3.11 Geology and Groundwater The geology of the proposed annexation parcel is considered typical of the geology found throughout $outhold Township. Upper Pleistocene deposits form the overall land mass of the North Fork, consisting of stratified sands and gravels with some thin beds of clay encountered. These Upper Pleistocene deposits range to approximately 200 feet below sea level. The sands and gravels are characterized as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipation periods. The upper levels of these Pleistocene deposits contain fresh water and are the primary source of Groundwater within the Town of Southold. [4ater table elevations within these deposits generally lie in the Greenport vicinity at 2 to 3 feet above mean sea level. Based upon a topographic analysis of the proposed annexation parcel, it can be assumed that the water table generally lies some 5 to 20 feet beneath this 48.718 acre tract, with an average depth to water table of approximately 15 feet encountered. See Figures 2, 3, and 4. 10 WELL FIELD' NO, WELL~ _~. II6785~ NO. I AREA C EASTERLY WATER LIMIT OF SERVICE Figure 3 IIMII IWOJOC lid lo NIII' b Ioxt b delcdpti~of S[CTI~ e.4, mO~ U~ u SECTION D-D' FROM LONG ISLAND SOUND 'TO GR£ENPORT HARBOR (AREA C) Figure #4 13 3.12 Topography and Landform The proposed annexation parcel is characterized as gently rolling, with elevations generally ranging from 8 feet above mean sea level at an isolated low point along its western, or Moore's Lane, boundary to some 22 feet in elevation in its northeast quadrant. Positive drainage occurs naturally throughout the site. See Topography Map, Figure No. 5. 3.13 Water Resources Groundwater, as previously discussed, is the principal water resource of concern in an area such as Long Island that has been classified by the EPA as being fully dependent upon a sole, or single, source for its potable water supply. This designation reinforces the in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities that are utilized to ensure that the groundwater not be contaminated by with point- or non-point source~ of pollution. The concern is even more critical in the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport for, unlike many other areas of Long Island, potable water supply is not available here from both the Glacial and Magothy aquifers~ water underlying Southold within the Magothy formation is generally too saline for potable use. 14 (,/ Figure Surface water resources within the vicinity of the proposed annexation parcel, though not contained within the parcel, are Moore's Drain and Silver Lake, located approximately 1~ feet to the southeast. Water quality classification for these surface waters has been established by NYS DEC as follows: - Moore's Drain (tidal portion) - Moore's Drain (non-tital portion) - Silver Lake SC D D Under the DEC water quality classification system, SC waters are described as "suitable for fishing and all other uses except for primary contact recreation and for the taking of shellfish for market purposes". Class D waters are termed "suitable for secondary recreation, but due to such natural conditions as intermittency of flow, water conditions not conducive to the propagation of game fishery, or stream bed conditions, the waters will not support the propagation of fish". While substantial areas of the Village of Greenport and its environs are designated as flood hazard areas by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the elevations present on the proposed annexation parcel cause it~to be located fully outside the flood hazard area. In addition, there are no designated wetlands on or immediately adjacent to the proposed annexation 16 parcel, though Several wetland areas have been identified by the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation within the vicinity. These wetland areas, subject to the permit authority of DEC, are as follows: - Silver Lake located to the southeast of the site, - much of the Moore's Woods/Moore's Drain area owned by the Village of Greenport; and - an area approximately .5 miles east of the parcel at the southwest corner of State Route 25 and County Road 48, just north of the Village of Greenport. 3.14 Air Resources The air quality throughout the North Fork is excellent due to the virtual absence of significant sources of air pollution, both stationary and mobile, and the excellent ventilation of the area attributable to the prevailing breezes present. No contravention of either national or New York State ambient air quality standards have been reported within the Town of Southold. The area is wholly designated as a Level I air quality zone by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. While DEC does not maintain an air sampling station within the Town of Southold, available data for other stations within similarly- designated Level I areas of Suffolk County indicate settleable particulate and suspended particulate measurements well below acceptable concentration. 17 3.15 Terrestrial Ecology The proposed annexation parcel i's characterized by secondary vegetation that has begun to reclaim an area of earlier agricultural crop and/or pasture use. The tree growth is young and sparse throughout most of the site, with some denser vegetation noted in its north, particularly along County Road 48. Species encountered include the following: - locust - maple - red cedar - grey birch - white birch - oak - poplar - pine Robinia pseudoacacia Acer sp. Juniperus virginia Betula populifdia Betula populifdia Quercus velutina Populus Pinus The maple, poplar and second growth locust are predominant. White pine is found along the parcel's southern edge, and begins to screen limited portions of the site from the McCann Trailer Park. Native grasses provide groundcover throughout the parcel, except where disturbed by an informal vehicular accessway and various dirt bike trails. Adjacent residential properties are as typically experienced, i.e. landscaped lawns, planted shrubbery, and a variety of common trees such as maple and oaks. 18 Animal life occupying the site are largely those small species associated with near-residential and open field conditions. Representative species either observed on-site or recorded in the literature include the following: Eastern cottontail Eastern gray squirrel Meadow vole Sylvilagus flor idanus Microtus pennsylvanicus Various birdlife is also commonly found on and adjacent to the proposed annexation parcel. These include sparrows, robins, flickers, blackbirds, chickadees, starlings, as well as other similar birdlife. No rare, threatened or endangered species of plant, animal or birdlife are known to occur on the parcel. 19 3.2 The Human or Built Environment The principal human or built resources which contribute to the environmental setting or context of a particular site are its transportation accessibility, existing land use and zoning controls which guide its future development, the community services and facilities available at the location, its demagraphic context and cultural resources that may be present. 3.21 Transportation The principal transportation arteries servicing the North Fork of Long Island are Middle or North Road (County Road 48) and Main Road (New York State Route 25). Route 25, an east-west roadway, is a two-lane improved roadway passing through the hamlet centers of the North Fork, including Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold within the Town of Southold, and the Village of Greenport. Middle or North Road, also an east-west artery, runs along the northern section of the North Fork. County Road 48 is a four- lane roadway from Mattituck to Southold and a two-lane roadway from Southold to Greenport. Moores Lane, designated by the New York State Department of Transportation as Truck Route 25, serves as a north-south connector between State Route 25 and County Road 48, and allows traffic proceeding to or from the East Marion and Orient Point hamlets east of Greenport to bypass the narrow streets and congestion that may be encountered during seasonal peaks within the Village of Greenport's downtown business district. 2~ Traffic counts undertaken by the New York State Department of Transportation indicate that average annual daily traffic (AADT) on Route 25 west of Greenport is ?,05~ vehicles, with the AADT of Middle Road just northwest of Greenport being 6,0~ vehicles, based on 1981 data compiled by Suffolk County. According to the Suffolk County Department of Traffic Safety and acceptable engineering standards, an improved two-lane roadway can readily accommodate an A~DT of 10,000 vehicles; both State 25 and County Road 48 have AADTs well below this level. Other modes of transportation to the North Fork include ferry, train, bus and air service. Direct access to the South Fork of Long Island by way of Shelter Island is available on a regular basis from Greenport via the North Ferry, Inc. and the South Ferry. In addition, the Cross Sound Ferry, located some 8 miles east of Greenport, provides a direct route to New England for automobiles, trucks and walk-on passengers. Passenger rail service to Greenport is limited to one train eastbound and one train westbound per day, with more frequent bus-train service. Sunrise Coach Lines, Inc. provides direct bus service from Greenport to New York City - three round-trips per day. Kennedy International Airport is located 90 miles west of Greenport, while Long Island's MacArthur Airport and Suffolk County's Airport at Westhampton are, respectively, 48 and 30 miles distant. 21 The proposed annexation parcel has 1523.22 feet of frontage on Moore's Lane, 1394.35 feet of frontage on County Road 48, and has access on its east from the stub ends of Washington Street and Bennet Road. 3.22 Existing Land Use and Zonin~ The proposed 48.718 acre annexation parcel is a tract of vacant land, once reputedly farmed, that supports no improvements and that has become overgrown in recent years since the cessation of agricultural use. The tract borders on its south and west lands owned by the Village of Greenport, including the Moore's Lane right-of-way. Immediately to the east and across County Road 48 to the north lie privately-owned and improved residential lots within the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold. The Village's contiguous landholdings are a portion of a 240 acre parcel commonly referred to as "Moore's Woods", an extensive woodland area acquired for watershed protection, recreational use, and municipal utility functions. Moore's Woods includes a 190 acre section designated as the "Greenport Nature Study Area", a shallow creek (Moore's Drain) that was developed in the 186~'s to drain the mosquito swamps surrounding the Village, and facilities for the Village's water supply, sewage disposal and electric utilities. 22 Immediately to the south of the proposed annexation parcel is the Village-operated McCann Trailer Park, a facility first developed in 1974 to provide seasonal trailer and recreational vehicle sites for visitors to the Greenport/Southotd vicinity. 55 existing sites are provided, with eMpansion contemplated to provide 29 additional sites, thus fully occupying the available land area between the proposed annexation parcel on its north and Moore's Drain on its south. Across Moore's Lane from the proposed annexation parcel lie Village water plant No, 3 at the southeast corner of North Road and Moore's Lane, the Village's sewage treatment plant, and its scavenger waste treatment facility currently under construction. Also sited on the Village's lands along the .8 mile length of Moore's Lane are water plant No. 2 (not in use) and the Village's electric generating plant. The residential development immediately east of the proposed annexation parcel is discussed in the February 1981 Section 2~1 ~astewater Facility Plan for the Village of Greenport and Town of Southold as an area with potential need for sewers. Some 16~ dwelling units occupy 45 acres of land in this North Greenport area at a density of approximately 3.5 dwelling units per acre, serviced only by municipal water with sewage disposal accommodated on-site. A similar, or perhaps slightly higher, density is experienced on Middletown and Madison Streets which are developed with single-family detached homes on individual lots and located nearest the proposed annexation parcel. 23 Residential development to the north of County Road 48 extends for approximately 2,009 to 2,499 feet to the shore of Long Island Sound. 3.23 Community Facilities and Services Educational Facilities. The proposed annexation parcel lies within Greenport Union Free School District No. 19. The District operates an elementary and high school, both located in a single building on Route 25 (Front Street), just outside the Village limits within the Town of Southold, and approximately .6 miles from the subject parcel. Total 1984- 1985 enrollment in grades K-12 is 621, according to data by the Superintendent of Schools, far short of the stated capacity of 1,191 students indicated by a 1984 report by the New York State Department of Education. An annual decline in pupil enrollment has been recorded in each of the past 1~ school years, with the following enrollment figures reported by the District: YEAR PUPIL ENROLLMENT 1975-76 896 1976-?? 881 1977-78 849 1978-79 817 1979-80 ?83 1989-81 715 1981-82 68? 1982-83 6?9 1983-84 669 1984-85 621 24 The School District has, thus, experienced an enrollment decline of about 309 during the past decade, with school district officials contemplating that further decline will continue for the next several years. The taxable assessed valuation within District No. 10 for school purposes is $12,056,889.00. A tax rate of $234.72/$1,00~.0~ assessed valuation is currently applied in order to raise $2',829,944.90 in revenues, including $27,000.00 for the Floyd Memorial Library. The total cost per pupil, including building, maintenance, and administrative costs, much of which is fixed and beyond direct pupil costs, is $4,514.0~ during 1984-t985. Direct educational cost per pupil is, of course, lower, but exact figures are not available. Library service costs are distinct from the school budget, but are taxed and collected according to the taxable assessed valuation within the School District. Taxes raised for library facilities and services during the 1984-1985 year are $27,900.90. The corresponding tax rate is $2.24/$1,0~.~ assessed valuation. Protective Services. Police protection to the proposed annexation parcel is technically within the responsibility of the Southold Town Police, though Moore's Lane, on which it fronts, is a Village thoroughfare. In any event, the Town of Southold maintains a full police department, as does the 25 Co Village of Greenport. If property was not annexed, police protection would continue to be the responsibility of the Town. If annexed, police protection would be the responsibility of the Village. State Police protection is available from the nearest substation of Troop L in Islip Terrace. The proposed annexation parcel is located within the TOV area of the Greenport East-West Fire Protection District. This District is an extension of the Village Fire Department, which maintains two fire stations, a principal, modern facility on Third Street in Greenport and a secondary location on Flint Street. Each station is conveniently related to the proposed development site, and a full range of equipment and rescue squad personnel are available. Health Care Facilities. The Eastern Long Island Regional Hospital is located on Manor Place within the Village of Greenport, providing both scheduled and emergency medical services on a 24-hour per day basis. In addition to a full complement of local medical, dental and related personnel, Greenport area residents are also served by the Central Suffolk Hospital some 28 miles distant in Riverhead, and the Riverhead Health and Mental Health Centers. 26 E o Recreational Facilities. The Town of Southold and Village of Greenport offer a variety of recreational opportunities for its permanent residents and seasonal visitors. Representative of the more than 900 acres of parkland and preserve available for passive and active recreation are the following facilities: NAME AND LOCATION Orient Beach State Park at Orient Goldsmith's Inlet Park at Southold Inlet Point Pond Park at Greenport Great'Pond (Peconic) at Southold Moore's Woods Nature Study Area Greenport Village Parks (Third Street, Fifth Street and Curt Breeze Field) APPROX. ACREAGE 357 34 36 37 1~1 24 Many of these facilities, including Moore's Woods and the Village's community recreational facilities at both Curt Breeze Memorial Field and the District No. 10 school complex are within easy walking distance of the proposed annexation parcel. Hater Supply. The Village of Greenport maintains a 15 square mile franchise area which extends from the east side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold. Included in this area are six (6) operating well fields. A population of approximately 8,100 (2,447 service connections) are presently serviced in the franchise area, 27 The total plant capacity is calculated at 3.1 mgd per day. Allowing 600,0~ gpd for maintenance and fire flow and deducting the 2,1~,~ (peak demand) of present, under construction and approved usage, leaves as estimated 4~,~ gallons/day available for future requirements. See Appendix No. 3. ~ewage Treatment. As noted in Section 3.22, the Village of Greenport operates a sewage treatment plant on Moore's Lane near the western edge of the Village and within a few hundred feet of the proposed annexation parcel. The treatment plant is a modern secondary treatment facility, handling primarily domestic waste with little or no industrial waste treated. The effluent from the treatment plant is chlorinated and discharged into Long Island Sound to the north of the tretment facility. The treatment plant serves 869 customes within the Village and 45 outside its incorporated boundaries, according to data provided from the Village Superintendent of Utilities. Average daily wastewater flow is approximately ~00,~ gallons, or 6~ of the plant's 500,00~ gpd capacity. A study is expected to be initiated shortly for increasing the plants capacity to 75~,~ gpd. The scavenger waste facility currently under joint development by the Village of Greenport and Town of $outhold ~ill add approximately 25,~0 to 40,000 gpd to this average daily wastewater flow. 28 Municipal Electric. The Village's public-owned electric utility services approximately 1,700 accounts, and a service population of approximately 3,50~ persons within and adjacent to the Village of Greenport. Electricity is currently purchased from the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) which results in rates to users approximately 45 percent lower than those serve by LILCO. Renegotiation of this agreement which is due to expire in June 1985 is underway at this time. Sanitary Landfill, The Town of Southold operates a landfill site on a 32 acre parcel north of Route 48 and west of Cox Lane. This site has been used since the 193~'s, with approximately 5 years of useful life remaining. The Town has acquired a 19 acre contiguous tract for landfill expansion, and is currently working with the NYS Department of Environmental Conservation on specific landfill design and the conditions of a Part 360 permit. The amendment to the Environmental Conservation Law of 1983 as it relates to land burial and disposal of solid waste requires the implementation of a resource recovery system(s) in conjunction with the expansion of any landfill. 29 Other Utility Services. A LILCO gas main runs along County Road 48 adjacent to the north side of the proposed annexation property. While LILCO has had a past policy of permitting no new hook-ups, present information indicates a possible relaxation of this policy in the near future. 3.24 Demographic Factors During the late 1800's and early 1900's Greenport was a thriving community supported by the whaling, oyster and shipbuilding industries. Its population at that time was quite large in comparison to other Suffolk County communities. For instance, in 1880 there were 2,370 residents within the Village, comprising more than 30 percent of the total population of the Town of Southold. Today the VillaGe constitutes less than 12 percent of the Town's population, with limited opportunities available for residential development within its boundaries other than. scattered site infill development. According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the VillaGe experienced an 8.4 percent decline in population during the i970's, this being in sharp contrast to all of the Town of Southold which increased in population by 14.1 percent during the same decade. The 1970-1980 population decline of 8.4 percent was preceded by a similar loss of 160 persons, or 6.1 percent, during the 1960's. 30 INCORPORATED VILLAGE Village of Greenport CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES Cutchogue - New Suffolk East Marion Fishers Island Greenport (unincorporated area) Laurel Mattituck Orient Peconic Southold Total Census Designated Places 197~ 198B Census Census 2,481 2,273 2,718 2,788 531 648 462 318 1,682 1,587 598 962 3,~69 3,923 709 847 835 1,~56 3,749 4,77~ 14,323 16,899 Total - Town of Southold 16,8~4 19,172 The loss of permanent population in the Village of Greenport and the surrounding "Census Designated Place" by the same name coincides with the declining pattern of school enrollment within District No. 10 discussed earlier. Reversal of this trend is required if the Village is to achieve its overall development objective, as detailed in its recent draft Local Waterfront Revitalization Program, of being a balanced community responsive to the needs of its four principal constituent groups, namely: year-round residents of the Village, seasonal or weekend residents of the Village, tourists, and the commercial fishing and related marine industries and services. 31 3.25 Cultural Resources Based upon a review of the literature related to the archaeology of the North Fork and the NYS Register of Archaeological Sites, it is indicated that no known or recorded aboriginal sites lie within or adjacent to the proposed annexation parcel. The New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (SHPO) has been requested to confirm this finding~ it is anticipated that SHPO will concur that neither the presently- proposed action nor subsequent development of the site will have impact upon any registered, eligible or inventoried property. An extensive National Register District has been proposed within the older residential areas of the Village, including Carpenter, First and Main Streets near Stirling Creek and the eastern edge of the Village of Greenport. Particularly distinguished and significant individual properties are the Margaret E. Ireland house on Main Street, the Youngs-Coyle house on Third Street, and the Greenport railroad complex adjacent to Greenport Harbor. 32 Section 4.0 IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION/MITIGATION MEASURES Upon annexation of the proposed 48.718 acre parcel from the Town of Southold by the Incorporated Village of Greenport, the petitioner will be able to prepare detailed site and engineering plans for the development of the parcel in accordance with the land use and development regulations of the Village of Greenport, specifically including the R-1 Residence District zoning classification which will be applied by the Village coincidentally with the act of annexation. The annexation will also ensure that electric service, water supply and domestic sewage disposal will be available to the percel from the Village of Greenport without need for any special negotiations or contract arrangements. Under the R-i zoning classification, approximately 170 single- family residential lots, and their associated public improvements such as streets and drainage easements, could be developed on the 48.718 acre parcel, with a minimum lot area of 1~,~00 square feet maintained. The impact of development of these 170 units upon the resources and facilities previously identified is the concern of this section of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Actual development of the 48.718 acre parcel by John A. Costello, successor in fee interest to East End Associates, would either follow this hypothetical scenario or follow one of the alternative development scenarios outlined in Section 5.2 of this 33 Draft Environmental Impact Statement. If one of the alternative development scenarios were to be pursued, the applicant acknowledges that further land use and zoning approval would be required and that further environmental review may be necessary. 4.1 Impact On the Natural Environment 4.11 Geology and Groundwater Since the proposed deVelopment of the site following annexation would use public water supply, no substantial impacts to either groundwater or geologic strata are anticipated as a result of the approval of the proposed action. A sound estimate of water usage in a year-round residential development is 10~ gallons per capita per day. Based upon a persons-per-dwelling ratio of 3.3 within the family-type residential development proposed, a year-round water use of 33~ gallons per dwelling unit per day is reasonable. Since the hypothetical development possible under R-1 zoning might contain 170 dwelling units, 56,100 gallons per day is a reasonable water usage figure. This projects to a 6 plus percent increase in annual pumpage by the Greenport Hater Company and be well within the permissive sustained yield of the wells utilized by the water utility. No significant impact to the Village's water supply would occur, with the peak demand created well within the "4~,~9~ /day gallons of surplus water not spoken for", as calculated by the Village's Utilities Committee in February 1985. See Appendix No. 3. 34 The conservatism on which this projection is based is evident in comparing the above projection of 330 gallons per dwelling unit per day with the Village's Utilities Superintendent's records that indicate water usage of 208 gallons per day for typical family residences within the water district. Using this figure based upon actual experience, a reasonable water usage figure would be 35,260 gallons per day, with a peak of 88,150 Gallons per day instead of the 140,250 gallons per day projected under this conservative analysis. 4.12 Topography and Landform No significant impact on the topographic or landform characteristics of the proposed annexation site would occur under its hypothetical development of 170 residential dwelling units. Buffer areas would be maintained, natural drainage respected, and measures taken during construction to protect exposed soils and retard erosion. 4.13 Water Resources With service by public water, connection to the municipal sewage treatment facilities and respect for natural surface drainage patterns being an unalterable parameter in site design, substantial mitigating measures will be in place to prevent significant impact on any water resources below, on or adjacent to the proposed annexation parcel/development site. See Appendix No. 4. 35 4.14 Air Resources No significant ipact on air resources will occur as a result of the proposed action and the subsequent development of the project site for 170 residential dwelling units. The development would add only a minimum amount of traffic (mobile air pollution sources) and home heating units (stationary air pollution sources) that would have negligible effect on the excellent ambient air quality present. 4.15 Terrestrial Ecology While the proposed development of 170 dwelling units will cause the removal of existing vegetation in areas where roadways and utilities are to be installed and homes located, and, as a consequence, local wildlife will be temporarily disrupted, this will impose no threat to any endangered species of animal, plant or birdlife. The flora and fauna present on the proposed annexation site is typical of residential areas and their immediate periphery. It is expected that similar populations will be returned, by man and nature, to the development parcel as it matures as a residential community. To provide a transition to this maturation process, the applicant intends to maintain as permanent open space substantial buffer areas along existing public roadways and abutting existing residences on Middleton Road. 36 4.2 Impact on the Human or Build Environment 4.21 Transportation The proposed project will not create significant adverse impact on traffic conditions within and along the major routes serving the Greenport area, specifically State Route 25, County Road 48, and the Moore's Lane connector roadway (and truck by-pass route) between NYS 25 and County 48. As discussed in Section 3.21, Route 25 and County Road 48 have residual capacities of 3,~0 to 4,000 A~DT and can readily accon~nodate the additional traffic flow (estimated average of 1,700 vehicle trips per day based upon standards developed by the Institute for Transportation Engineering - see Appendix 9) that would be generated by 170 new residential units even if all of that flow were directed to that facility. Several project-specific design considerations merit attention during the engineering phases of this project following approval of annexation so that potential impacts related to transportation can be mitigated in the following areas: (1) a review of the capacity of intersections near the development site at peak hour once the specific road/street orientation of the development project has been firmly established; (2) a restriction on the number of access points along Moore's Lane to ensure efficient continuing use of this roadway as a connector highway, including its function as a truck bypass of downtown Greenport; a similar restriction on the number of access points along County Road 48; and the effective reduction through road layout/project orientation of the amount of additional traffic that would occur on residential streets, such as Washington Avenue and Middletown Road to the east of the proposed annexation parcel. 4.22 Land Use The development of the annexation parcel for residential use would be consistent with the residential character of properties to the n~rth and east and compatible with the ¥illaGe's substantial landholdings within Moore's Woods. The proposed density of 3.5 dwelling units per Gross acre will permit the installation of suitable residential infrastructure -- municipal water, municipal sewer, and properly-developed local streets -- that will provide a well-planned and serviced residential environment. Deed restrictions will also be developed during later stages of this project and will be imposed upon each residential lot to ensure proper use and maintenance of the residential premises. As discussed in Section 4.15, natural buffer areas will be maintained and enhanced through additional planting and removal of dead or diseased vegetation along existing residences on Middleton Road. In the interest of both the proposed development and the adjacent McCann Trailer Park, a landscaped screen will be developed along the southern boundary of the proposed annexation parcel. A professional appraiser has advised that the annexation and calculated development would not impact the Value of adjacent homes. 38 4.23 Community Facilities and Services The proposed development of the annexation parcel for 17~ dwelling units will have a significant beneficial impact on public facilities, services and taxpayers within the .Village of Greenport, Greenport Union Free School District No. 1~, Town of Southold and Suffolk County. See Appendix No. 5. Tax Revenues. For the purpose of providing a preliminary, and highly conservative, projection of tax revenues, the developer has assumed that 17~-1/4 acre lots would be developed, each with a 1200 square feet residence with no garage or other assessable improvements. Based upon data provided by the Southold Board of Assessors, and using 1984- 85 tax rates as a comparative measure, the following tax revenues would be generated by the annexed parcel under full development, using an assessed valuation of $4,699.M~ ($6~0.~0 for land and $4,~0.~0 for improvements) for each of the resdential premises, i.e. a total AV of ANNEXATION TAX DISTRICT TAX RATE TAX per $1,999. AV REVENUES Village of Greenport School District ~ 10 Town of Southold Suffolk County $ 135.609 $ 196,039 $ 234.564 $ 183,429 $ 26.691 $ 29,892 $ 4~.743 $ 37,092 TOTAL ANNUAL $ 437.5~8 $ 347,362 39 The present tax revenues generated by this parcel are as follows, based upon an assessed valuation of TAX DISTRICT EXISTING - AV - $14,40~.00 TAX RATE per $1,000. AV TAX REVENUES Town of Southold School District Ff 10 Suffolk County SP. District 69.324 $ 998 234.564 $ 3,378 40.743 $ 587 9.805 $ 141 TOTAL ANNUAL $ 354.436 $ 5,104 If the property is developed outside the Village and the total AV is the same, tax revenues are projected as follows: OUTSIDE VILLAGE - 1/4 ACRE - AV - $782,000.0~ TAX DISTRICT TAX RATE TAX per $1,000. AV REVENUES Town of Southold School District ~ 10 Suffolk County SP. District 69.324 $ 54,211 234.564 $ 183,429 40.743 $ 37,092 9.805 $ 6,885 TOTAL ANNUAL $ 354.436 $ 281,617 40 OUTISDE VILLAGE - 2 ACRE - AV - $165,000.00 422 UNITS) TAX DISTRICT TAX RATE TAX per $1,000. AV REVENUES Town of Southold School District 5 10 Suffolk County SP. District $ 69.324 $ 11,424 $ 234.564 $ 38,703 $ 40.?43 $ 6,723 $ 9.805 $ 1,618 TOTAL ANNUAL 354.436 $ 58,468 The above tax revenue tables do not reflect the potential reduction in the school district tax rate. Based on school tax assessment formulas, if the annexation takes place and the total projected improvements are accomplished (AV $782,000.00) the school district tax rate would decrease by over $11.00 per thousand assessed valuation for all properties within the distr~ct. Educational Facilities. The proposed development would increase the school enrollment in District No. 10 by an estimated 221 students. This number is developed from the 3.3 per capita per household allowing for two (2) adults, and thereby obtaining an average of 1.3 children per residence. 41 The presen5 school rated capacity is 1,19~ with a present enrollment of 622. See Appendix No. 6. Based on consultation with school authorities, the project increase of 220 students could be accommodated with the current educational facilities without any significant increase in operating costs. The actual reduction in per pupil cost, coupled with the increase in assessed valuation, the school district tax rate can be materially reduced. See A. above. Protective Services. The proposed development will have no substantial impact upon protective services within the Village of Greenport. The proposed development of 17~ residential units will have no adverse impact on the ability of the local fire department to continue to serve and protect the entire community. The dwellings to be constructed must be designed and constructed to meet or exceed all applicable building codes designed for fire safety. In the event of a fire incident, municipal water service will be available within the residential development. As discussed in the Southold Town Master. Plan, the Greenport Fire District maintains two fire stations -- Third Street and Flint Street -- that are well-located to provide effective coverage and suitable equipment throughout the Village of Greenport and the surrounding East-West Fire Protection District in the Town-outside-Village area. 42 Additional demand for police protection services should be minimal within the family-oriented residential environment that would be created through development of the annexed parcel. Moreover, any additional costs associated with increased police service to protect the'proposed development and the concomitant increase in permanent Village population would be indirectly contributed by the development through a substantial increase in Village tax revenues. See Appendix No. 7. Health Care Facilities. No substantial impact on health care facilities is projected as a result of the proposed action and subsequent residential development of the annexation parcel. Recreational Facilities. An increase in recreational demand on a day-to-day basis within the Village of Greenport and immediately contiguous residential areas will result as residential development of the proposed annexation parcel occurs and an increase in permanent Village population, including younger families, occurs. With increased revenues provided by the development to the Village, opportunity is present to improve and expand recreational facilities in Moore's Hoods, at the Greenport Nature Study Area, and at Curt Breeze Field to meet increased demand. In addition, recreation facilities, such as a tot lot/playground, will be provided at the developer's initiative within the proposed residential development. 43 Water Supply. As discussed in Section 4.11, the increased water demand from a l?O-lot residential development on the proposed annexation parcel will, under a worst case scenario, require a 6 plus percent increase in gallons per year supplied by the Greenport Water Company. This increase in pumpage will keep total consumption well below the permissive yield in the company service area. The water requirements of the proposed development can be supplied by the company without impacting existing customers or preventing service to other developments within the franchise area for which service for has been agreed to. If property is annexed it would be proposed to make available to the Village of Greenport either one or two well sites for additional water supply to the franchise area. Based on the 1979 water level survey, a significant portion of the proposed annexation area has water table levels above 3 feet. This means (see Appendix No. 3) that a well would have a potential capacity of 18~ gpm. Realizing that accurate well capacity data can only be determined by actual tests, it still can be conservatively estimated that two wells on this site, coupled with the designated recharge area, and only pumping 50% of the time, could potentially generate 250,0~ gpd and be used to augment the municipal water supply. Because of the present and long term previous land use, the quality of the water should be low in nitrates and have no Aldecarb contamination. Monitoring of chlorides would 44 probably be required. Installation of test wells is recommended after annexation to determine quantity and quality of water. Sewage Treatment. Several different methods have been utilized within the Town of Southold/Village of Greenport to project estimated sewage flows from residential development. The methodology employed within the Greenport - Southold 2~1 Study (1981) and a "rule of thumb" employed by the ¥illage's Utilities Superintendent will be used in assessing impact of the proposed l?0-1ot residential development on the Village's sewage treatment capacity. The Greenport - Southold 201 Study indicated that 65 gallons per capita per day of effluent will be produced in a normal residence. Since the equivalent population of the proposed development is projected to be 561 persons (3.3/household), the average sewage flow under this standard would be: 65 gpcpd x 561 persons = 36,465 gallons per day. Using the "rule of thumb" of sewage flows = 8~% of water consumption and applying this standard to the water demands per day projected in Section 4.11 yields the following range of sewage flow estimates: 45 Based on 100 gpcpd water consumption, 330 gpd per dwelling x 80% = 264 gpd per dwelling x 170 dwellings = 45,880 gpd sewage. Average day-peak month flow calculates to 68,820 gpd. Based alternatively on historical date provided by Village water department, 208 gpd per dwelling x 80% = 166.4 gpd per dwelling x 170 dwellings = 28,208 pgd sewage. Average day-peak month flow calculates to 42,312 gpd. The Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant experiences an average daily wastewater flow of approximately 3~0,000 gpd, approximately 60% of its 500,000 capacity. The additional flows projected, even under the most liberal of.the above estimates, can be readily accommodated without causing the treatment facility to either exceed its design flows or aggravate difficulties that have been experienced in meeting applicable standards for suspended solids and BODo As in the case of water supply, the proposed annexation parcel is proximate to the sewage treatment facility, providing for easy access. No substantial impact on sewage will be caused by the proposed development, except to reduce the residual capacity of the plant and require the Village to examine more closely the recommendations made in its LWRP planning study that the present plant be evaluated for potential capacity. The construction of another aerated 46 lagoon may be the appropriate and affordable improvement to expand plant capacity for the long-term by approximately 25~,~ gallons per day. There is presently a dual pump lift station located adjacent to the southwest boundary of the area proposed for annexation. The Village utilities section reported that each lift pump is rated at 150 gpm and, therefore, station capacity would be adequate for the calculated sewage loads. Municipal Electric. The Village's Utilities Superintendent has reviewed estimated electrical demand for the proposed 179-1ot residential development and has concluded that the utility is fully capable of meeting the demand requirements. A typical residence using 59~ kwh per month will impose a 29 kw demand, with a 58 kw peak. 17~ units would, therefore, result in an increased demand of 85,~0 kwh per month. The projected increase in Village electrical use by this and other proposed projects emphasizes the need for the second tie line to LILCO recommended in the Village's Waterfront Revitalization Program report. Sanitary Landfill. The projected increase in the permanent residential population of 561 persons represents 2.9 percent of the year-round residential population of the Town of Southold that is serviced by the Town's sanitary landfill. In that business, industry, tourists, and seasonal residents all contribute to the amount of solid waste generated within the Township, an additional solid waste in¢~ement of 1 to 1.5 47 percent is projected~ this will have no significant impact on the remaining useful life of either the existing landfill facility or the projected size of any resource recovery facility as discussed in Section 3.23. 4.24 Demographic Factors The proposed action and subsequent development will contribute to stabilization of the Village's population and the enrollment of Greenport Union Free School District No. 1M. By these effects, and the provision of affordable housing sites for yourger families, significant positive impact will occur to the Village's demography. 4.25 Cultural Resources As discussed in Section 3.25, no significant impact will occur to any cultural or related resources. 48 Section 5.0 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS Alternatives reviewed in this Section of the DEIS fall within two categories: (i) municipal alternatives to annexation and private sector, i.e. developer, response and requirements~ and (2) alternatives to the specific development concept and land use examined within this DEIS. 5.1 Alternatives to Annexation The essential public alternatives regarding the proposed action, the petition for annexation of some 48.718 acres by the Incorporated Village of Greenport from within the unicorporated lands of the Town of Southold, are quite clear. Either the annexation is approved or the annexation is rejected. If the annexation is approved, the prospective developer will be in a position to pursue further detailed planning for the development of this parcel consistent with the "affordable housing" objective he shares with the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport. Upon approval, the developer will also be in a position to consider the further action discussed below that would allow not only the "affordable housing" objective to be addressed, but also provide for the creation of local job opportunities with the 48.718 acre tract. If the annexation is denied, the proposed development of the site consistent with public need and sound land use and environmental planning, as examined in hypothetical, or generic, context by 49 this DEIS, will be seriously delayed, if not completely forestalled. Such an action would appear inconsistent with both the stated planning objectives of the Town and Village and the demonstrated capability of the Village of Greenport to provide all necessary services for the intended development. While 2- acre, large lot zoning and the provision of on-site water supply and sewage disposal that is customarily associated with such a lot size is presumptively a viable approach to land use regulation in other areas of the Town of Southold, it is not the best approach when dealing with the proposed annexation parcel. As discussed in Sections 3 and 4 of this DEIS, the proposed annexation parcel is contiguous to residential development of a density similar to that intended, and has the physical attributes and municipal service access to provide, after annexation, residential housing site opportunities of a number and quality and affordability lacking throughout the eastern end of the North Fork. The alternative of providing accommodation for the development proposed without benefit of annexation of the 48.718 acres of the Village of Greenport has been raised in the community. Two key issues arise as this discussion is pursued: (1) the need, time and uncertainty of negotiating service agreements with the Village of Greenport for water supply within the Town-outside- Village portion of its water franchise area, and for sewer, and preferably due to the reduced cost of PASNY power electric, 5~ service beyond its incorporated limits, while still being exposed to hook-up charges estimated to be $4,3~S.SS per lot for these privileges as a Town-outside-Village landowner; and (2) the need for relief from the Town of Southold from its 2-acre zoning requirement through either a broadly-applied, and highly questionable, area variance or a rezoning to permit the proposed density. Only with the increased density proposed can there be significant reduction in the cost for the installation and the per lot maintenance of a full complement of residential infrastructure, and a parallel reduction in land cost per lot created, which combine to create the quality sites for affordable housing sought by the developer and recognized as a need by the cormTlunity. 5.2 Alternatives to the Proposed Development Program The State Environmental Quality Review Act requires that the proposed action, in this case annexation/rezoning to R-1 within the Village of Greenport, be reviewed for its impact on the natural and human environment. Consequently, this DEIS has focused on an examination of the annexation/rezoning to R-1 which is within the "lead agency" purview of the Town of Southold and has discussed potential impacts of a hypothetical l?9-1ot, 1/4 acre "worst case" residential development that could be developed as a matter of right under the R-1 zoning classification, once land has been set aside for streets and other improvements. 51 The record that has been available throughout the discussion of this proposed annexation clearly reveals that an alternative land use/development scenario is likely to be pursued once annexation occurs. That alternative provides for a mix of residential including cluster, combinations of apartments and residential, and commercial, non-retail development on the annexation parcel, with the commercial activity generally paralleling Moore's Lane. Both the residential and commercial portions of the site would be peripherally buffered from each other and nearby land uses by expanses of natural vegetation, access would be carefully designed, and the R-1 density fully respected. Deed covenants reviewable by the community would be included for both residential and commercial lots, and, with special concern for the need to provide affordable, family housing opportunities, a "non-speculation clause" will be included on all residential lot sales. Deed restrictions for the commercial lots would exclude both generators of toxic wastes, noise and other objectionable industrial activities, as well as all retail facilities. The developer has further indicated that no tax abatement, except for veteran and senior citizen exemptions benefiting eligible residential property owners, will be sought for any portiontol the development. 52 Pursuit of this development approach will demand, following the effective date of the petitioned for annexation, an application for either rezoning of approximately one-third of the 48.718 acre tract from R-1 to C-G, General Commercial, or the addition of a "planned development" article to the Village's Zoning Ordinance and the project-specific consideration of the developer's proposal under the PD process. Regardless of the approach employed by the community, further environmental review would be expected to be required under SEQR and the lead agency for that review would be the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. Preliminary evaluation of the mixed use development concept indicates that this development approach is equally, if not more, serviceable by the Village of Greenport's municipal facilities, and may result in not only the creation of jobs within Greenport but also increased net tax revenue because of a decreased demand for public services, particularly a reduction in the number of children to be educated. Furthermore, the mixed use concept has greater potential for early "buildout" and, consequently, receipt of full project benefits by the community while lessening the time exposure of construction-related impacts, though minimal, that may be experienced. Section 6.4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS The proposed annexation and subsequent development of the 48.718 acre parcel will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the following resources to the intended project: (1) a 48.718 acre tract of non-productive and unused land will bear development; (2) money will be committed for infrastructure installation and maintenance and individual capital investments will be made in residential (and perhaps commercial) premises; (3) energy resources will be committed to construction activity and to long- term uses for heating, cooling and related functions; and with prospective commerical development, (4) long-term commitment-of payroll capital will occur. As discussed in Section 4 of this DEIS, (1) increased annual pumpage of water will occur, thus lessening the surplus available for other development~ (2J existing vegetation on portions of the site will be removed, though likely to be replaced with comparable, or improved, native, non-endangered species; (3) some loss of residual capacity will be experienced in existing highways, though this may be recaptured through intersection and carriageway improvements; (4j increased sewage flow will occur, thus lessening the present capacity available for other development and, accordingly, bringing closer the time when capacity improvements/expansion of the sewage treatment plant should be undertaken, thus suggesting a further commitment of capital. 54 There is no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources identified that would suggest that the proposed project be reexamined or that the proposed action should not occur. 55 Section 7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS The proposed action will provide the means through which a private developer and the community can work cooperatively to fill a void and address identified needs regarding "affordable housing" and "creation of local job opportunities". While some locational redistribution will occur, particularly by those working on the eastern end of the North Fork who may currently experience a less than desirable work location/residence location relationship, no growth-inducing impact is foreseen on the basis of the proposed action. What will really occur is the satisfaction of a portion of a pent-up demand that has been discussed in the Village of Greenport and throughout the Town of Southold in recent years. See Appendix No. 8. 56 Section 8.0 EFFECTS ON USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY RESOURCES No significant impact is projected on the use of energy resources. As discussed in Section 4.23, the Village electric utility is prepared to provide service to the proposed development to meet the projected demand. Further, all development within the proposed development will be new construction that must be designed in full accordance with the New York Building and Fire Protection Code and the State EnerGy Conservation Code. To a limited extent, the concept of a mixed use development with residence and work place locations within walking distance of one another may incrementally reduce energy consumption, as should the efficient land planning approach made possible by 1/4 acre lots with reduced footaGes of roadways, utilities, etc. on a per lot basis. 57 INDEX OF APPENDICES APPENDIX NO. 1 - SEQR DOCUMENTATION - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - - A-1 APPENDIX NO. 2 - DOCUMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER A-2 APPENDIX NO. 3 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING WATER SERVICES AND PUMPING RATES AND AVAILABILITY APPENDIX NO. 4 - LETTER FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALT8 DEPARTMENT APPENDIX NO. 5 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING TAX REVENUES A-4 A-5 APPENDIX NO. 6 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION A-6 APPENDIX NO. 7 - DOCUMENTATION REGARDING PROTECTIVE SERVICES A-7 APPENDIX NO. 8 - LETTERS FROM GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE A-8 APPENDIX NO. 9 - INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION DATA A-9 APPENDIX NO. 1 SEQR DOCUMENTATION - TOWN OF SOUTBOLD A - 1 JUDITH T. TERRY TOW~ CLFRK REGISTRAR gl VITAL .~'1 Al ISFIC$ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TF. LEPHONE ($16) 76~-1801 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: January 8, :1985 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation I_aw, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter ~ of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have' a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of East End Associates for the annexation of approximately ~8.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. qB) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, 5outhold Town Hall, Main Road, 5outhold, New York 1.197!. , copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner, Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Tovm Building Department Southoid To~n Planning Board Town Clerk% Bulletin Board Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Servic. es Village of Greenport Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OFTHE TOWN CLERK · TOWN OF$OUTHOLD January 9, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Ro~d P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516} 765-1501 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 8, :1985: WHEREAS, East End Associates has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board, pursuant to Chapter qq of the Code of the Town of Southold, for the annexation of approximately ~8.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of 5outhold into the Incorporated Village of Creenp, ort, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conserva- tion Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter q~ of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to hava a significant effect on the environment. 2. That the Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, East End Associatea, of this determination and further request said applicant to prepare a draft environmental impact statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. Judith T. Terry ~'- Southold Town Clerk JIUDITII T. TERRY TOWN CLI-.R K RI.GIST,RAR Ol' VITAL SIAl IS irlCS ~.,'~:.~. ~.,tt.~..;~.3,.~' "'~. ) '~ OFFICE OF TIlE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD Town Hail, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1801 January. 9, .1985: Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 Church Street Patchogueo New York 11772 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a "Notice of Significant Effect on the Environ- ment'' in connection with East End Associates petition for annexation, which determination was the subject of a Southoid Town Board resolution on January 8, :1985, a copy of which is also enclosed. East End Associates is hereby requested to prepare a draft environ- mental impact statement for submission to me upon completion. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry · $outhold Town Clerk Enclosures (2} cc: William W. Esseks, Esqd Village of Greenport APPENDIX NO. 2 DOCUMENTATION OF OWNERSHIP TRANSFER ESSEK3, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL COUN~'LORS AT LAW F~IVC' EH EAD, N,Y, March 5, 1985 WAT£R Mll. l. 0FFICJ. MONTAM K HIGHWAY P. O. BOX ~70 WATER MILL, N.Y. 11976 (~16) 7:~6-~633 Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York Village Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street 11971 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: East End Associates Annexation Pursuant to GML Art. 17 Dear Board Members and Village Trustees: Pursuant to a contract dated November, 1984 and on February 15, 1985, title to the premises which is the subject of the above entitled application passed to John A. Costello. We request that the above application proceed on behalf of Mr. Costello. We are in the process of preparing a Draft Envlronmental Impact Statement pursuant to the Boards joint resolution. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks WWE :cf WILL~AM W. ESSEi~S ESSEKS. HEFtER, CuDDY & ANGEL F~VErHEAD. N.Y. 190I TeLEx-EHCA ~85~3i8 UW WATER MILL OFFIC(~ P- O, Box 570 WATER MILL N.Y, 11976 March 5, 1985 Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York Village Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street 11971 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: East End Associates Annexation Pursuant to GML Art. 17 [)ear Board Members and Village Trustees: Pursuant to a contract dated November, 1984 and on February 15, 1985, title to the premises which is the subject of the above entitled application passed to John A. Costello. We request that the above application proceed on behalf of Mr. Costello. We are in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the Boards joint resolution. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks WWE:cf APPENDIX NO. 3 DOCUMENTATION REGARDING WATER SERVICES AND PUMPING RATES AND AVAILABILITY A- 3 Oj cer MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E, KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ W1LLL~d H, L1EBLEIN SUFI'. OF UTILITIES JAMES I. MONSELL 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 March 8, 1985 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516) 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL, (516) 477-0172 Mr. John Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 Re: 48 Acres of Annexation Land Dear John: You requested to know if the Village of Greenoort can adequately supply and service both public water and public sewage a% your proposed annexation site of 48+ acres. The following information is based on 170 homes of ~ acre each. Water Supply The Village of Greenport has a pumping station on the corner of Moore's Lane and North Road with a 12" cast iron water main on Moore's Lane. The project, when comple~elybuilt, would require 56,100 gallons per day with a peak of 140,250 gallons per day. Three test holes were dug by yourself on March 7, 1985. The sand and gravel was observed plus the review of the wa~er contour curves in the area would indicate that two or three low production wells could be placed on the property in the area dedicated for public use. A pumping plant yielding 150 gallons per minute could add 216,000 gallons per day to ~he present supply system. The proposed future supply could De in excess of the highest demand. The area if served by public sewer would De pollution free. The area also would be free of nitrates and agricultural pesticides. The wells might be subject to concentrations of iron. The water reservoir would pull from the Silver Lake area. A test well should be placed on site and tested. Sewer Supply The Village of Greenport owns and operates a full sewage treatment plant about t,000 feet away from the subject property. A sewage booster station was constructed on the site of the McCann Trailer Park in 1983 and nas pumps operating on lag and lead, with a capability of 300 gallons per minute. Mr. John Costello -2- March 8, 1985 When the project is fully constructed the loading would be 45,880 gallons per day with an average day of the peak month at 68,820 gallons per day. If this property were annexed into the Village the Sewer Department would have an obligation to provide Sewer Service from its present reserve. It would take a number of years before fu~l loading would take effect. Electric Supply The Village of Greenpor% presently has electric utility supply on two sides of the subject proper~y. The electric loading of 170 units - 29 KW demand, 85,000 KWH of energy for a typical home using 500 KWH per month. The Village of Greenport was granted a new electric franchise by order of the New York State Public Service Commission in April 1977, after a public hearing held on March 9, 1977 allowing the Village Utilities to serve the subject area. If I can be of further service, please call. Very truly yours, I. Monsel 1 Superintendent of Public Utilities JIM:nr cc: George Hubbard, Mayor All Village Trustees VXL.L~ Off GiAEHPOKT Outotde ~ V:i. LLoAe L~83 787 ~, 60g 1982 798 L, 567 1.98]. 786 ]., $]. XgSO 789 J.,48.~ 1978 80L L977 800 L, 385 ~g76 ?95 L,346 [975 801 Lo 320 ~974 786 L,287 ~973 793 ~g72 797 L,185 lgTL 787 X,079 ~970 790 ~,054 1969 780 L966 772 972 ~967 782 ~966 778 872 196~ 1963 1962 a.073 ZoOM I. o437 Lo383 i/a~er Deparmeu~ 2) fouude~s VLZLase 3) IlursLuS Home LO,O00 GPD ~O,0OOGPD ZSfO00 GPD 65,000GPD VILLAGI~ OF GB3F, ENPGitT #nter I)eparment AppFoved Projects L) Pore of ~ypc 2) SOb SCreeC Coudoa 3) 6~hScreeC Condos · ) Iddm S~de Aparmenco $) Hoems~ead Acres (16 8,000 Gl)i) LO, 0OO GPD 1,800 GPD 4~000 GPD ~, 000 GPD 27,800 GPD ~ELL FIELD~- ~ .2 -AREA C EASTERLY LIMIT OF G~REE WATER SERVICE FRANCHISE WI GREENPORT NO. I The well yields and negative saltwater impacts predicted through this type of analysis were verified by examining the existing installed capacities and saltwater impacts of the Greenport Water District wells. (The Rlverhead Water District wells tap the 14agothy aquifers in Zone ! and are not subject to saltwater intrusion and, therefore, could not be used to further verify the assumptions.) The Greenport wells range in capacity fram 200 to 400 gpm. The smaller capacity Greenport wells produce yields which are consistent with those pre- dicted by the assumptions made in this study with no saltwater intru- sion problems. The 4OO-gpm wells, however, are larger than ~ould be allowed by the specific capacity/drawdown criteria of this study (drawdoms greater than twice the height of the static water level above sea level). A review of the Greenport records indicates that their larger wells must be periodically rested because of increasing high chloride concentrations. In essence, then, the larger wells are sized and function similarly to the peaking wells assmed in this study, and substantiate the assumption that larger wells can be used on an intermittent basis to satisfy peak seamer weekend requtrea~nt$, if carefully monitored and controlled. Although the well-yield analysis has been presented for the water budget areas in each zone, the same general analytical approach can be used for locations outside the budget area. In smmary then, wells tapping the upper glacial aquifer can be pumped intermittently at the following capacities without drawing saltwater: Height of Water Table Above Sea Level Capacity (feet) .... (gpm) 5 300 4 240 3 180 2 60-120 1-1/2 45-90(1) i ls-3o(1) Less than 1 0-10(1) (1) Requires site specific investigations and analyses. * 7-12 FROM: North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York. TEST HOLE DATA On 7 March 1985 a test hole was dug in the low depression area on the site so as to make an evaluation of the area's natural ability to recharge surface run-off. Soil material excavated was as follows: 0" - 20" 20" - 5~" 50" and Below Top Soil Silty Sand Fine to Medium Sand Hater Level .... 5 Ft. Below Surface. From the above, it was calculated that recharge of surface run- off could be readily accommodated. APPENDIX NO. 4 LETTER FROM SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT A - 4 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ~,ERVICI:'~3 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE February 14, 1985 DAVID HARRIS. M,D.. M.P.H. Merlon E. Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E. President Peconic Associates, Inc. One Bootleg Alley P. O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Wiggin: SUBJECT: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT - ANNEXATION PROPOSAL - VILLAGE OF GREENPORT (JOHN COSTELLO) Your letter of February 6, 1985 and the attached sketch plan for the proposed development of the 48.718 acre parcel bordering the Village of Greenport has been reviewed in light of the questions you set forth. You must keep in mind that the comments set forth are based on the "very preliminary planning stage" of your project. Each of your questions will be addressed in the same order as they are listed in your letter. Surface run-off and impact to groundwater recharge stormwater run-off and recharge is not normally a function of the Department of Health Services unless it is proposed to discharge the water directly into a surface water system. If such a proposal is made, the Department would not consider this a satisfactory method of disposal unless the receiving waters had been classified as "D" or "SD" which denotes tha~ the best useage for that body of surface water was for drainage purposes. If a surface water discharge is not permissable then all stormwater must be disposed of on site to either a recharge basin or stormwater leaching pools. This is generally a function of the Tow~ or Village Planning Board. If all on site stormwater is disposed of on site, there should not be any adverse impact on groundwater recharge, in fact, an argument can be made that since the stormwater is directed to recharge facilities that the amount of recharge is actually increased. Merlon Eo Wiggin, Ph.D., M.E. Page 2 February 14, 1985 RAV/js On site sanitary disposal vs. hook-up to village sewer (assuming no discharge of toxic wastes) If the Department had its choice, we would prefer to see the project connected to the village sewer system. If this were accomplished, the project could be developed based on the zoning then in place, and the density requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code would not be applicable. If on the other hand the village sewers were mot available, then Article 6 would limit the residential development to two homes per acre and the commercial portion would be limited to a sewage flow not to eXceed 600 gallons/acre. As long as the residential and commercial densities are not exceeded, clustering would be allowable to preserve some open space or buffer zones. Impact on aquifer, taking into account present status of adjacent village wells, and their present nitrate problems. Any development of the parcel will have some impact on the aquifer. If village sewers are installed then all waste waters will be discharged through the system to Long Island Sound. Since the Moore's Lane well field is not one of the major sources of the village water supply, even the connection to the village sewers should not lower the water table in the area. If on site sanitary disposal systems are installed, these discharges would in effect augment the groundwater in the area since most times the village water supply utilizes the East Marion or Southold well fields. Nitrates are not now a problem at the Moore's Lane well field and if the allowable densities of Article 6 are adhered to, the amount of nitrates discharged to the groundwater will be minimized. 4. Comments, Recommendations, etc. on other applicable items. Prior to any approval of a subdivision, either residential, commercial or some mix, covenants would have to be executed that would place restrictions on the use or storage of toxic and hazardous materials. The Lead Agent, be if Southold Town or Greenport Village, will most likely require an Environmental Impact Statement and as an involved agency we will have to respond to Health related and environmental issues. Our positiom should be basically as set forth, therefore, your ultimate design should reflect these concerns. We hope the above clarifies some of the issues you raised. If you have other areas of concern, please forward them to us and we will respond. Very truly yours, Robert A. Villa, P.E. Chief Engineer APPENDIX NO. 5 DOCUMENTATION REGARDING TAX REVENUES A - 5 Telephone 516 - 765-1937 BOA February Mr. John Costello W~ggSns Lone Gteenport, New York DearJohn, Ref:lO00-40-5-1 Approx. 48AC. B~sed on the information you provided to this office of 170,-1/4 ~re [6ts with a 1200 sq ft. house, no garage, assuming that all lots ~ere built on, the total assessnent would be $782,000. The 1~a4-8~ tax rate for that district (if ~xed to the Village) ~euld be $301.908 per thousonddollars of assessed valuation. $301.~08X782.00~$236,0~2.0~ Iff taxes. The 1~84-85 tax rate (if not ordered to the Villoge) would be $3~.436 per thousand dollars of assessed vaulotion. $3,54.436X782.000=$277,16~.~5 in taxes, Enclosed please f~nd a copy of the tax rates Lnc~din9 Sounty, Taem ~ and ~p. Districts, if a~y. FEG:Jk Frederick E. Gordon, Tow of ..Southold TAX RATES DIST.. %10 40.743 26.601 234.564 301.908 DIST. %10 40.743 69.324 ~34. 564 9. 805 354.43~ S CHO0r. SP. DIST TOTAt Outside VAII~ge . CO UNTY SCHOOL SP. DIST TOTAL CODE 148. 248, 748 948 (Ministm~:) ' FIRE FERRY GARBAGE__ WATER ST. IMP. WASTE WTR TOTAL CODE 145f 2 IRE MOSQ 3L FERRY , GA RB AG E--- WATER ST. IMP. WASTE WTR 2O TOTAL VETS F..Xs 745 9.027 .778 9.805 244 · 369 DIST. %10 C)~%side Villc~e 40 · 743 COUNTY 234. 564 , SCHOOL , 9.cOS., s~. DZST TOTAL TOTAL CODE I45, 2 , 745 FZ~= =t .. 9.02% ~05~ FERRY , , GARBAGE__ WATER ST. IMP~ WASTE WTR 20 .778 TOTAL 9..805 VETS ~X~ 244.369' APPENDIX NO. 6 DOCUMENTATION REGARDING SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION GREENPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT TOWN of SOUTHOLD GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 516477-1950 CARL J. NELSON Suplrintendent of Sohools February 4, [985 Mr. John Costello Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Mr. Costello: As per your request I am pleased to provide you with the following infor- mation: 1. Expense per pupil 1984-85 - $4,125 - according to the New York State Education Conference Board printed and dated January 23, 1985 2. £nrollment for 1970-71 through 1984-85 - see attachment #2 3. Enrollment for 1984-85 and projections for 1985-86 , see attachment #3 4. Map of School District - see attachment #4 5. Building Capacity - students K-6 486 7-]2 705 ~ Tota! as indicated by the New York State Department of Education, Bureau of Reorganization, Consolidation Study dated January 13, 1984. 6. Taxable Assessed Valuations for School Purposes - $12,056,889 - see attachment #6 Should you need additional information or further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. lly, Superintendent of School CJN/maw Enclosures GREENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Greenport, New York ENROLL#ENT FZGURES YEA~ 1970 - 71 1971 - 72 1972 - 73 1973 - 74 1974 - 75 1975 - 76 1976 - 77 1977 - 78 1978 - 79 1979 - 80 1980 - 8I 1981 - 82 1982 - 83 1983 - 84 1984 - 85 PUPIL ENP. OLLHENT 936 896 867 856 871 896 881 849 817 783 715 687 67O 66O 621 GREENPORT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Greenport, New York ENEOLLi~ENT (as of September 1984) Kindergarten 35 Grade 1 45 Grade 2 49 Grade 3 32 Grade 4 33 Grade 5 41 Grade 5 42 Grade 7 37 Grade 8 61 Grade 9 44 Grade 10 45 Grade ! 1 52 Grade 12 54 Special Education 34 Combi ned Programs BOCES Spec i a 1 17 Education TOTAL 621 PR(klECTED ENROLLI~NT (for ~ept~s~ber 1985) Kindergarten 43 Grade I 35 Grade 2 45 Grade 3 49 Grade 4 32 Grade 5 33 Grade 6 4] Grade 7 54 Grade 8 37 Grade 9 61 Grade ]0 44 Grade 11 45 Grade 12 52 Special Education 34 Combined Programs BOCES Special 17 Education TOTAL 622 APPENDIX NO. 7 DOCUMENTATION REGARDING PROTECTIVE SERVICES A - 7 March 4, 1985 Mr. John Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, N. Y. 11944 Dear Mr. Costelio: The Greenport Fire Department has completed an evaluation of the proposed development of the area southeast of County Road 48 and Moores Lane and its impact on the Emergency Services' responsibilities of the Department. It is our feeling that our capabilities, both Fire suppression and emergency medical services, are more than adequate to meet anticipated needs of the proposed development. The Department also believes that our exlstlnE workload and responsibilities would not be compromised in any way by this development. Our study of existing traffic patterns, response routes of Fire Department emergency vehicles and water supply in the area all appear to support the proposed development as far as its impact on Emergency Services is concerned. The Department anticipates no negative impact on our ability to protect the lives and property of the residents of our protection district because of development of the above location as proposed. Sincer~l~ M. Langon - Chief Greenport Fire Department POL,IC~c DEPARTMIENT '-OiIla e of reenporr.-o Cyreenport, Suffolk ~oun~, 9q. ~. x ~944 March 4, 1985 John A. Costello Wiggins Lane Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Dear John, In reference to the 48 acres of land at the northeast corner of Noores Lane and Route 48 I feel the Greenport Police Department would be able to provide police protection to this area if it were annexed into the Village of Green- port. At the present time the Greenport Police Department patrols Moores Lane and the Village owned land on both sides of Noores Lane which is adjacent to this property. S' r 1 ~ C~e~rt E. Walden, Chief of Police APPENDIX NO. 8 LETTERS FROM GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE A - 8 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 Orient East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic December 3, i984 Mayor George Hubbard & Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport 236 Th[rd Street Greenport, N~w'~York_. . 1l~44 Gen[!' ' emen: .~ The Board of Otre~tors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce,.have reviewed the planning project of John Costello proposed to,~e located on property aC Moores Lane and North Road, Greenport; ~.~[Y. and look favorably opon the concept of it, We support Job opportunities and affordable housing for the young people, of our town. We favor the increased tax base and light comme~ce district it will provide For the area. We therefore, request that the application for the annexation of this property into the Village of Greenport be approved. Very~ uly yours, _~_ ~"c"<, ,.-~' ..... :.. Bernard Dempsey, President On Behalf of the~oard of Oirectors Greenport-SouthoI'd Chamber of Commerce RATZONALE OF THE CHAHBER'S ADVOCACY OF k SPECZFZC PROPOSAL NHICH PROVIDES JOBS AND HOOERATE PRICEO HOUSING. the John Coeta~o propoael For annexation of Town propert¥ to Graenport VLI~BGe, the Chamber O~rectore come,dared eevera~ aapecta of the proposal me we~l me £ta' ~mp~tcetLona, OF prime ~mportence to the Chamber Le aeaurance Chat the propertLea dee~gnated ee 'buL~dLng ~ote For younG, work~nG people" are actually bu~C and tLmm, #~thout ouch aeeurenoa there Le the danger that theme propertLes could be he~d For epacu~atlont their va~ue ~nf~eted, en~ ~he who~e substance o~ the propoael The Chamber alao conaidere~, that by GrantLn~ ~he annexation, the Town entLcLpatee th~ pro¥£ulonm of the rorChcomLng Heater PLan For zontng. In Bo do[rig, F~ne~ ~atermLnat~ona of the Plea. It ~e the Town Boar~'e c~eerLy end emphatically baae~ on the the benefice the muet not be e mere [netance ~F a Favorable dtmpeneeclon -moRE- of w~ mcrue to the V~aGa o4 Graanpcrt. The Chamber YAA~aGa Trustees wall be as poeAtAve'~n ~ha~r reaponme other premsSng needs o4 tho people, many of which tho Grasnport-Southo~d Chamber has pointed out An the past; most notably, tho development of the waterfront end tho of the v~aGe Sn the v$cAnSty of the Chamber's Tour~mt Information 5tat£on. toward town p~annAng~ the Chamber we~comea the re~u~er meetings of Ate CommunAcetAona Committee w~th the Town Commerce CommLtcee, next scheduled For ~sdnaaclay December 12~ 7;~0 PM ~n Town HI~ wAth MI'. Schonctebere and 14rs. Cochren. The ChambsrVs Goa~ Al I smooth tranl~t~on to the zonLnG propoae~s of the new Heater ~an. The ommm dAacuaaed here Lo c~ear and concrete avAdenca of the need For comprehensive and FeAr deYa~opmont of ouch a p~ln ii aden ne At con be made possible. For more £nFormat£on 477-047~ Committee Membere~ J. Barr~man~ B. Oempeayt H. N. MA~er, B.~etmore, APPENDIX NO. 9 INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING TRIP GENERATION DATA A - 9 200---Residential This section summarizes trip generation for all types of residential dwellings. Each category of residential housing, particularly single-family detached housing and apartments, used data from a wide range of units with varying sizes, price ranges, locations and ages. Con- sequently, there could be as wide a variation in trips generated within each category as there is between different categories. As expected, dwelling units that were larger in size, more expensive or farther away from the central business districts had a higher trip generation rate per unit than those smaller in size, less ex- pensive or closer to the CBD. However, other factors such as geographic location in the country and type of adjacent and nearby de- velopment also had an effect on the generation rate. Thus, only the above general statement (instead of some linear relationship) concern- mg size, cost and location of dwelling unit and the income of the occupant could be made. As expected, the single-family detached unit has the highest generation rate per unit of all residential uses. This is followed by apart- ments, with retirement communities having the lowest rate. The rate for planned unit de- velopments, which has a mix of single-family, detached units and apartments, is in between these two types. Single-family detached units have the highest rate because: 1) They are the largest units in si~e :-, have more people and more vehicles per unit than any other types; 2) they are generally located farther away from shopping centers, employment areas and other attractors than are other types; and 3) they have fewer alternate modes available because they are not as concentrated as other types o£ units. Summary of Rate Tables of the Different Types of Dwelling Units. 7~',,' of Dwelling Unit Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends per Unit Average Maximum Minimum 210 Single-Family Detached Unit 10.0 21.9 4;3 220 Apartment, General 6.1 12.3 0.5 221 Low-Rise Apartment 5.4 5.5 4.7 222 High-Rise Apartment 3.7 6.4 1.2 230 Condominium 5.1 9.4 0.6 240 Mobile Home 5.4 6.8 2.8 250 Retirement Community 3.3 4.9 2.8 270 Planned Unit Development 7.9 10.0 6.2 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type Single Family Hou. sin~ ITE Land Use Code 210 Independent Variable--TriPs per Acre Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 25.7 115 95 Peak A.M. Enter 0.7 25 Hour Between Exit 1.6 26 of 7 and 9 Total 2.1 108 Adjacent P.M. Enter 1.9 . Street Between Exit 1.1 Traffic 4 and 6 Total 2.7 Peak A.M. Enter 0,7 26 Hour Exit 1, ,5 of Total 2. t 11 ~ Generator P,M, Enter 2. ! 7R Exit ]. ! 76 Total 2,7 1 Satu~rday Vehicle Trip Ends 29.9 :57 Peal( Enter 1.5 21 Hour of Exit 1.3 21 Generator Total 2.9 29 ,, Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 24.9 32 Peak Enter ~ 1.2 19 Hour of Exit 1.2 19 Generator Total 2.9 27 Source Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 26, 58, 40, 71, 72 ITE Technical Committee 6A-6---Tdp Generation Rates 10-1-75 Date: SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type g~ngl~. ;~m~ ly ne~-ache_a Hg~m~_~ ITE Land Use Code Independent Variable--Trips per Dwelling Unit Average Trip Rate Maximum Rate A.M, Between 7 and 9 Minimum Rate Correlation Coefficient Number 0.6 of Studies 1.7 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 10.0 21.9 4.3 ,~,~ Enter 0.3 0.6 0. Exit Total 0.2 0.4 P.M. Between 4 and 6 A.M. 0.8 38 2.3 Enter 0.7 1.8 O. Exit 0.4 1.2 0.1 3.0 0.6 Total Enter 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.4 173 38 0.1 Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic peak Hour of Generator Exit 0.6 1.7 Total 0.4 196 38 38 0.8 2.3 175 P,M. Enter 0.7 1.8 0.3 40 Exit 38 Saturday vehicle Trip Ends P. eak Hour of Generator "Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends Peak I Hour of Generator I Total , 1.0 Enter , O, 5 Exit 0.,5 Total 1,, 0 8.8 Enter O. 5 Exit ~. 0.5 Total I. 0 1.2 14.7 1.0 0.7 .... 1,7 11.7 0.8 1.2 6.5 0.4 0,3 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.7 21 21 19 Average Size of Independent Variable/Study ~3 · 269 R96 ~0~ · 2~4 Source Numbers 1_~ 4: 5: 6. 7. 8:.11_. 12_. 13: 14: 16_. 40, 71, 72, 91 ITE Technical Committee 6A-6--Trip Generation Rates Date: 6-4-75.. Rev. 1979 19: 20: 21_. 24. 26. 34; 35. JJ SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Building Type g~ngle F~m~ Independent Variable--Trips per v,~ cl e Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 6.5 9.4 1.0 108 720 Peak A.M. Enter 0.2 26 Hour Between Exit 0,4 27 of 7 and 9 I Total 0.5 96 Adjacent P.M. Enter 0.4 27 Street Between Exit 0.2 27 Traffic 4 and 6 Total 0,7 95 Peak. A.M. Enter O, 2 27 Hour Exit 0,3 27 of Total 0,5 98 Generator P,M. Enter 0,5 29 Exit 0.2 2 7 Total O. 7 97 Saturday Vehicle Trip Ends 7. Peak Enter 0 .. 4 Hour of Exit 0: 3 21 Generator Total 0.8 31 Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 6.2 .... Peak Enter 0.4 Hour of Exit 0.4 19 Generator Total Source Numbers . 1, 4, 5, 6. 7. 8. 11. 12. 13. 14. 16 19. 20. 21. 24. 26. 34~ :~5: .~6o 38, 40~ 71~ 72 ITE Technical Committee 6A-6--Trip Generation Rates Date: , 10-1- 74 SUMMARY OF TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use/Builcling Type Single Fami 1¥ H~)usin_~ ITE Land Use Code 2 Independent Variable--Trips per Person Average Number Average Size of Trip Maximum Minimum Correlation of Independent Rate Rate Rate Coefficient Studies Variable/Study 'Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends 2.5 4.8 ' 1.2 170 1350 Peak A.M. Enter O. 1 Hour Between Exit 0.2 26 of 7 and 9 Total 0,2 95 Adjacent P.M, Enter 0.2 26 Street Between Exit 0.1 26 Traffic 4 and 6 Total 0. :5 94 Peak A.M. Enter 0.1 26 Hour Exit 0.2 26 of Total 0.2 97 Generator P.M. Enter 0.2 28 Exit O. 1 26 Total 0.3 96 S t rday Vehicle Trip Ends 2.7 :57 Peak Enter 0.2 2 Hour of Exit 0.1 21 Generator Total 0.3 31 Sunday Vehicle Trip Ends 2.4 32 Peak Enter 0.1 19 Hour of Exit 0.1 19 Generator Total 0.3 30 Source Numbers 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 38, 40, 71, 72 91 I']rE Technical Committee 6A-6--Trip Generation Rates Date: , 10-1-75 , P, ev. 1979 210--Sing!e2Family Detached Hous'mg Description: Any single-family detached home on an individual lot is included in this category. A typical example is a home in a modern sub- division. Slightly over 200 different studies were made of subdivisions containing single-family homes. The average size subdivision contained 506 dwelling units for a total of more than 105.000 dwellings studied. These subdivisions were located primarily in suburban areas l~hroughout the United States. The average development density was 3.5 units ]per acre with 3.7 persons per unit. The average automobile ownership measured was 1.6 vehi- cles per unit. Trip Characteristics: The analysis of correlation be- tween average weekday vehicle trip ends and all measured independent variables is shown in the table. Although the number of vehicles and number ,of residents have the highest correlations with average weekday trip ends, these variables have limited use. This is because: 1) The number of vehicles and residenta is difficult to obtain and very few of the studies contained these data; and 2) these data are also difficult to predict. The number of units has a high cor- relation with average weekday vehicle trip ends. This variable is best used because it is contained in most studies, it is easy to project and convenient to use. As indicated on the following tables, single- family dwellings generate on the average 10 vehicle trip ends per weekday per dwelling unit. Saturday vehicle trip generation is only slightly higher, and Sunday is lower. The regression equations developed for cal- culating the average weekday vehicle trip ends (AWDVTE) are as follows: AWDVTE = 138 + 8.17 x Units R = 0.937 ~-- - 100 q- 2.55 x Persons R = 0.995 -~ - 185 -e 6.76 x Vehicles R -- 0.999 Data Limitatlona: Some of the data are from studiea conducted in the late 1960s and therefore should be updated. Additional data concerning auto occupancy and other mod~ of transpor~ ration are necessary. Correlation Between Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends and the Independent Variables for Single Family Detached Houses. Independent Variables Persons Number of Units Number of Vehicles Owned Units per Acre Acres Correlation Coefficient (R) 0.995 0.937 0.999 0A31 0.t39 P, C V D CHARLES R. CUDDY STEPHEN R. ANGEL ESSEKS, HEFTER, CUDDY & ANGEL COUNSELOF~S AT LAW P. O, E~OX 279 RIVERHEAD, N.Y. 119OI (51~) TELex-EHCA 6852318 UW R O. BOX 570 WATER ~Vh LL, N. Y. 11976 March 5, 1985 Town Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York Village Trustees Village of Greenport 236 Third Street 11971 Greenport, New York 11944 Re: East End Associates Annexation Pursuant to GML Art. 17 Dear Board Members and Village Trustees: Pursuant to a contract dated November, 1984 and on February 15, 1985, title to the premises which is the subject of the above entitled application passed to John A. Costello. We request that the above application proceed on behalf of Mr. Costello. We are in the process of preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement pursuant to the Boards joint resolution. Very truly yours, William W. Esseks WWE:cf RECEIVED !985 -. T0~m Cle~ We, the residents o£ Southold Town, hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. ~'~e further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current ~ residential zoning. ,~ NAME ADDRESS 1985 ~e, the residents o£ Southo!d Town hereby petition the ~own Board o£ the ~ova~ o£ Southold, not to allow the annexation o£ the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane South and Route 4& by the Village o£ Gree~port. ~fe ~urther ~etition the ~ov~m Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address RECEIVED PACHMAN /k OSHRIN, P. C. ATTORNEYS VETEI~%N'S MI~MORIAL P.O, BOX CO--ACK, ~W YORK I January 9, 1985 Robert W. Tasker, Town Attorney Town of Southold 425 Main Street Greenport, NY 11944 Re: Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Town Land at Moores Lane to the Village of Greenport Dear Mr. Tasker: At the hearing on December 6, 1984, I reserved my right to submit a memorandum of law in support of Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Article 8, Paragraphs 8-0101, et seq. of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) and Part 617 of the Title 6 Environmental Conservation NYCCRR. Thereafter, I was advised that the joint meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Village Board of the Village of Greenport agreed to implement the SEQRA regulations for a full environmental review, including the necessary Environmental Impact Statement. This would obviate the necessity of my preparing a memorandum in support of that position. There was some question raised as to whether the SEQRA process could be concluded within the time frames set in Section 711 of the General Municipal Law, which requires that a decision be made within 90 days after every hearing has been concluded. Following the hearing, I brought to your attention the case of Sun Beach Real Estate Development Corp. v. Anderson, which had been decided approximately a year ago in the Appellate Divison, Second Department and reported in 98 A.D.2d 366, 469 N.Y.S.2d 964. My research further reveals that this case was affirmed on the opinion of Mr. Justice Lazer of the Appellate Division on June 29, 1984 by the Court of Appeals and reported in 62 N.Y.2d 965, 475 N.Y.S.2d 41. As you will recall, that matter dealt with the 45-day requirement to prove a subdivision map pursuant to Town Law 276 (3). The court had to weigh the requirements of the limited time restraints set forth in the Town Law and the open-ended requirements ~bert W. Tasker, Esq. Page 2 of the SEQRA statute. The court held that, before such preliminary subdivision application could be approved, the SEQRA process must be completed. In a very scholarly decision, Mr. Justice Lazer, decided that the narrow 45-day restraints set forth in the Town Law must !give way to the broader application and requirements of the SEQRA statute. The following quote from Mr. Justice Lazer's Appellate Division decision is most apt: "It is apparent that SEQRA's drafters did not take into account some of the idiosyncracies of subdivision procedures (see Marsh, Commentary-Unresolved Issues, 46 Alb. L.Rev. 1298, 1304) and it has been left to the judiciary to attempt to co-ordinate the statutes. Resolution of the instant case depends on which statute has pre-eminence--the 45-day requirement enacted in 1966 to limit the depredations of dilatory planning boards (see Matter of Mahop~c Isle v. Agar, 39 Misc.2d 1, 239 N.Y.S.2d 614, supra; 1 Anderson, New York Zoning Law and Practice [2d ed], Section 15.07) or SEQRA enacted in 1975 to save the environment and preserve it for future generations (ECL 8-0101; 8-0103, subds. 1, 8). We have no difficulty in according priority to SEQRA, because the legislative declaration of purpose in that statute makes it obvious that protection of 'the environment for the use and enjoyment of this and all future generations' (ECL 8-0103, subd. 8) far overshadows the rights of developers to obtain prompt action on their proposals. Once SEQRA's priority is recognized, the statute must be read to mandate that a preliminary plat application is not complete until a DEIS has either been dispensed with or accepted and the 45-day limitation in the Town Law does not commence to run until the application is complete (see Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 92 Wash.2d 685, 710, 601 P.2d 501). Here, the East Hampton Planning Board conducted a hearing on the preliminary plat within 45 days of its acceptance of the DEIS and therefore it acted in a timely manner without default under subdivision 3 of section 276 of the Town Law. In reaching our conclusion, we are quite aware that SEQRA and its regulations have set no time limits within which a planning board must accept a proposed DEIS (see Matter of East Clinton Developers v. Town of Clinten, 88 A.D. 2d 416, 453 N.Y.S.2d 763)." [At Page 970] I believe that the 45-day requirements under Town Law 267[5) and the 90-day requirement of General Municipal Law Section 711 are analagous, and the limited time frames of the 90 days must give way to the higher purpose and priority of the SEQRA statute. Robert W. Tasker, Esq. Page 2 Kindly keep us posted of any significant developments in this matter. We are sending a copy of this letter to the Viliage Attorney for his information. In addition, we are sending a copy to Judith M. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, with the request that we be placed on the mailing list for all environmental SEQRA ,circulations, so we, in turn, may keeD our clients informed. Very truly yours, E. Pachman HEP:ss cc: John J. Munzel, Esq. Greenport Village Attorney Judith M. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Mr. Emanuel Abate, Jr. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Dated: January 8, 1985 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 Of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of East End Associates for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E, Pachman, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January; 9, .1985: Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 'Church Street Patchogue, New York. 11772 Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is:a 3'Notice of Significant Effect on the Environ- ment" in connection with East End Associates petition for annexation, which determination was the subject of a Southold Town Board resolution on January 8, 1985} a copy of which is also enclosed. East End Associates is hereby requested to prepare a draft environ- mental impact statement for :submission to me upon completion. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry ~' Southold Town Clerk Enclosures~ (2) ,cc: William W. Esseks, Esq. Village of Greenport JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 9, .1985: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JANUARY 8, 3985: WHEREAS, East End Associates has heretofore, applied to the Southold Town Board, pursuant to Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the ProvisiOns of Article 8 Of the EnvirOnmental Conserva- tion Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York. State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, does hereby determine that the action proposed is a Type I .action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment. '~ 2. That the Town Clerk shall file' and. ci,rculate .such determination as required by. the aforementioned law, rules and code. 3.. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, East End Associates, of this :determination and :further request said 'applicant to prepare a draft environmental imPact statement,' all in'accordance with said:law, rules and code. Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STA I'ISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 17, .1984 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 To Whom It May Concern: Attached hereto is a Long Environmental Assessment Form filed by East End Associates in respect to their petition for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of GreenpOrt, said property being located at the corner formed by the inter- section of the south'erly side of North Road (C.R. 48)' and the easterly side of Moores Lane. ~ :JuditB T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk Posted on Town Clerk.~s Bulletin Board on 12/17'/84'. MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN RECEIVED 2 Town C~e~ So,d+m~ llaye of t,eenlood 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 December 19, 1984 TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN Hon. Judith Terry Southotd Town Clerk Town Hall Main Road Southotd, New York 1197t Dear Judy: As per our telephone conversation today, please find enclosed a supply of vouchers to be used for any expenses that the Village will share concerning the Moores Lane proposed annexation of East End Associates. If I can be of further help, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Eno. Nancy W. Cook Village Clerk · John J. Raynor, P. E. & L.S., p.c. CIVIL ENGINEER P.O. Box 720 Water Mill, N.Y. 11976 726-7600 Reports Office: Deerfield Green, Montauk Highway, Water Mill, N.Y. Design Environmental Planning December 14, 1984 Ms. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk P.O. Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: East End Associates Dear Ms. Terry: I am enclosing herewith a completed Environmental Assessment Form, Parts 1 & 2, for the proposed annexation of East End Associates' property into the Inc. Village of Greenport. To the best of my knowledge, ! have provided answers to all applicable questions except those which imply a decision on the part of the "lead agency". cc: East End Associates William W. Esseks, Esq. John Costello Inc. Village of Greenport Very truly/~z~urs, Jn~J.(Raynor, P.E. T~VN OF SOUTHOLD EAF ENVIRO;IMENTAL ASSESSMENT :'PART I Project Information NOTICE: This Document (. designed to assist in determining whether the action promosed may have a significant effect on the envlrc',,'r~nt. Please com)~lete the entire Data Smeet. Answers to these Questions w~ll me considered as part of tme a~plication for approval and may be subject to further verification and~ublic review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to comclete PARTS 2 and 3. It is exoecteo that ccmoletimn of the EAF will be debendent on information currently available and will no: involve new studies, research or investioation. If information reouirind such additional work is unavai~ble, so indicate and specify each instance. ~iAME OF PROJECT: EAST END ASSOCIATES PETITION FOR ANNEXATION NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different). (Name) ADDRESS AND N,~IE OF APPLICANT: (Street) East End Associates (P.O.) ~0 Church Street BU~NCSS PHONE: (Street) Patchog ue, N.Y. 11772 (P.O.) (State) (Zip) (State) (Zip) Annexation of approximately DESC)~IPT~O~ OF PROJECT~ {Briefly describe type of project or action) q8.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the incorporated Village of Greenport. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indica:e NoA. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undevelooed areas) . l. G~neral c~aracter of the land: ¢~nerally uniform slope ~ Generally uneven and rollin¢ or irreou)ar Present land use: , Agriculture 9/1.'7S Urban , Industrial , Con~ercia) , Suburban ., Rural., Forest , Other LA~ .pR~IOU~I.~ ~A~: ~Jo~) ~o~.~ol,,~t.~ Ob~ .~.~ ~0C¢1~.~7~. Total acreage of project area: JF~.~acres. A~proximate acreage: Presently After Completion Meadow or Brushland ~,'~acres ~,~acres Forested .. acres acres Aqricuitural acres acres 7etland IFreshwater or Tidal as net Articles ~4, 25 or F.C.L.I acres acres Presently After Completion '4hat ~s -redom~nan: soil tyPe(s) o~ oro~ect site? wmat is Oeotn to bedrock? ~'~OC)) A/tt~I~AO~ ('n ~eet) Hater Surface Area acres ac-es Unvegetated Crock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres acres Other (indicate tyne) acres acres J. _ .9_ c,_ Y Yes .__~_.Nc 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 0-10% iOO__.~%; lA-l~% ~ %; 15~ or greater "-- %. 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on th~ National Register of Historic places? Yes .~4. No 8. What is the depth to the water table? ~-I~feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? X Yes _____No 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or ~ndan~ered - ~Yes ~ ~1o, according to - Identify each species ll. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? {i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - ~Yes . X No. (DesCribe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreatio~ area - Yes ~.. No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the COmmunity? ._.___Yes ~__.__No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary ~/A 15. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name ~IL~- ~ ~A)~L~ : b. Size (in acres) ~o -f~ 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project {e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story}. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical di~nsions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor ~ acres. b. Project acreage developed: ~/A acres initially; ~A acres ulti~tely. c. P~ject acreage to remain undeveloped ~/A d. Length of project, in miles: ~/A (if appropriate) e. If p~ject is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age . ~/A ; developed acreage ~/~ . f. Nu~er of off-strut parking spaces existin~ ~ ; proposed ~ g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour ~/~ (upon c~pletion of project) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ~/~ One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial Ultimate i. If: Orientation ]leighborhood-City-Regional Commercial Industrial Total height of tallest nroposed structure Estimated Employment -2- How much natural material (i.e. rock., earth, etc.} will De removed from the site 6. If single phase project: 7. If multi-nhased project: b. Anticipated date of comnencement phase I month demolition ) c. Approximate completion date final pmase month d. Is ~hase 1 financially dependent on subseouent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? hJ/~ Yes No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction )k)/~ ; after aroject is complete 10. Num4>er of JObS eliminateo oy this project O ll. Will project reouire relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes ~ No. tons cubic yaros. How many acres of veqetation {trees, shrubs, grouno covers) ~ill ~e removed from site - ~ acres. Will any mature forest {Over 100 years old) or o~ner locally-important vegetation be removed oy project? Yes ~. No Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~es Anticipated period of construction k~/~ months, {including demolition). a. Total numoer of phases anticipated k)/~ No. year (incluOing year. Yes If yes, explain: No 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liouid waste disposal involved? Yes _)4[ No.' b. If yes, indicate type of waste {sewage, industrial, etc.} c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will pe discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased ~y proposal? Yes ~ No. 14. Is ~roject or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? Yes 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes X No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disQosal facility be used? Yes No c. If yes, give name: : location 16. 17. 18. 19. Will project result in an increase in energy use? d. Uill any waspes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes X No Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes X No Will project routinely produce ooors {more than one hour per day)? Yes )< No Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? Yes ~ No Yes X No. If yes, indicate type(s) 20. If water SuDDly is from wells indi :a~e ou~o~ng capacity ),J/~w, 21. Total anticinateo water usage per day _gZ~ gals/day. 22. Zoning: a. b~hat is dominant zoning classification of site? b. Current specific zoning classification of site gals/minute. -3- 26. Aoorovals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes X~No b Does projec~ involve State or Federal funding or financing? c. Local and Regional aDorovals: AD,royal Reeuired (Yes, No) (Type) ~ .... Town, Villaoe Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies Yes __m~ NO Submittal Aoarovat (Date) (Date) INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any auverse tmnacts associated with the orooosal, please discuss SUCh impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: DATE: -4- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.- PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Inf~r~ation iRe~d Carefully) - In comolecing the form the reviewer should oe guided by the ouestion: Have my decisions ano determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is no~ expected :o be an exoert environmental analyst. - Identimying that an effect will oe potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily siQnificant. Any large effect mus~ be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identlfying an effec~ in column 2 simoly asks that it be looked at further. - The Examoles orovided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever oossib!e the thresholc of ma~ that would trigger a response ~n column 2. The examples are generally aoolicable throughout the State and for mos: situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be more approoriate for a Potential Large Impac: rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examoles have been offered as guidance. They oo not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each ouestion. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. b. c. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect, Maxbe answers should be considered as Ye~answers. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the appropriate box {column 1 or 2) to indicate the ~otential size of the impact, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than examole, check column 1. If reviewer nas doubt about the size of the imoact ~hen consider the imoact as ~otentially large and proceeo to PART 3. If a potentially large impact or effect can be reduced by a change in the oroject to a less than large magnitude, ~iace a Yes in column 3. A No response indicates, that such a reduction is not possible. IMPACT ON LAN~ WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF ~ PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE? Examoles that Would Aooly to Column 2 ®© -5- ronstruction of oaveo oarkino aren ~mr 1,~QQ or more vehicles. C~nstruction on land where bedrock is exoosea or generally within 3 feet of existing grounO surface. Construction ~hat will continue for more than 1 year or involve Excavation for m~n~ng gurDoses that woulo remove more than 1,O00 tons of natural material ~i.e. rock or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. Construction on Land wnere the denth to the water table is less than 3 fee~. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IHPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE NO YES Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise oer 100 foot of length), or where the general slooes in the project area exceeo 10%. $!'ALL TO PDTE~T~AL CAN I'IPACT ~nOERATE LARGE REDUCED BY ~MPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway. Other imeacts: 70 YES 2, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIOUE OR UNUSUAL LANF) FFIRMS ~ FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, aeological for~- t~ns. etc. ) Specific land forms: IHPACT ON WATER NO YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS .......... PROTECTED? [Under Articles 15, 24. 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.CoL.) v Examoles that Would Aooly to Column 2 Dredgino more than lO0 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other immacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTING OR NFW NO YES BODY OF,,ATER, ............................................ Examples that Would Aoely ~o Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a l0 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeos lO acres of surface area. Other imoacts: ~ YES 5. gILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER rllIALITY? Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will re~.ulre a discharge permit. Projec~ reouires use of a source of water that does not nave aeoroval to serve 9rooose~ project. Project rec~qres wa~er supply from wells with greater than ~.5 oallons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or ooeration causing any contamination of a public water supply system. Projec~ will adversely affect grounowater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities w~i.~n ~resently co not exist or have Project recurring a facility that would use water in excess of 2P,qO0 gallons ~er cay. Project w~ll ~ikely cause siltation or other discharge into an existing b~dy of water to the extent that there Other ImPacts' I;ILL PROJECT ALTER DRAINAGE FLOU, PATTERNS OR SURFACE !~TER NO RUNOFF? ................................................... Examole that Hould Apply to Column 2 Project would imoede flood water flows Project is likely to cause sJbstantial erosion. Project is incompatible with existing drainage patterns. Other impacts: LMPACT QN AIR rio YE-~ 7. HILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? .......................... Examotes that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1,gOO ormore vehicle trims in any given hour. .. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. Project emission rate of all contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. Der Pour or a heat source producing more than lQ million BTU's per pour. IMPACT ON PLANTS AND AN)PALS Other imoactS: 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANAERED SPECIES? Examples that Would Apgly to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the I(ew York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or siqnificant wild- life habi(~l~. Am~licatinn of Pesticide or he!~icidu over more than C~,ice a year o:~er ti'san ~or~J~ult~ur~l p~,~F~es. Ot~r impacts: ~IALL TP POTENTIAL £AN I~IPACT BE .~DE P. ATE LA~GE REDUCED DY [:4PACT I~'RACT PROJECT CHA~GE 9. t~ILL PROJECT SUBSTA~iTIALLY AFFECT RON-THREATE;IED OR NO ENDANGERED SPECIES? ....................................... ~ Examole that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. ~ Project requires the removal of more than lq acres of mature forest.(over lO~ years in ape) or other locallv important vegetation. YES ®0 YES .NO YES ®0 -7- t"'^£T 0'~ VISUal RESRt!RCE lO. ~]LL THE PgOJECT :rrECT VIE!iS. uISTAS OR T!IF V]SUAL NO YES CHARACTER OF TttE ;IFIGliBQR~nOD OR CO~M ~ITY? ............. ~/~ Exmmqles tna: Uould Agg!y to Column 2 ~n ';ncom~atible visual affect causea Dy the introduction of new materials, colors ann/or forms in contrast ko the surroundine landscape. --- A project easily visible, not easily screened,~na: ~s obviously different from others arouno it. Pro3ect will result in :ne elimination or ma2or soreen~n§ of scenic views or vistas knovm to De important to toe area. Other impacts: ll. Examples that Would Aopl~ to Column 2 Prelect occurinq wholly or martially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Reaister of historic places. Any impact to an archeological site or fossil bec located within the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATIO)( 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR OUAL!TY OF EXISTING NO YE~ OR FUTURE OPEt~ SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? ...... ~ ~ Examples that Hould Amply to Colum~ 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. Other impacts: I~PCCT nN TRANSPORTATION '3. :'ILL THERE BE A~ EFFECT TO EXISTII~G TRANSPORTATIF)N NO YES SYSTE"S? ............................................... Examples that Would A~nlv to Column 2 Alteration af present Patterns of movement of neople and/or Pro.iect will result in severe traffic 9roblems. Other OOTE~TIAL LARGE I'm~CT CA~'; I~!PACT BE REDUCED ny PROJECT CHANGE I~PACT ON ENERG~ 1~. ,IILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CO.UNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY? ........................................... QO Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing oreater than 5% increase in any fo~ of ener~ used in municipality. Project reouiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve are than 50 sinqle or'two family residences. 15o Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... ~ Examples that Would Aooly to Colunm 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility, Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day), Project will oroduce operating noise exceedinn the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: IMPACT 02) HEALTH & HA~ARp~ NO YF. 16. t',ILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of exDlosion or release of Nazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" {i.e. [ox~c, Poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinm was[es teat are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe facilities for one million or more qallons of liou(fied natural gas or other liouids. Other impacts: S~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IHPACT DE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT I~PACT PROJECT CHANGE LARGE REDUCED BY IIIPACT PROJECT C)~ANG) IMPACT O,q GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGlqRO~HQQ~ 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER n? THE EXISTING NO YES CD NITY? ................................................wn Example that Would ApPly to ColUmnr2 v · The population of the City, To o Village in which the project is located is likely to qrow by more than 5% o~ resident human :opulation. The municipal PuPgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% Der year as a result of this project. Will involve any ~ermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will re,lace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas cf historic imoortance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an imoortant precedent for future prelects. Project will relocate 1S or more employees in one or more businesses. Other imoacts: NO 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ....... ~ Examoles t~at Would Apply Do Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacen~ communities ~ nave expressed deposition or rejecteO the project or nave not eeen contacteO. Objections to the nroJect from within the community, YES IF ANY ACTION I)~ PART 2 IS IDE)~IFIED AS A POTENTIAL .ARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNIllJDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. DETERMINATION PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART I __ PART II PART 3__ Upon review of t~e information recorded on this EAF {Parts l, 2 and 3) and considerinq Doth :ne magnitude and imnortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may no: cause significanD eamape to the environment. B. Althoueh the projec: could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not De a significant effect in this case oecause the mitigation measures described ir PART 3 nave been included as part of cna nroDosed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse imoac:s that canno~ De reduced and may cause slonificant damage to the enw ronment. Date Signature Of PreParer Iif differene from responsible officer) PREPARE A NEr-ATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEGATIVE ~ECLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATIOH PROCEED WITH EIS Signature of Responsible Official in Lead Agency ~-F-int or tyoe name of responsible official in Lead Agenc~ EAF EIIVIRONMENTAL ASSESS)(ENT - PART III EVALUATIO~ OF THE IHP~RTANCE ~F IMPACTS )iNFORMATION~ Part 3 is oreoared if one or more imoact or effect is considered to be Potentially laroe. The amount of writina necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the question: In ~ completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? I~STRUCTIONS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe Cif apolicable) now the imoact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large immact by a pro- ject change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the minicipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the ouestion of importance, consider: The probability of the impact or effect occurring The duration of the impact or effect Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values - ~hether the impact or effect can be controlled The regional consequence of the imnact or effect Its ootential divergence from local needs and goals Whether Known objections to the project apply to this imoact or effect. DETErmINATION OF SIG~!IFICANCE ' An action is considered to be significant if: ~ne (or m~re) impact is determined to both larne and its (their) conseouence, based on the review above, is imoortant. ' PAPT III STATEHENTS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) -ll- JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 19, 11984: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Charles T. Hamilton Alternate Regional Permit Adminis[rator N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY - Room 2,19 Stony Brook, New York '11.794 Dear Mr. Hamilton: Enclosed is the petition and Long Einvironmental Assessment Form submitted by East End Associates relative to their petition for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated ~ortion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. This project is unlisted and we wish to coordinate this 'action in our role of lead agency. May we have your view on this matter. Written comments on this proposal vtill be received at this office until January 7, '1985:. We shall interpret your lack Of response to mean there is no objection by your agency. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Commissioner Williams Southold Town Building Department $outhold Town Planning Board Gi'eenport Village Clerk In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, TO: X TO~¢~ BOARD OF THE TO~ OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The petition of EAST END ASSOCIATES respectfully shows as follows: 1. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex to the territory of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, a parcel of property owned by petitioner, East End Associates, which property is situate within the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A annexed hereto. 2. Petitioner, East End Associates, is a partnership organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of'New York. The memkers of the partnership and their respective addresses are set forth upon Schedule B annexed hereto. 3. This petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southold (hereinafter "Town of Southold") and uo the Trustees of the VillaGe of Greenport (hereinafter Villa._ of Greenport") for the purposes of having the Town of Southold consent to the annexation of the property described in paragraDh 1 hereof to the Village of Greenport. 4. There are no "inhabitants~ of the subject property as defined in §703 of the General Municipal Law° 5. The owners of a majority in assessed valuation of the subject propertyr as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold, joins herewith. 6o Annexed hereto as Schedule C is a certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to ~703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the governing parties of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southoid~ pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law~ entertain this petition. Dated: October 29t 1984 EAS~ND ASSOCIATES~ Petitioner L~aJ_~al Par~ner- ~oH~ 5.~q~ STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF~{~ )ss.: X~'//;~ ~'~o~ r being duly sworn~ deposes and I reside at~o~ ~ ~ ! ~i in the County says: of 5o~( l< in'the State of New York,-- ~"I know each of the persons whose names are subscribed to the above sheet having ~ signature~; and each of them subscribed the same in my presence. Sworn to before me this ~ day of ~~ , 1954~ l~otary Pubtic U GLORIA G. O'MALL£Y NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 4803137 Suffa!k County Commission Expires March 30, SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane: RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 985.10 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 342.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said last mentioned land 714,04 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 ~degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 67.0.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; ~?_ RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 mi~utees 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING. SCHEDULE C CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLKiSS': I,~J~L~A~-~& , a duly elected assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York do ~ereby certify: 1. That I am a duly elected assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment roll for the year 198 . 2. That the real Property described in paragraph 1 of the annexed petition is situated in the said Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, for the year !98~ which is the last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. 3. That the total assessed valuation of said real property described in the said annexed petition as shown on assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for [he year 1984, is 4. That the petitioner, East End Associates~ is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the real proeprty described in the said annexed petition which is now situated in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and which is sought to be annexed to the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York and that the assessed valuation of the property as shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Southold~ for the year !98~ is as follows: (a) The real property assessed to East End Associates, as described in the annexed petition is assessed at $ Dated: Southold, New York , 1984. Assessor, Town of Southold Suffolk County~ New York I?_ECEIVED BY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DATE----~/~/~$~/' HOlm DEPT. ~,$$,~ s~ ~ a TO[YN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ]'PART I Project Information NOTICE: This Uocun~nt (- des~cned to assist in determining whether the action oroposed may have a significant effect on the er~vlrCn,~nt. Please complete the entire Data Sheet. Answers to these ouestions will be considered as cart of the a-~olication for approval ann may be subject to further verification and ~ublic review. Provide any additional ~nformation you believe will ne needed to comolete PARTS 2 and 3. It is ex~ecteo rna: como)etlon of the EAF will be oe~endent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, researc~ or investiqation. If information requirina such additional work is unavoi~ble, so indicate and s~ecify each instance. ~iAME OF PROJECT: EAST END ASSOCIATES NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different) PETITION FOR ANNEXATION (Name) ADD~ESS AND NA~E OF APPLICANT: East End Associates (Name) 20 Church Street ]Street) PatchogUe, N.Y. 11772 '(P.O. ) (State) (Zip) (Street) (P.O.) BUSINCSS PHONE: (State) (Zip) Annexation of approximately DESCRIPTION OK PROJECT: (Briefly describe type of project or action) Da. 7 Bcres of )and in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southo)d into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. (PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate M.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION ~. - - m (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and unoeveloeed areas) ). G~neral character of the land: r~nerally uniform slope )(' Generally uneven and rollin~ or irregular 2. Present land use: UrOan , Industrial , Commercial . , Suburban ., Rural , Forest · Agriculture , Other LA~I~ p~lou~b¥ p~x~o: ~o~ u~oc-~ol~ ou~, ~l~Cq, 9occ~)~ Total acreage of ~roject area: ~-~.7acres. Approximate acreage: Meadow or Brushland Forested Anricultural '~etlan~ (Freshwater or Tidal as nor Articles 24, 25 ar r.C,L.) 4. WPa~ is ~reeomlnamt soil tYDe(S) on ~rolec~ site? Presently After Completion Presently After Completion ._ acres acres Unvegetated (rock, earth or fill) __~acres ____.acres . ..acres acres Roads, buildinQs and other payee surfaces acres acres Other {indicate ty~e) ~cres acres ~re there beDrocK outcro~olnas on nrniPCt site? ..... Yes ~a: iS de,tn :C bed?ock? .____~_O.__C~_[__../~_[_eJ_.~t.~.kY~ ('n ~eet) 6. Approximate percentage of proposed project site with slooes: O-lOS JDO %: 1Aol~ -- ~; 15S or greater -- 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on th~ National Register of Historic Places? Yes , ¥~ No B. What is the depth to the water table? ~-J~feet 9. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ~ Yes 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endanqereo - ,Yes ~ ~to, according to - Identify each species 11. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes ~No, (Describe 12. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes ~ No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes ~ No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary IS. Lakes, Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name ~t~- ~ ~TI.A~ : b. Size {in acres) ~o -)- 16. What is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project {e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of develooment (e.g. 2 story). B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION l. Physical di~nsions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate} a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project s~onsor ~,~ acres. b. Project acreage developed: ~/A acres initially; ~ acres ultimately. c. P~ject acreage to remain undeveloped ~/A d. LengtJm of proJect, in miles: ~/~ (if a~propriate) e. If p~ject is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age ~/A ; develooed acreage ~/~ . f. )Ju~er of off-strut oarking spaces existing ~ ; aro~osed ~ ~ ~_ g. Maximum vehicular trios generated per hour ~/~ (upon c~letion of project} h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: ~/~ · . One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initial Ultimate i. If: Orientation ~)eighborhood-City-Regional Commercial Industrial j. Total helgnt of tallest nro~oseo structure Estimated Emoloyment -2- 2. How much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site - O tons (~ cubic yaros. 3, How many acres of veqetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) ~ill be r~ved from site - ~) acres, 4. Wit) any mature forest {over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed Dy tn~s project? , Yes ~. No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? ~es ])~[ rio 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction~Y~ months, {including demolition), 7. If multi-~hased oroject: a. Total numoer of phases anticipated ~ No, year {including b. Anticipated date of contnencement phase I month demolition) c. Approximate completion Pate final phase month___ d. Is ~hase 1 financially dependent on subsepuent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? l'J/~k Yes No 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction )~)/A~; after project is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project O I1. Will project reouire relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes )~ No. Yes No If yes, explain: )2. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes )~ No.' b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will oe discharged 13, Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface water~ays be increased or decreased by proposal? Yes )4. No. 14. Is project or any portion of project located iN the 100 year flood olain? Yes 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes X No b. ~f yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? ...Yes No c. If yes, give name: : location d. dill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Yes _..K No 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? .._yes )C No 17. Will project routinely produce pdors (more than one hour per day)? Yes X No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? lg. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Yes )~NO Yes X No. If yes, indicate type{s) .~o APJ~¢~qT 1 20. If water supply is from wells indicate pumping capacity I.J//~. 21. Total anticipated water usage per day k)/~ oals/day. 22. Zoning: a. J.lhat is dominant zoning classification of site? gals/minute. b. Current specific zoning classification of site c. Is proposed use consistent ~vith present zoninq? d. If no, indicate desired zon~nq __~~ ~~_~O AOToM~T~C~L~ A~ ~o~ ~-~. 26. Approvals: a. Is any Federal permit required? Yes ~ No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing) c. Local ano Regional approvals: ADoroval RecJired (Yes, No) (Type) ~ Town~ Village Board '~F~ ~I,J~J~'AZ~'~,.~ City, Town, Village Planning Board ~o City, Town, Zoning Board Lo City, County Health Department ~o Other local agencies BO Other regional agencies "-~-~- State Agencies ~o Federal Agencies No Yes _~ No Submittal ~o~rovai (Date) {Date) INFORKATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your pro3ect. If there are or n~y be any adverse imoacts associated with the prooosal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can ~e taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPA~ER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: DATE: -4- EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT.- PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General lnf~-nation FRe~d Carefully) - In comPleking tn~ form the reviewer should De guided by the ouestion: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonable? The reviewer is not exoected to ~e an exoeKt epvlronmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large {column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect mus: be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an effect in colu~ 2 simoly asks that it oe looked at further. - The Examoles provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the threshoi of magnltuoe that would trigger a resoonse in column 2. The examples )re generally apolicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examoles and/or lower thresholds may be more aPoropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examoles nave been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each Question. - The number of examples per question does not indicate the imoortance of each cdestion. INSTRUCT~ONS.{Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer yes if there will be any effect. b. ~answers should be considered as Ye__~ answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the approoriate box (column I or 2) to indicate the potential size of the imoact, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than examole, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about th'e size of the imoact ~ben consider the imoact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large imoact or effect can be reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, glace a Yes in column 3. IMPACT ON LAND A No response indicates, that such a reduction is not mossible. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT O? A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT SITE? Examoles that Would ADoly to Column 2 Any construption on slopes of I5% or greater, (15 foot rise oer 100 foot of tengt)~), er woere the general slopes in the project area exceeo 10%. Construction on Land where the denth to the wa~er table is less than 3 feet. ronstruction of hayed oarkino are, ~mr l,~q or more vehicles. C~ns~ruction on land where bedrock ~s exQoseo or ~enera)iy within $ feet of existing grouno surface. ConsCruction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve mo-e than one qnase or stage. Excavation for m~n~n§ purposes ~at would remove more than l,OO0 tons of natural m~teria) {i.e. rOCK or soil) per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT !~4PACT PROJECT CHANGE NO YES Construction in a desinnated floodway. Other imoacts: ~O YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LAND FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliff~, dunes, oeoloqical forma- ti(ms, etc.} ' ' Snecific land forms: ?~PACT ON WATER - NO YES 3. WILL PROJECT APFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS ......... PROTECTED? {Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examples that Would Aoply to Column 2 Dredging more than lOQ cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction ~n a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other imoacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON-PROTECTED EXISTIN~ OR NEW NO YES BODY OF rIATER? ............................................ QO Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 A ]0% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a lO acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds In acres of surface area. Other imoacts: NO YES pROJECT AFFECT SURFAC OR G"OII.O! AT .ALITY? Examoles that Would Apply tO Column 2 PrnJect will require a discharge ~ermit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not nave aoerovat to serve eroeosed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 callons per minute pumping capacity. Construction or o~eration causing any contamination of a ~ublic water Supply system. Project wi)) adversely affect groundwater. L~ou~d effluent will De conveyeo off the site to facilities which presently ~o not exist or nave ~na~eouate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per oar. Projec~ will likely cause siltation or Other discharge will be an obvious visual COntraSt tO natural COnditions. ~!~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN )rlPACT BE ~BERATE LARGE REDUCED BY )~PA~T IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE ~tALL TO P~TENTIAL CAN IIIPACT BE ~IDEP. ATE LA~GE REDUCED BY iMPACT P'P~CT PROJECT CHANGE .....g -- 6. ~¢ILL PR~JCCT ALTER DRAINAGE FLg~, PATTEP[~S OR SURFACE )~TER NO YES RUNOFF? ................................................... Examnle that '.~ould Anply to Colurm 2 Project would imnede flood water flows. P~ject is likely to cause substantial e~sion. P~ject is incompatible wi th existing drainage patterns. ~10 YES ?. PILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ........................... Examples that Hould Apply to Column 2 P~Ject will induce l,OO0 or mo~ vehicle trips in any given P~ject will result in the incineration of mo~ than ) ton P~Ject emission rate of all contaminants will exceed $ lbs. Der hour or a heat source ~ducing more than million BTU's per hour. Other imoacts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND AN)~JLS .NO YES 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any ~ortion of a critical or sionificant wild* ~ life habi~. ADolicatinn of Pesticide or herbicide over more than t~,ice a yearo~hertb~n~or~j_~t~J~l Other impacts: 9. L~ILL P~OJE£T SUBSTA~TIALLY AFFECT I.)ON-THREATE~ED OR NO YES Examole that Would Apply to Column 2 Project would substantially interfere with any resident or migrato~ fish or wildlife species. mature retest (over lOO years in ane) or other locally -7- !"n&CT O:~ VISUAL ~ESOURCE ~!II.L TNE P:O]FCT AKrECT ¥IEt!S. vISTAS CR THE V)SUAL CHARACTER OF TttE ~;FIGHBqRWr~]D 0~ CON"'~!~ITY? .............. Exammles that ~!ould Apply to Column 2 An incnmpa~ible visual affect caused by the intromuction of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to the surrou~dinp landscage. A uroject easily visible, not easily screened~that is o~¥iously differen~ from nthers around it. ~'Project will result in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vistas known to be important to the area. Other impacts: NO !~PACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES WILL PROJECT I~P~CT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, NO PRE-HISTOrIC ~R PALEONTOGICAL I~POPTANCE? ................. ~ Examoles that Would ADOly to Column 2 Prejec~ occur~no wholly or nartially within or contiguous to any facility or site }isLed on the National Remister of historic olaces. Any imoact to an archeological site or fossil bed located within ~ne projec~ site. Other impacts: I~PACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 12, WILL THE PRAJECT AFFECT THE DUANTITY OR OUALITY OF EXISTING NO OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? Exameles that $1ould Amply ~o Column 2 The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational oonortunity. ~ A major reduction of an open soace ~moortant to the core. unity, Other ~mDacts: i~maCT n~ TP~ANSPORTATION 13. UILL THERE BE Aq EFFECT TO EXISTII;G TRANSPORTATION SYSTEUS? ............................................... Examples ~na~ Would Ao~lv to Cclumn 2 Alteration of ~resen~ parLe.ns of movement of neople anD/or goo~s. Project will result in severe traffic ~robiems. NO YES YES YES YES ~OTE)~TIAL LARGE I'~?ACT CAN I?!PACT BE REDUCED ~Y IMPACT ON ENERGY 14. IdILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERr~y SUPPLY? ........................................... ~ Exammles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing qreater than 5% increase in any.form of energy used in municipality. Project requiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 sinqle or 'two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBP~TIQN NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCEASA RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? .... ~-~%~ Examoles that Nould Aooly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely {more than one hour per day). Project will ~roduce operating noise exceedino the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. Other impacts: [~PACT ON HEALTH & HA~ARD~ 16. !'tILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC ilEALTH AND SAFETY? ........... Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances {i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or uoset conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" {i.e. toxic, pnisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc., includinm wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe facilities for one million or more gallons of tiouified natural gas or other liouids. gther impacts: SN~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IHPACT DE )~DER~TE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT I'~PACT PROJECT CHANGE IMPACT ON GRO~YTH AND CHAPJ~CTER OF COM)4UNITY OR ~(EtGI~)~flR~OQD )7. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTER nF THE EXISTING NO YES Examole that Would Apolv to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in which the · project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% oA resident human :opulation. The municioal budgets for caoital exoenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more ~nan 5% per year as a result of this project. Will involve any ~ermanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nrime agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will reolace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic imoor~ance to ~ne community. Develooment will induce an influx of a oarticular age grouo Wlth soecial neeos. Pro3ect will set an imoortant precedent for future pro)ects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other imoacts: ~ODER^TE I)!PACT 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ...... Examnles that Would Apply to Column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacen: communities nave expresseo ooposition or rejected the Orolec% or nave not oeen contacted. Obiections to ~ne nro)ect from within the communitY. NO YES '0® IF ANY ACTION I~ PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A ) POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETE~INE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. DETEPMINATION LARGE REDUCED BY tlIP&CT PROJECT CHANGE PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART I __ PART II-- PART 3 Uoon review of t~e information recorded on this EAF (Parts l, 2 eno 3) eno constderinq both the maon~:uoe and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major imoac~s and, therefore, is one which may not cause significant oamaoe to the enwronment. B. Althouoh the project could nave a significant effect on the environment, there will not De a significant effect in this 'case :ecause the mitigation measures descrimeo in PART 3 have Peen included as Dart of the nroposeo project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse imoacts that cannot De reouceo eno may cause s~qnificant oamage to the environment. Signature of Prenarer (if different from responsible officer) PREPARE A NEr-ATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS Signature of Responsible 0ffic~ai in ~ead Agency ~int or type na~e of responsiblJ official in Lead Agenc9 EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSHENT - PART III EVALUATIO~I OF THE IHPORTANCE ~F IMPACTS INFORMATIQN Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially larae. - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the Question: In briefly completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? I~STRUCTIONS Complete the following for each impact o~ effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe /if apolicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large impact by a pro- ject change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the minicipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect Its ir~versibility, including permanently lost resources or values Phether the impact or effect can be controlled o The regional consequence of the impact or effect o Its potential divergence from local needs and goals - Whether know6 objections to the project apply to this impact or effect. DETEP~UII(ATION OF SIG~!IFICANCE An action is considered to be significant if: ~lne (or more) impact is determined to botPr larne and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is important. PART III STATEMENTS {Continue on Attachments, as needed) -ll- NPORI To: To:m Board, Town of South~ld Village Board~ Village of Greenport P~O. Box Greenport~ December 14~ 1984 Gentl~nen: For *d~ose of us who have seen other co~anities on Long Island straggle to deg~l with the need for providing balanced housLug for residents at all economiff~levels, it see~s regrettable that the ~e~lities of present day housing costs are not being faced in the pla~ud~ug for the T~n of Southold~ For at least f~teen years, it has been impossible for the average American f~mily to begLu life with the purchase of a one-family house. Not just in cities~ but in suburbs and rural are~s~ apartments are the ~uly hope for providing affo~v!abls housing for a growing percentage of our national population~ In the case of $outhold, where fish,processing, canvas products and other factories a_~e competing with other low-cost labor areas and cannot themselves pay much more t~.~ $5 an hour for much of their help~ the need for apartm~ents is especially urgent ~ we are not to keep losing workers or b~ve to close our eyes to ~ving tb~m illegally housed in overcrowded dwellings which breed health and social problems~ The proposal to ~v~ex 48 acres of Town land to the Village of Gree~ort offers a chance to beg~u addressiD~ Southold~s housing crisis because Greenport can readily sup_ply the water ~ud sewer connections needed by an apartment complex~ However, t?~ present plan for use of the 48 acres, as reD~rted in the press, does not bear the slightest similarity to a plan which would ~m~ke an adeqv~te contri~ation to the worker housing needs it cla~ to address ~ The single-family houses it contemplates would cost so much that only yegg executives could hope to own them. In addition, the extensive commercial development proposed on the plot would generate a demand for still more low-paid workers ~ud actually aggravate the problem of labor short, ge which exists in the T~an~ notwithstanding wuemployment statistics° The comments of Henry ~asker~ Esq~ at the hearing on this project clear]~v iudicate that the p~ssnt proposal is ~nlikely to survive a legal challenge because it appears designed more to enrich the developers bY allowing them ~o down zone 2-Acre residential land tb~u to save local industry and assure it of an adequate s~pply of to~-paid workers. This may not be the intent of the developers, b~t~ ass~i~g their good will, they have not thought out the practical consequences of their proposal in the housing seC.tor~ To make the proposal viable in the face of litigation~ it must make a muc!h more generous contribution to the general welfare of the commur~Ity ~ud, in p~ticular, to the lo~paid workers who will be employed in its commercial area~ This might well be in the form of establishing two zeroes in the resi- dential portion of the property, one for single-family ~uses- or two~fami!y houses, and one for apartments of appropriate density~ At least five acres of the residential area should be donated free to the Village of Greenport~ which would be obligated to p~rsue whatever subsidized housing program seems best likely to provide ~fford~ble housing for workers on them~ The cost of t~s land to the developer would be compensated for by the rise in v~lue of the rest of the l~ud in down ~o~niug~ Use ~f !ow-cost cooperative o~ershio would assure a tenancy of stable xamilies s~d reliable workers~ Fr4derick $ I~i~ I N U T E S December 6~ 1984 In %he [~%~t%er of the AT:piica%ion of EAST P2~D ASSOCIATES, F~suan% ~o Ar2icle l? of the General IE~mieipal Law 2o a~aex a pagoe! of proper2y 2o 2he 2erri2ory of the Village of G~eenpor% Meeting Time and ?lace: 7:30 p,mo Present on the dais: S0~J'?REOLD TO'i~.R,~ DO~{D: Supe~zisor ~ancis J. I~Qar?by Councilman Joseph Z. Townsend Councilman Paul Stoutenburg Counciin~ James A. Schondebare Co~m.cilwomea Jean if. Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Te~y Term Attorney Robert ~g. Tasker Southold Towm Hall Main Road Southotd, N, Y. GN. EF.%~ORT VILLAGE B0~gs?~D OF ~USTEES: Mayor George ~. Hubbard, Jr. Trustee Sam Katz Trustee William Lieblein T-~stee David Kape!l Village Clerk Nancy lJ. Cook Village Attorney Jo~mu j. iu~-uzel Supervisor ~ancis J. l¢?~rphy oi:ened the hearing at 7:30 p.m. and intro- duced the members of the Greenport Village Board of Trustees and members of the Southold Totem Board° ~. ~.~u~phy introduced Judith T. Terry, To%~n Clerk of Southold, who read the official statement: "Notice is hereby given, p~o~suant to Section 704 of the General ~dunicipal Law, that a petition of East End Associ~tes, for the armexation to the Village of Oreenport of certain territory adjoining said Village k~s been received by the To~,m Board of the Totem of Southold, being the town in which the said territory proposed for armexation is located and is described as follows: ~' If there is no Objection, i will suspense with rea~_ing the meets and bounds des- criptiono Does anyone have any objection? (none) 'T~+~% a ~oint hearing will be held on such petition by the aforesaid Tow~ Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustee~ of the Village of Greenport at the Southold Towm Hall, i~ain Road, Southold, New York on the 6th day of Decem?oer, 1984, at 7:30 P.M. on said day. ~'That the members of the ~ore~aid governing boards of the Totem of Southold and the Village of Greenport will m.eet at the time and place above specified s~d will hear any objections which ~y be presented against such petition for 'a~ezgtion upon ar~ of the following ~ounds: ~'(a) Tb~mt a person sigm_ing the petition is not qualified therefor, or (b) That the persons signing such petition do not constitute twenty per- centum of the persons residing within such territory qualified to vote for totem officems~ or (c) Tb~t the persons signing such petition do not rspresent the owners of a ~jority in value of the property within such territory assessed upon the ~st preceding totem assessment roll, or (d) That the i~etition does not otherwise substantially comply in form or content with the proviz, ions of ~rticle 17 of the General ~unicipal Law of the State of New York, or (e) That the pro?osed a~n~exation is or is not in the overall ?~blic in- terest (1) of the territ~ proposed to be a~uexed, or (2) of the local gove~ent or goverD~ents to which the territory is ~roposed to be annexed, or (3) of the remaining area of the local government or gove~- ments in which such te~itory is situated~ or (4) of ~uy school district, fire district or other district corporation~ public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire al~.m district or town or coumty improve- ment districb, situ~ted ~Ynolly or partly in the territory proposed to Objections, based upon any of the ~o~ds set forth in p~a~aphs a, b, c or d above, shall be subr~tted in ~iting. ~o~ted Noven~ber 8, 1984. ~ order of the Southold To~ Board, by Judith T. Te~y, To~ Clerk" i hs~ve affidavits of public~tion in the Suffolk Times and the Long Isls~d ~veler-~atcD=~_u ~_ud affid~it of notification by ~'self to East ~d ciates and james tfalin and I believe that is it. !~!~phy: T!~ you Ju~y. hre have heard the official notice. I would like m~e just a couple of statements. First, one~ is that this is a joint hear- i~ from a petition - stewing from a petition - that ws~s presented to the Greenport and Southold To%~m Boards on the proposed ~m~uexation. ~e cost of this hes~ring is sh~ed jointly by the Village and the Town Bo~d, Southold To~ Bo~d. If there is any discussion of a decision that I ~e on ~aling sombody out of order or ~r~thing tonight and ~ me~oer of the Village Bo~d or the Southold Totem Board objects to its decision, we will ~ve a vote on it to decide if it studs or is ~ocked do~m. For the record, I would l~e to state theft we have had quite a bit of correspondence and for the ss3~e of brevity this correspondence is made available to the both Boards. ~e will not resdit off tonight but it is included in the official records of this meeting. So without delaying it any further I would like to start the public heinz, lng. Nor~ally, in Southold To~,~.m, on a p-~olic head.ring, we ask that all those in favor of a proposal. So I am going to do that. I a~u going to sts. rt over on ~y left over here, starting in the back, working toward the front and ask if s~nyone wo~ld like to be heard. I am the e~ttorney. M~. I~urphy: ~ould you identify yourself? Use the mike s~d identify yourself. ~r. Esseks: I am Bill Essekso I sm one of the attorneys for the petitioners and ~e ~t~on which r~ther than getting involved with the technicalities of the ~f ~' ~ will be addressed before the meeting is over, in order to set the sta~e for the evening for the disoussions, I think that Jo~ Costello, who is a leading proponent of this application, ought to e~plain wb~t the purchasers from East End ~ssociates have in mind. Now, in order that the people here zuuderstand, there are severs~l parts to this.~ One, ~d~ich is what we ~re doing tonig~t, is t~e first portion of the a~n~exa~ tion. if these two Boards vote, the new, to.will be the Village, will be in the Village. ~d then it will be used in a fashion t?~,t the Village T~z~stees and the Village 3~la~ming Board decide. · I do not believe and I don't think that e~£~yone wou_~ argue t~t t.~,ese two boards ton~g~ or any other night are going to decide necessarily the uses that will occas,. You are going to decide whether it co=~es into the Village, But now~ assuming it comes into the Village, !~. Costeilo will discuss with you and explain it, if you will allow, what he has in mind~ what he and his partners have in mind, the proposed uses. But those uses will not be, i reiterate, approved by the joint boe~rdso They will be approved by the Village Trustees and the Vills~ge P!s~aning Board and the Toav~ Board of ti~e To~m of Southold will have very little say - fort~smately or u~nfort~ately - as to what happens to the property if it is armexed. With your per,.~ission, ~. Supel~zisor, I'll introduce JoY,~ Costeilo, who will give you some m ~,~r. Mu~i~-hy: Let's call on John first. Before we call Jo~u there ~e a few more seats down in front if anyone is standing in the back would like tohear the presentation a little better. At this time I would like to ask Jo~ Costello to take the floor first and present his proposal ~d then we are going to start off hearing ~yone who would like to speak in favor of the proposal. John, why don't you pull it up z little higher (mike). Ms?me it easier for yol~ Fir. Costelle: ~iy na~e is JoD~u Costello a~ud ! am in the process of purchasing, or trying to purchase t'~e piece of property from East ~d Associates. You all know where the pro~perty exists, it exists on ~oore's Land ~_ud Covu%ty Road ~48 and it borders on the Greenport Village property on the South. I would like to get the property ar~exed in the Village of Greenport and I know the last this property was proposed to be annexed, there was a lot of discussion about not k~owing the intended uses in the fut~are. I know it is inproper - this is not the stage to show plains - but these are plans tk~t I will probably sub,it to both placating boards and both town boards and the Village trustees. The intended purpose on t~sse plans, and hopefully i'll have them up here and be able to show them in a few seconds, I would like to tzs~ to ?~t in a commercial area bordering on ~oore's Land. I feel in n~ business and several other businesses I know in Southold To~m, would like the oppor- t'~uity to expand. There is very little to offer in Southold Towm. 0r~ specially none in Greenport. I would also like to address the problem of the working people being forced out of $outhold Town and the Village of Green- port due to the rise in property values. There has nothi~}g been done for the working r~n lately. The ~operty values are not affordable for him. The ir.~tention here is to r~ake s~lier lots t?~t are now advocated in ~uth- old To~ to two s~cres. Fleetfields, appro~tely forty years ago~ was de- velopsd by ~er~ Fleet~ tackled the exact same problem as we sm~e t~ing to ~ckl~ now. The average lot of Fleetfield baszc~_y, ~e in a nei~uborhood of 9300 square feet. ~e are advocating ?utting in 42 residential lots in avere~ge size between 10,000 square feet and 19,500 square feet. ~e would like to also b~ffer that residential section with approxi~tely seven acres of o?en sp~ce. I have been ~sked the question a couple of times by several individuals why we di~t select smaller lots ~_d conform with Fleetfieids. It is not ~y lc~pose or intention to devalue e~ properties an~n~here in the neighborhood. That's why I elected to t~v to mr~e them sligd~tly bigger with the possibility of everybo~ buil~ and expanding their homes. W~e hs~ve no access ~or the residentie~l section to I~oore's Land or out directly on to County route 48. ~nere will be most of the traffio~ a.s you c~ see, will circ~mvent that and go to ?~iddleton Ro~d out to 48 or go do~n ~ashir~on .Avenue into the Village of Greenport. The oo~e~cial section there is 16 lots va~ying in different sizes. First one on the North Road is five acres. I intended that to be the largest lot because i would like to see the biggest b~fer on the North Road ~ea. The North Road right now is basically appro~- merely 18-19 feet tL~t is ~owing. Ths~t, with a b~fer of an'additio~l 50 feet, i believe, would ~swer a lot of ?roblezas. ¥~e would also like to b~fer on the ~6~oore's Lane ~ea just providing the three accesses out to the road. That way, if you want to be directly in t~is co~ercial area, you'd he~,~e to enter the property. There is also, in the commercial area - we ~e ~ilowing for a discharge basin area if the To:~ ~'l~ing Board decides it is needed. ~ud Z intend to t~ to do this project to benefit the To~zn ~d the Villag~ of C-reenport. ~. i/i-~phy: Thard~ you, John. ~fouid you like to have any ~ore inform~tion i~,ut out before we really sts~rt the public he ring and ask for ini:~ut from people? ~r. Co~teilo: No, but i ~ willing to e~nswer ~y questions ths~t I haven't covered. bT. I~q~i~y: 0!{, 1.e%'s sis,ri over here in the ruer on %he ,~ef% hand side. We won't forge% you people out in %he hall. Can everyone he~ ce%side? There is room up in front here. We coy.id open %his side door. The e are more chairs in here if evsI%~one wo~d like ~o come in. On %he side of %he ~is here. There are ~l~ee se~:~%s do%~ here in %he frol/%. There is two over here. Come on in~ ~nere are more sec.,ts in here - please corec on in. Seai3s over on %he side. I% is ve~- i~por%an% %ha,% everybod, y ese %he mike~ come up here on the Use %he mike i~en%ifying yo~self for %he record because %he record is important in this hearing. So i would like ~o ask ~yone in %he rear and we will work o~ way foP~;ar~ - who would like to spe~k in favor of %his proposed ~2le~tion? AN~sone in the bac~ ~Ioving do'~. Anyone on %he left-hand side s~ all would like %o speak? ~ name is ~vid Strong, ~. S~rong: I am a local business ~n from ~b~%~ituck. i would like ~o speak in favor~ pri~iiy of ~he housing aspec~ of this. I am sure everybody is aw~e of i~ - I ge~ i$ hinted ~o me eve~ day - there is no housing for the average worker. And i~ has go~en to ~he point, I for one find i~ ve~ had to ~e~ and re~ain people. Speoial!y as ~hey become m~ried ~d have chi!d~en. There is jus~ no way ~hey can ~chase a house. ;~d whether i$ b~ ~his projsc~ some o~her ~ ' ' ~rooeo~, we sorely need ~b. is in the To'em of Southo!d if we are going ~o r~,in~ain o~' local b~siness. So Z %hir~ ~his is a goo~ projeo~ I am in favor of ~. t~phy: Tha~ you David ..... ~ %~ is yo'~ name a~in? No~a ~iller - Greenpor~-So~thold Chamber of I~D~, Miller: The Board of Directors of ~he Green~r~-Sou%hoid Che~ber of Co~erce have reviewed ~he ~p!~nning projec~ of Job~ Cos~ello and ~hey look favors~iy upon ~he concept. ~e suppor~ job opportu~ities and ~fordab!e housing young people in ~o%~ and we favor ~he increased tax base and the light% ciai dis~ic~ i~ will provide for ~he area. Therefore~ we reques~ ~ha~ ~he application for annexation be approve~. There's another covering ie%~er also explaining ~ha~ we do no~ intend ~o give preferential ~rsa~men% ~t i~ is so important~ as ~he gen~lem~ said. ~o ~e% affordable ho~sin~, ~ ~ of the reoord? ~. Mu~r~c~ ~..~:,, %ffould you like to make ~i'~at a .. I~z. L~L~er~ Yes "Sou%ho!d Totem Board - ~n~iemen: ~e Bosrd of ~ '~ ~,.e~ors of ~he Greenpor~-Southo!d Chamber of Oommeroe n~me meviewe~ %he i~!a,m~ng ~o~o~ of John Cos%eilo ......... ed iooa%e~ on property a~ Moores Le~nd and North ~oad~ Greenpor%~ and look I~3/¢oraule upon %~.~e concept of it. ., and. af_~.~d~b=e housi~ for the young ~%{e support Job opportunities *' ' ~ .... people of o~ to~. We fa, rot the increased tax base and li¢~:t co~erce ~' =~4 ..~zde for the a.~s~_..ct it will ?~-' ..... =o~ the ¢~nne~,tion of "We therefore, request that the a~;*olic8tion ¢ -¢ this property into the Village of C-reenport be ~pproved. ~ ~=s~,~e,~t - On Behalf of ~'Verv truly yours, (signed) Berr~a.rd Dempsey, ~ ~'~ ~ the ~ ~o~a of_~.,~r~ ~o~ .rs, Green~o~t-Southold.. Ch~ber ofuo~erce. ~ ~.m~y~ Anyone else over here on the loft would like to speak? George Seivers ?~. Seivers: i work here looaily in Southold. i~.~y wife and Z both like the North Fork and we like raising our kids around here. ~e have been forced to b~id a house in East Northport because we o~n't afford a - But there's just- the housing and the mea~ ~ ~ estate ~:ro~d here is just ~affordab!e. So we are being forced to oo~monte 65 ~les eaoh way to reach Northport in order~ excuse me~ to keep z~ job here. And~ just got a little nem~ous. ~d~ I third~ .... ~ only answer is you got to h~v~ .... ~fords3ole .... no~ng~ for the m~d~me class~ the working people or you are not ~ ~ ~ m~omn~ to na~e them ~o~e. Th~2~ you. ~mr~n~: Thar2~ you. You did vezT; well. Okay - on the left over here is there anyone else would like to spe~ in favour of this proposed ~mexa- tion? ~e move into the middle here- some in the front, ~myone? ~=om~. Samuels: i live in ~ktshog~e, t~a~aze~s Ro~d. Local business man. t have £orty employees, ii~e in So~¢hold Town and the last t>~ee years a n~ber other em~ioyee~ moved ¢o Moriches, Ri~erhead~ C~_~e~¢on. Six of the e~loyees that live ~m the Tom:~ o~m houses in ~.~ To~. The balance rely on rents' zentats. A lo¢ off ¢?em s'~mmer rentals which me~ that you h~ffe ¢o move and so on and so forth. ~ery member of the Town ~ara, including' ~ = visor~ every member of 2he Ylmnning Doard~ has given lip service 2o modera%e hous~ for ~he working ~ ' '~ m~eop~.e in ~his To~, 2he produo~mve people in Totem. Zero-~ow~h is a wonderful thing, ~,ff you're retired or iff its a sesond home you live in, But zero-~owth doesn'2 maie i~ for 2he wor~ng people in this Toys. ~ey need a chance. ~,fe have to go somewhere. It's a ds~ned sb~me when ~ people have 2o move on2 off 2o~rn and $hen come back into 2own ~o work. One of the fellows I had working for me las2 suffer was a 2een-ager. I said ~'What ~e your plans for the future?~ He said~ ~'I don~2 know wi~2 ~ - ~eF are bmr obey can'2 be in~u~hold,'~ He said~ "The mo22o in ~o~2~,olm To~m - or 2he people 2~ao T ~ow - is p~p our ~s~ cut our and ge2 on2 of 2o~m by ~ive o'clock.~ There's something seriously _nme particular project - T wish there were more off Shem. It"s a good pro- jeo~, It will give o~ young people and ot~ ?roduo~ive people a sho~, It's ~taying in the Totem. l~e need 2hem. We need Shem for ~he vita!ity for 2he TO,~m~ for 2he f'~ 2hat~ s in 2he Totem. ! hope 2heBoards look favorably upon 2his appiication. ~d I hope it's the beginning off others. This one happens 2o be in a ve~ good !ooation for i~$ p~pose. There are other sites in Toys, The Mastez Plan ~s lo~a$ions smd conditions for ~fordable~ what i ca!i afffordabie housir~~, =' ~ m not taiki~ ~110 - talking about ~$60, - wm~mn the oonstrain'~s of 2he eo0no~ 2ha2 we live in. ~R~2 let's We the people in 2his Town 2ha,2 work here~ live bring 2heir kids up here - a shot a2 living here. Tha~ you ve~ 1,,~. Mum'phy: Thank yo~;. Anyone else in the front would like to spe~k in favor of this arnaexat ion? Stephen Clark~ I'~. Clark: ~y n~me is Stephen Cla~k. i run Greenport Yacht and Shipbuilding Compa~&~ do~u~ in Greenport. ~ere is very little I can add to what Tom ~muels has said because his feelings, and the way he put it, ~bsolutely sum up e~o~ctly where I ~m~ The only thing I c~u s~dd is, a~ud this is in addition to what he said, because I do not disagrees with anythiD~ Some of us in here, and some of us who ~re probably not here, operate comped_les not only wi~ich employ people here, yozang people as well as ~.iddle-s~ged a~ud older people. ~e e~rate companies that are, theft contribute visably to the oversell picture that all of us think of as bei~%g unique in Southold. I don't, r~_v~uing a shipyard~ is not a -~aique operation - there are ms,r~y shipyards. But it is one of the few out here on the ~ast End of Long Isls~d. It's the only one. There is no ship- ys~d...on the ~uth Fork. It's ~ 13?0or business. I have some different machinez~y but it's really a labor-intensive business. There's no way to avoid labor° There will never ~be a we3y to eliminate the men who ~una the ~chines that ma~ke ~ business bring to yo"~r s~re~ fishing boats, ls,rge ya,chts, the service to the fer~ bests to Shelter Island. Things theft m~2<e this area a little bit different fro~. other co~mmities in Suffolk County and other commuuities up and dowm the coast line. h~ithout young people, without young labor you can put a self-destruct date on Greenport Yacht a~ud Shipbuilding. Something, w~ich those of you ~o personally know me, know that I work many hours a ds~y to prevent from ha~?~ening. I do not w~nt a self-destruct date to be attached to Greenl~ort Yacht and Shipbuilding in that it.recious few acres that ~re right in do~mtowm Greenport that bring to you son~sthing that ms~kes this area a little bit ~muique. ~fithout young labor, without new men co~ing into my industry i have a very difficult time, will ~ze a very diffi- cult time, have had e~ ve:c~- difficult time to continue romr~ing and inproving and building wy own business. I hesitate to say one of This project has got to be one of several. That so'~ads a bit too optimistic. But tBis project must, in my opinion, be the first of several theft Lring not just to Greenport area but to the North Fork of Long isla~d a place where we can have a mixed interest, a mixed people of economic levels, different ages to try to keep this the complete and ~uique co~ity theft it is. ~. M~i?hy: Th~ you Steve. Anyone else here in the front? Movin~ back toward the ~ddle. ~ayone toward the rear? In the middle would like to spe~k in f~vor of this proposal? Claude Giov~elli ~. Giova~elli: I don't - I can't say any more th~u the two spewers before me except that I live right st ~,~ddleton Road ~nd I thi~ I'll be ~fected just about as much as anybo~ because the road will go riCnt along side of ~y house. .~ud i ~ in favor of it - just like I said the speakers before me said - more than i c~n ever say. ~. M~pb~: Tha~ you sir. Is there anyone else toward the back- in the ~d~e would like to spe~? Jean Tie~e Je~e~e: First I would like to protest that you didn't move this to a l~ger au~itori~, it is ve~ hot and impossible to hear out in the lobby. I person~ly am speaking Just for myself tonight. I ~ in favor of this jeer. I thir~ we certainly need housing. The cost of housing in town is solutely outrageous. Also the yomag, the gentle~n who mentioned needing labor, as the to~ ~l~s have said fire departments, police departments ~e ~lso goir~ to need young people. Where are they going to come from if they have no place to live~ i have one suggestion of - I t~i~ yo~ pl~u is all right but s~ little ~uderi~gi~tive and i t~i~ possibly a few two-f~ly houses mixed in with the one-family houses ~d some reorientation of the pl~ mig~at be advant~eous. Thaz~ you. from outside so you can hear? Merlon you wanted to Merlon T?aa..rtE you, Again ~here is room up here° ~gou!d you please oo~e in ~e'd like %o give everybody an opport~ty. ~.figgin: DeconJ. o Ass~oeiE~tes~ Greenpor~. i think ~his project has po~en~igi to be a real benefi~ nos only ~o Greenpor4 bu~ ~o ~he Totem of Southold. Abou~ yea~ ago we com;~].eted ~he ~ of ~he w~.t~rfron~ revitalization Mas~er ~I~ of 2he Village of Greenport. I would like 2o read 2wu of ~he recommendations ~ha~ are contained i~a that ~s~ plan ~}~t are appropriate ~o this particu- lar project. And these i saw were develoied a year ago after a lo2 and what w'ouid be 2he best for 2he Village and also for the Town. The first recorm':~enda%ion is appropriate, i~ desigma~ed a section 2o Conroe ?arty E (?) in east of ~(oore's Lane for parcel ~mexation by 2he Village off 2ha general co~sercial with intended use as an office ]Tsrk or ~ecbmolo~~ center as a [:?rimary goal %o provide increase 2ax base ~nd..,.year-ro~d emplos~en~. The second one is appropriate 2o 2his. Desigma~e an area. east of I.~oore's L~ae as mu!~ipie housing. There is a desperate need for adequate housing ~nd work in Greenport and ~he To~m of Southold. This area was seteoted because of the availability of utili2y se~-ices. One of 2he models we used in %himi~ng about %his concept was an area outside of Princeton, N.J. 2ha2 had~ I believe, %welve conznercial office buildir~s. They were 2wu stories, colonial ~d brick and 2hey were very attractive archi~ectua!ly. They b~d such occui:ants as Xerox~ some instance compsaaies. They provided a ve~- high paid ye~ round employmen$ flor ~he ~ea, The office complex was backed up by 32 units m~tiple housing~ They were ~rden-type ap~tments witi~ fo~ u~ts pe~ building. !~ was one of 2he more attractive areas I've seen and 2hat's wb$~ I decided this ~ea bas a potential ~o be similar 2o %?m~t and I hope 2~a~2 2he planni:~ g of i2 inci~des that 2~e of ~hirJcing - ~ha~ type of planing ~d could be a benefit both for %?e Village and 2he Term of ~utho!d. M~r. ~rphy: Thar~ you. ¥[ould you m~ind opening the windows on the side to get a little fresh air in. Thart~ you. Is there anyone else in the imall, anyone standir~ in the rear who would like to m~/~e a com~ment in favor of the proposed aranexation? J~-one out there at all? Can you all hear me? Anyone out there that would like to spe~2~? Okay, anyone else here in the middle that would like to speak in favor. Moving over on my right - is there emyone do~,ra in the front that would like to speak on the proposed annexation? Chuck Stabile i~ir. Stabile: Suffolk. To,aa and here is an opportunity to t~urn some unproductve l~d into something worthwhile. A.s I ~udersta,nd it it would generate a lot of revenue for the Greenport school system~ to the To~ and to the Village. So from a financial standpo?int i am in fsi;or of it. t~% Murphy: Ths~ you. A~ayone else here on the right that would like to comment? Sir? Irving L. Price~ Jr. ~r. Price: i am a taxp~ger and I own the residence at 240 Fo~rth Street~ Greenport, N. Y. and it is a real pleasure tonight not to be a hired ~n. i~m now speak- ing on ~ o~,~ behalf and expressing ~y own beliefs and to me this plan is like a breath of fresh air in a bu~cesucracy going berserk, i~ve never understood why a~u~oody could tell you that you had to have a two acre lot to be happy. I was brought up on a fifty-foot lot and I live on a 96-foot lot. Both of them less than a bm,If-acre. ~,~'e~ve been perfectly ha~i0y for 67 ye,~rs smd I can't ~nderstaad why anybody wants a two acre plot that they have to maintain. I think that t is is ~eat for the youth. ~e need it. I think the lady that said there should be two-f~dly houses involved is correct also and I am heantily in favor of this project, TI~2~ you. name is Chuck Stabile. i ~u a computer leasing company in western full-time resident here and all I can see is tax increases in this !'~. ~,lu~phy: Thsgak you. Okay is there anyone else here, on the right, anyone else in the audience that wou].d like to spest< in favor? Cornelia Keogh l~ Keogh: Th~ you. I am spe~ing as a co-owner of a residence directly across the ~orth Ro~ from this property in question. ~d we have watched and listened for a long time as to wh~t the potentis~l development of this plot migT~t be. i~. ]~rica is a tou~m act to follow~ i ca~ot see any reason to disi~ute these plans. I wc~ald like to up,ode them a little bit as the l~y precedir~ me spoke of the two-family housing. I w~s very ~ch against this in the beginni~ becs~se I di~u't l~ow enough ~oout it, I ~ess. ~rnen i took the time to contact i~hr, Costello he ws~s most g~acious and spent a little over hs~lf an ho~ talking to me ~bout it and explaining this project to me, And now we are ve~ ~z~ch in fa~or of it. I see no reason why anybody should be ~ainst this. It's aSz~antageous to those of us who live near it becs;mse it will be esthetic am.d to me it will in?rove the area and it will certainly be advmutageous for the yoking people in to~,m. Tha~ you. I,k,. ~:[~phy: Tl~,r~ you, Is thereanyone else here in the audience who ~ould like to speak in fervor of tk~s application? Sir~ Joseph P~s~l Mm. =:~&~l: A resident of Greenl:ort~ a former t~stee,~, former member of the zo~ng bo~d and o~,~mer of S~folk Products in Riverhead and I am affiliated with ~ Eem Cor~coration., which some of you. kmow just z~'~u~* uv~ a 70,000 square foot building in Riverhead. i would like to spe~ in fat~or of the pro jeer and give you a view of what is ~ppening to the west. Rest assured that the town of Riverhead sad the industries there will back si~Kls~ types of projects to w~z,t you see before you. ~tfe represent, to a certain degre% comlzetition your labor ~rket, The youth are here - if you don't attract thom - we will. This has bee:,' a real ]?roblem for Greenport amd for Southold for a lot of ye~s as f~ as housing~ it will continue to be one z~less projects such as this c~,n be developed in the futmre. ¥~ich raises some interestir~ questions about this particular project in tl~t there will b~ve to be more of them, ½md the only way this ]~roject flies is becaase there is industry asso- ciated with i%. it is g~es,t to get li~ service to ~he ,.~eem~ ~ for housing first you ~:.a e to have jobs and indust~ in order to ~:~rovide the op~:ort~mity that is being provided by ~. Costello a~0~d his ~oup of associates, to provide this type of low-income housing. The To~ the Village, etc.~ have to take a serious look at the striation ~olicy tibet's been put before you for many~ ~ay years - that does not allow any type of industrial ~T~o~h in the ~d ~7~ts out a message that's he,ma loud and clear all over Long Island. Don~t even bother bringing ~_~s.zm~.l proposa~to the Totem of Southold. ¥~nen it came time for S~folk ~ ~ ~m to move from Flanders, Sout~'~o~.d was net considered. went into a 17,000 square foot building. WE~en it was time for &d Xem Corp. to put u]E another facility on Long island and the question oa~e as to what to~ to even bother m~ing a proposal to - Southold was not even considered. I c~n ass~e you that that message has been he~rd _cue amd clear all over Long Island.~ You put it out vem~~ clearly. W~ithout those industries there ca~ot be projects that essez~tially subsidize l~d costs or subsidize housing costs as is oe_ng done in tT~is particular proposal. You got to take a serious at yourselves ~ud of yo~ policies - and decide - if t.7-is is just a flash in the pan, is this ~ one-shot deal. X number of houses, X n~ber of jobs and tb.at~s it. Is it over after t~ai~.~ ~ - is my basic question to you. I~d ~z~.e TM '~ you to ad~m'ess it. I'd like to hear more about it. I'd like to Stay ~u Southold zr~volv~m. I don't To~n. I've lived here for twelve years and got_~ai~~_y ' want to see this be a single time op~.:ort~uity for a few fe~ilies...people can a:fo~d tl:~ese houses and then riley d~ t~e rest of the people who are here and the rest of t~ze chil~en ~.gno h~e ~o~,m u here. I want to see ~y dau~ater have ~. opportunity to stay in Southold Toy:re. i can't ~ford to pay her working for me ~40,000 a year ~hile she is going to college so she c~ ~ford to buy ~ house here. I can't afford to ps;y ~:ybody who works for me ~ 15 ~ · ~$40,000. You've got to be r~'~listic, This proposal is great, It should go through~ It deserves to go throu.~.. The industries involved deserve chance tc stay in Southold Towsim. Believe me if you reject it this time the people in the to-~m off Riverh~ad, includlm~ ~self, will do s.ll we ca~n to woo them away from you. It's only good business. They're good business, they ~e solid people and they desecrate this report. Tl~e~k you. }~. Murphy:Okay s~g~in. I ask ~yone in the re~ - ~yone in here would like to speak in fss~or of this proposed ~exation? Okay s~t t is time I would like to ask -~ i~. Esseks: I don't w;~nt to be stopped from spe~ing, i have a pro~e~sfonal en- gineer here to discuss depart~ents~l questions, .}md I would like to discuss some legs~l questions. ~?ith your per~uission. I would like to do them by way of rebuttal becs~use all you've he~d ~nd w}~t we've he~d thus f~ are people speeding in fervor of it and it is b~d to respond to people who are on side, So we s~re in fervor of it - two more people to speak. ~th yo~s per- ~ssion ~ we will spe~{ later on, Sir. ~'~. }}~,~l~hy: l~a will. ~t this ti~e I would like to ask does aRvone in the audience on the left-hand aisle who would like to speak in opposition to this proposed. ~exation? Do~s~ in front~ do~n the rea~- Sir? Howerd Pacl~ i,~, Pecan: I wish i h~d $ little table. I could ts~lk wit}~out the microphone. ~{~ ?{urphy: ~}e are going to b~.ve to ask you to use the mike, please. },~. Pac~: Could we move it ~, l,~ur}}hy: Jee~, ~{be if he spoke into theft ~ike. YYould that pick it up? Howard Pec~sa: I am ~ attorney. ~} address is 366 Veters~ns Memo~is~l Highws;y, Co--ck. i appear here on behalf of the Ho~eo,~mers who reside in s~odivision ~own as ~ste~ Shores. This is directly north of the pareel tbet is the issue subject to the a~ex~tion. There are ~out 121 subdivision sites in theft ~evelol}ment not all of which h~ve been developed at this Now I come here not to ar~y~e against the ~roposed ulti~s, te use. Beos:a. se that is not before %his Board today. This is not a zoning board heari~e This is not ~he Tow-n of Sou~?~otd making a decision whe~her we should rezone ~his 50-acre parcel ~d whether we shou!A hs~'e smaller houses in here, more affordable houses and should we have ir~ustrial proper~y. This is no~ ~ hearing before ~he Village Bo~d to me~e a determination how %his property is to be ultimately used. The decision to be made ~onigh~ is %~dae~her the p~Dlio benefit is going ~o be se~ed. No~ or~iy ~o %he people of ~he To%~ of Sou~hold bu~ ~o the people in the Village of Oreenpor~. ~%d ~ha~ is the ~es~ %ha% m~s~ be reached ~onight. And !'m no% interested in m~ing a deter~na- ~ion a% ~his )9oi~t and neither of these two Boards should be interested in the uttime~te result because the ultimate result is a long way down the road. T~:e issue to be 5.eter:.~ined~d. has not been ad~essed by the ~ff~y speakers who were - spoken in favor of the need for more afffordable housing and need for more i~ustrial or tec~n~ically developed properties in the Town of Southold or the Village of Greenport, the issue to be decided is what is the environ- mental ~mpact going to be with regsm'd to this situation. The ~wn of South- old in 1983 adopted loc~law 7, 9 ~:nd ll ~/~.ich u~zoned all the a~icult~al residential property to two acres. And the p~edicate and the reason for tb~t ~end~ent was the bs~sis of the fragile water supply that you have here on the North Foz~ and used the North Fork water supply plan that was developed by the Town, excuse me, by. the Dep~tment of Health of the County of S-~folk and ~na.t re~ort was alluded to at len~h as a reason why there would be tw~aore zoning at this particular point. And it was asked that it be done ~til the Master Plan, which was being pre~ared and ?resently ~der develorment by the professior~ls that were hired by the To~n~ of Southold mud that plan is in its prima~/ stages ~ybe in its ultimate stages but it b~sn't been considered by the Town of Southold at this point ~d ~til it is considered and ~til it is heard and ~mtil its decision is made by the Totem fath~rs, in this case~ that it is a good Master ¥1s~ - to then clmange this 50-acre site without b~aving +~n~=~._,:, u input would be wrong s~d there is no way of making a determine- %ion of the benefi~ or %he detriment as a reason for ~his annexation. on ~he o~he~ han~ in ~he Village ~hey ha3,~e ~heir COdS%a! s~udy~ ~hey have ~heir Mas%er Pi~n which is in i~s primary s~ages s. nda gen%lem~n alluded i% e~rlier - ~nd %ha~ P~.s~er ?lan is ~der considers%ion and being eva!ua%ed and possibly being implemented. And ~here is some isad on ~he west side of ~:ioore's Lane which is not been dsveioped~ which could be rezoned in Village if we w~ted %o ~alk zoning but %hat's no% %he issue ~ain The issue is whs~ about %he wa~er supp!y~ what about %he sewerage~ wha~ ~bou% ~he additional ~raffic~ what about the addi%ioum~i u%iiities being u~ilized~ wha~ about ~he fire service %hat will be necessary. And %hose issues be addressed in de~erminir~ ?mbiic benefit ~d how you de~ermine ~h~ public benefit. The State of ~]ew York in 1977 passed %he S~a%e Er~;irormaen%a! ~ali~y Rede Ac~ P~now as SEQUA wkioh requires ~he w~ry action %ha% you ~e ~::~onigh~ is s~zbjeo~ ~o ~hat SEQUA s~atu%e. And ~it ~ha~ SE~ZJA process is de~e~ined ~ad ev=~u~ea and '~til an enviro~men~ai impact s~a, ue~n~ is prepared either individually by each of the ~wo Boards~ the To~,~ and ~he Viliage~ or in con- j~c~ion es one environmental s~udy~ you h~ve no ri~%~ you have no au.~hori~y. You would be violating ~he SEO33A 3~rocess ~o make a determination as ~o ~his a~mexa~ion b~s public benefit. ~d i subDit %o you ~onight~ mercers the Board, ~ha$ any action you ~ake without ?~.ving subjec~ed this to ~es~ of ~he SE~Z~A process would be violated by ~he s~a~ute amd would yov~ acts null and void and would be challer~ed in court. ¥~e ~e not in~erested~ ~- clien%s~ in the ui~ima~e result. I$ m3.y be a good resul~ - i~ may be something is needed. Bu~ ~il She Master ?i~s in 7so~:h to~s are es~tished~ evatuated~ considered~ de~ermined ~ ~hen ihs ~ae issue of whether public benefit or detrimen~ has been decided as the issue for whe~h.er ~his ar~nexa~ion is proper. Ail ~hese other ~hings a;:~e merely issues of zoning comdi~ions. %fnether ~his land should be two acres, wnet~er it should be 10,000 square feet as it is in the Village or 7500 square feet, is hot the issue here tonight° Now the most important situation yo~ ha~e to give your attention %o - the mome~.t that this a~exation takes play, ce - the two-acre zoning on this land is lost. It then goes into tt~e To~m into the ~ ~ o~ - ~a~e - ~ud it is ~mzoned land. And the Villaga would have to than extend its Village zoning code to provide for the use of this particular property. ~.sed upon the statements r~de by the portents, there is no claasificatton in tT~e Village code to accommodate the use they want to use. ~ud that would hs~e to be something altogether new. So talking about what comes dowm the road is not ~ ~ ~ ~ a~p~.op~a~e at this time. ~aere is no cooditio~l a~aexation. You can't ~:ke this a~_uexation conditioned u~on the fact that the ultimate developers will meve~op this l~d. Because if the a~uexation goes tbro%~h and ti~ey decide not to develop this land you can't return the land to tb~ To%m of So~.thold. It re~ins in the Village of Green- port and the Village of Greenport has the responsibility of h~udling that property and ~- ' ~ ~ ~' a~roYl~g the services. F~. Ch~irmsn is my time up? ....... ~.~ ..... No go ~g~t~_ .~.~ ahead. Pac~an: Alri~at, i don~t ws~ut to belabor the point. I thine I've stated is necessary, i see ~.~ colleag~.e, Itt. Esseks, has decided to reseF~e his time for reference to submit ~ engineer to talk abo~ the environment. I thi~ tkat would ~0% be appropriate but this Board has tl~e ~ thing they want to hear. just as ~hey were rTracious to h=ar me to speak on behalf of my client in op?osition - not to the pls~ - not to the ultimate use I state that a~in. Y~e're only interested in the a~exation aspect of this thing and that the ar~exation beheld ~til the S~A process is complete. ¥~en t?~s~t process is con, plate - at that time the Bos~ds c~ act apy~opriately ~ ..... ~' a~em~e~, there has bsen 2ub~.zc benefit. to m-~t~m_ne the use and need~ ~ '~'', ~ ' determination ~.~ade at this '- "~ pom~ b~sed upon ~' ~ tes~mm~%~ of an e~.gineer~ no qua~lzmee, t~at is not subs}itted as s~t of an impact. . .which be just as - courtesy a rem~mk to be ~ade as if i made and said that this is good enviroms~-~entally or not good. Not that I am question- lng his qualifications but it is not in the form and ua~der the test of the SE~UA process a~ud if the Board desires the need for me to s~o~o~J~t a memorsm- d~ of law to substantia, te this, I would be pleased to do flat ~ if that is a reqnirement. l~c. ~4~p~hy: T~a~2c you very ~. ~i~,t would be ' - ' }a~. Packman: }~d i would, hope ~ .... I given the same o0port,~mty to seF~e some rebutts~l re~s~rks on behalf of i,'~. Esseks f~s~t}aer presentation if he decides to imooeed. ~. ~lurphy: Tha~{ you. ~'~. Pa.c~n: ThaNl{ yeu~ sir. I,~. }{nrphy: O~y is thence anyone else on the left hand side would like to speak in opposition to this proposed aniexation, is there anyone outside standing up in the rear who wo~d like. There is more room do~ in the front if some of you would like to move in~ You could stand on t~e sides. Okay is the~e ~yons here in the middle who would like to spe~ in opposition, stetting in the front, going to the rest. Anyone would like to spe~ in opposition. David M~}rkel ~{~. ~.%rkel: I 8~ ~ resident of the Totem of Southold. I do not o,~m my o~m I rent. But I feel that some things are more import~snt th~u self-interest. And one of tl~e things that is more important t~n self-interest in the To~ of Southold is that we Ps~intain two~cre zoning. It is ~ feeling that if this ~v ~ ' ~.~.t this will not be followed ~.~o~er.a is ~unexed that, from ~he pi~qs~ ~'b~ tk~ro~'h. That it will be down-zoned. ~md I do not want to see that. don't want to see any do~-zoning in Southold. Tha~ you. I~m. ld~i~hy: Tha~ you. ~yone else here? Sir - Herbert M~udel I~. Y~ndel: I reside in Southold and I am a builder and developer therefore I sympa,...~ze very ~:~acn with ~:Tr, Costello's project, However~~ ~ t>,~rd~..._ tb~t all of the co~ments made by the public here tonight, excepting for the attorney who spoke a~inst the oroject~ ~ .... ~ ~ ., ~ ~o not give an em~.o~e~ o?~inion in the sense that the people want housing but this project here being decided toni~.t does not i~roauoe housing in any way, It produces perhaps, in the end result, l~ud that somebody could build u~:on, ~t there is no warrsnty or ~a~an~.y there'll be a~- house built, It would seem to me theft if the Boards, jointly or single, want to create ~ou~mng in the Totem of Southold by the stroke of a pen, for ~x~ ~le, they could .~vrovide for the one-family house to o~come a two-family house "~" ~ . ~*~nmc~ would provide automatically ms~be 100 ap~tments or more without cost~ That"s not being decided here tonight. The only thing supposedly bein~ decided is the ~exation, The re~son for the annexation being given is they want to v~ro~ose this project. ~t at t~e ve~~ begi~i~, l~. Costello said we are not g~i~ to build t.,~e houses. So t don~t ~ow - it seems to me the people have the ~,;ie-im-the-s~ attitude about this. You have to look through it ~d see what the snd result is going to be and I thir~ if the Boards are going to effectuate so~e ~orm of help to the builders~ to t~e developers, such as I~,~, Cost911o, that would ennoble the houses e~entu- ally to g~t built - which takes more than simply a matter of providing the zoning, Because the~e is plenty of land aro'~d that is alrea~ zoned but yo~ don~t see houses going up on them. I thi~k the problem is a lot deeper dividing up the l~ad into q~,rt9r-aore parcels. I do a~ee that two-acre zoning throoghomt the entire oo~m~ty is ridiculous. I do thirZ~ that the ld~ster Pl~m~ wd~:iok so ~ch time~ e__ort~ money~ ener~ has been spent should be corn;tiered - then everybody will know where they're at ~d eve~ bo~ will be treatea to t~e same de~ee of effort and the ,~lan itself co~d provide for the aid to housing that we so badly need and back a~,in to what I said at the oegmr~uzng ~ if ~ stroke of a *oen could provide h~mdre~of apartments~ I c~n sss~ no reason for the ~ards' hesitancy in Drovidin~ this. Tha~ you~ Is there ~nyone else here in the middle that would like to speak in opposition to this proposed azmexation? Sir? le~; Tasker Tasker: i am a resident of Greenport. I have been born in Gre~.nf~ort ~?~d Z~ve resided here for more years th~u I cs~re to relate. I live at 603 First Street. I s~m an atto~ey and I am like ~mk. Price - without a client. The only client whom I hs~e is myself. I am~ however~ i~terested not only on. ~ o~ behalf but on behalf of all of the taxpayers in the Village of C~eenport who ~e being asked by this a~exation to assume the burden of i~proving 48 acres of l~d. ~t of ~nich 48 ac~es of land some 15 acres - at most - will be dedicated to housing ~md 35 acres or 33 acres will be dedicated to co~ercis2 Now, it so,ds wonderful when you t~lk about it. But if this Bo~d. either the Village Board or the To~ Bo~d stops to reflect they will know first that in the Town of Southold there are many more than 30 acres of land av~lable for co~ercial development and in ~j~ ~ortion of the To~m is the~'e ?rovided that the owner or the developers wish to develop. Now, it seems to me that if we ~e improving 48 stores of land by 13 acres of houses you are not doing the housing sit~u~tion in this conm~nity one bit of good. As a matter of fact a ve~~ simple'and easy solution to improving the housing situation in this Town is for the Bosrd on an interim basis, and I don't me~,n for a tempor~ basis, but right now or within the li~ts th~,t is imposed upon it by law, to rezone immediately enough of these 40 ,~.cres or all of the 40 acres to ~m,ke not 42 ten-acre parcels but 48 times 4 quoter s. cre parcels which will quz,~uple the land aveilable for housing and the moment that thzt is done you ?:~ve solved perhaps the problem of who is going to b~ where. Now~ we b~ve not yet reached, and nobody at this meeting h~,s said yet how or ~der wb~,% circumst~uces or how ~ch these 42 houses ~e going to cost. As a ~tter of fac%~ it is z~mitted at this ]0.e~ring by either the first or second speaker - and if he di~.'t admit it here he has so stated in the newspaper - that they don't intend to build 8m<~~ houses at all. They intend to lay out %hat and they have got to look at wha$~ their su~erintendent of utilities said in the i~ublic ~ress,, He has never said i~ ~o me ~t he is reported in t~_a~ ~. ~ nselt ar~aed tn~ Greenport's antiquated and press by saying b .... o n~s~ .~ sometin~es overburdened water system should be modernized and e~nded by accepting new custom, ers outside the Villas, Now are elected representatives in the Village~ the Village Bo~.rd~ going to ?mt the people, who put thom into office~ to the expense of replecing an overburdened water system to care for 42 customers or 420 customers or whatever it is? ~e they going to place sewer system ~der the s~e proposition? That~ I say, to our Board - they have oet~e~_ stop looking beyonm the e~ds of their nose ann get with it and make real com~rehensiws, det~iled...eFficient e~v~nation of this project or ot~er project .... more t~n has ever been done in the histo~~ of Grsenport as fs~ as i c~m remember. They have never done a~thing except vote ~yes'~ beo~use it so~ds good and it so~uds pretty lousy tonight and I thir~ ~hat thamt~S the end of it. As far as the Town Bo~rd is concerned they k~ow where they stud as far as the Towm is concerned. They have to look out for the people who live in the area s~nd they have to look out for all ~he people in the To~ for that matter~ A~d they have to look out, and I~m tatung now as a la~er~ they have to look out For something else. They have to look out for what F~. Pack- ~n h~s said right at th~ begi~aing ~ th~t this ~oup toni~ut, who sit here before me ?~d in front af ~ll these people~ all of these interested people ~ao've co~e here, that they have got to .... and k~ow that what they are pro- posing to do now without the necessity or the formality of compliance with the legal requirements - ~e doi~ nothing for the tax?~yers of this co~ty but starting the ball rolling for la~e~s and it will be ~ law~er~s field day and I'm not looking for any job. Don't ~s~s~derstan. d me. I~m really a ~eat believe that la~ers shouldn't work for nothing~ if ! were asked - I'm not asking for a job - believe ~e ~ iF I were ~sked Z would tell you point blar~ brot~er not to me ~u~ss you borro~ that old c~.stom ~ud decorate the mahogany *~ = ' ~o ~.~ will be eagaging because tlmis is one g~eat s_g fs.t he~.maone if these ~'~ i~ if ~hey do ~hing predicated upon what little we have now in the way of ~owledg~ or i~for~ation and ~k you for ~he Murphy= %aar~ you ~, Tasker and I a~'ee with you - mos~ la;~ers do~ work for ne~hing, Is ~here ar~;o~e else here in ~he middle ~ha~ would like opposition? ~;oving over here on ~he righ~ h&nd side? Ja~es ~inizio ~ Dinizio~ i !i~e on. So~m~d Road~in Greenpor~, I'm no~ opposed 2Dis project, Mostly my questions would ~3.rise as 2o '¢~:.y 'the l~d would b~ve 2o be annexed in the firs2 place, '%'fny coul~ Southo!d To~¢,m just make its o~m-z~ you l~ow, exceptions 2o 2heir o%,~m rules? ~d, number two~ the commercial p~rt of it ooncez~s me in t~t - talking to ~,~. ~,_ur?hy the other ~y ~ that ~ything could be put on these lots. That goes like sand pits, incinerators, anyzn~ng that's commercial could be put on t~.~e~e lots. There is no restriction as to, you ~ow, what they wao. t to build on the lots. That just concerns siad the noise factor and that I live so close. The houses - what a beautiful idea - wor~_erful idea - increase the t~x base although it would help tD~e school district a lot and tb~t's all for me. ~ut just those two questions as to why Southold To~,m can't do it themselves - why do they have to We it to the Vills~ge and No. 2 why t?e conmercials ~re not business, B1 or B2, v/nat- ever the thing is restricting to office buildings, something of that n~t~e rather than...I~'~d have no, I kao~ow ~m% Costello's business, i'd b~3~e no opposition to that but somet]cing theft smells bad or offended me in ~ esrs would defi~itely. I~d have something to say about that e~%d feel that if it was in the Village - being a Southold To~-.n resident - living so close - i wouldn't ~ve the control over that situation as I would if it stayed in Southold Tovna. i feel that I could come up i~.ere ~ad have business with. you rather them ha~ing to ~o tb=ough the Viit~ge which really isn't ~ living conoern - the other end it's so olose. T~a~r~ you ve~/ Th~r~ you. In e~swer to your question we s~e here because there ~r, Murohy: ~ ~ was a legal petition ?resented to the two Dos~rds for munexation. That's why we're here tonight. Is there a~0yone else here on the right would like to speak in opposition. Sir? Bill Sc]~ddle P~. Sc}~middle: i live up on ~stern Sl~ores. Let's forget this i~!aster Plmu, let's forget the zoning code, let's forget the smne~tion. Let's ts~lk water. A few v ye:~s ago I got ~ notice go easy on the water, don't w~ter you~ here's a c~P for your sho~er. Since theft time you've got 46 condo~iniu~ in Greenport a~nd now you w~t to come along with this. ~qaere are we going to get the w~tert I ~znt you there ~isht be ~ome i~provements but you are going to have another develop~ent coming up in ~ecknock P~ll. ~3nere's the water coming from? ~. M~i~y: Th~ you. Anyone else here in the ~ddle~ going over to the right? is there a~one would like to spe~ in opposition? Anyone ~in in the back steading up? Ruth? Ruth Oliva hz~ 01iva: I a~n~ ~esident of the North Fork ~nviro~ental Co~cil. I've listened with ~e~t interest to everybody's comment here ~d i thi~ i especially with ~. Tasker. The ~EC, the board of directors of such, is giving you q~lified no. ~¥e approve of the b~sic ide~ of the project - that is ~xed housing with a different type of use. ~t not perhaps a commercial use. ~s ~r. Dinizio se~ys you don't know ~m~.t you are going to have next to you. If you could be ~ssured that it would be something cle~n or offices, fine. ~t I just wonder if these people that do even ~nt afford~ble housing wquld ws~ut to live ne~t to sexy so~aeone that h~,s a towing oper~,tion or a g~,r~ge with a repair shop with .... people coz;:ing in with hoz~s and ts, lki;ag s,nd yelling. just doesn't seem to fit~ ~,¢e do need the s, fforda, biehousing. T~:~,ere's no question s, bc-ut it. ~d as Merlon ?;iggin said in their ~,~ster Pls~n it ~s done with ~:~rofessional offices and i would like to ask i'~, P~ahl too ~gny is it that none of the business come to Southold. Z~;ery place ~' he~' they say let's ~t them here - we ~,,a,v~ industrial space as long as at isn't a water polhtant, ,amd I would like to ~ow why they kaven't been able to come to Southold, Our basic, question~ also, with this piece of property is the anti- quated water system. It's going to have to be e:~smded. I don't see how Nonsell can continue adding on and adding on. It will be just two years ago this s~mer - he reached almost a peak loading day in the s-~u~ertime. I just wor~ theft if we keep sdding to t!e Greenport Water System one of these sucre.ers on a very hot day we have a very bad fire ~ntS. there is not going to be water pressure to put it out there is going to be loss of life. So I feel the most conservative way you can allocate this ws,ter supply~ ~til you find some other methods~ of going out and getting more water, i saw in the paper Silver ~ke. That would need tremendous type off ~s that would have to i~ify that, Great Ponds, you are going to get tremendous opposition from the people aro~d there. If you go doYaa to Alvah's Lane the e~ense is quite te~ific. ~t someone h~s got to p~y and perhaps the developers ce~ pay. Bst in the m~in t have to say if there was to be sho~, and like P~r, Costello to put in wv~iting~ that this is what he is goin~-~~ to do - that tl~ese houses would be there and t~.t theze could be a cl%nge arozmd from strictly com~ercial to say more of a business zoned thst we would ~ow what would go on these differ- ent lots - I thir~k it would be far more acceptable to all of us, Thsmd~ you. Nz~phy: Thsm~ you ~th, is tiere anyone else in the audie~me now would like to spe~ in opposition? ~one in the back standing up would like to spe~ in opposition? ~ not~ i would like to go back to aski~' ~yone if they would have a~y ~ ~ at ~i wou~e like %o use %~s other mike? it would be easier for you. We realize we ~.ve to msl~e it easy for the Esseks: I'm Nearing ewe %ypes of criticsm toni~'~%. One is we are ~oin~ too much a% once and. one is we are no% felling enough a% once ss.d it is quite possible ~ha% %hey a~e bofh valid oriticsms. 2ml% %he eye%em as ou_%lined in %he general municipal !~3~ doesn't provide for - perhaps because it is so old it doesn't provide for answering ali the questions ~% once. if people are in good faith and people aren't always in good fei%h, %%y don~ you listen a Ii~ie bi~ ~onig~ and o~her nig?~s ~nd I hope ~his is ~oing to h~ppen, I hope you~il follow ~his and take p~r~ in ~he i~rocess - in order ~he poin~ ~.~ere we h.~e a mix of residences and a mix of businesses we h~ve to ~ake ~he firs~ s~ep. And ~he ve~ firs~ step is ge~in~ a. oon~rac~ buy %he !~roper~y. And i~ is ~ ~acondi~ional con~rac~ - i~s no~ conditioned on ar~ of t~is happening. The new step is ge~%ing ~he property ~u Vi!la~. O~her speakers will explain some of the reasons for %ha%. Once ~he proper~y is in ~he Village then ~he zonin~ par~s star% - ~wo par~s. One is ge%%i~ i~ zoned ~o allow ~he uses tha~ we wish which are small lo~ resi- dahlia! - pe~ps ~wo-f~ily residen~iai and certain co~ercial uses. As ~he Village a~torney will te!i you~ I hope~ and as ~he To%~ attorney will toll you~ I hope, at this time if at all when ~- client appears before the Trustees end the Pl~ming Board of the Village he can, as part of his application for the r~zo~ng to allow for ~q~at we wish~ place covenants on the property. And that re-zoning application or t~ose re-zoni~ applic~tions will be subject most likely, can't i~gine how we can avoid it, the SEQUA process, ~ad I would imagine t~at those r~zoning applications~ in order to allow what we wish~ will require covenants to be pl~ced u~on the is~nd that ~ to the ~ilage and peri, aDs to the ~n that csm be e~orced by the Village ~d the Tovm requiring the uses that ~e being debated back and forth to- nigtat. The people who say we shouldn't talk about those uses to;aight ~e right. The people who say we should talk about it to~i~nt are right. You don't w~.t to buy e~ pig in a poke. Bnt I can ~derstand, as you ~st ~der- stand, that we he~-e to do it one step at a time. It's legally and physically impossible to do it all at once. ~d a way that will be discussed...town ti~.t at the time that tLe arm. exation takes pisce~ as we propose, there must be zoning on this property. .And the zoning could be the same two-acre zoning that exists within the To~m, And %[aen help us o.operate much if we use i2 for the uses 2ha2 we wish. And then 2hat zonin&, existing zoning 2he Village womid put into ez~stence on ~he proper~y~ whatever they decide put in whether it is ha~~ acre, quarter acre, one ~ore, two acre or five ac~es~ they b~ve the Village of Tm~stees and the Village of Greenport will have that power at the time of the ar~exation and then we won't be able use that property because we don't want five acre or two acre er one acre zoning on the property. ~e w~t ~daat will be shov~ on o~map that we b~ve here. ~e will then have go before the Village Trustees and the Village Planning Board ~nd ~ke quest and those of you ~d~o don~t wish us to do w~t we wish to do will b~ave m~sy, many, ~ny opportunities to again voice yo~ opi~ons. Now~ I see people sh~i~ their heads and what's interesting is they don't want us to talk about what we wa~t to do - they just want us to stop even tryir~ to do it. But fort-~ately in this government we are allowed to m~ke these appli- cations and it's the only way that we ca~ do it; by first m~ing the applica- tion for a~uexation. Now with regard to the SEQUA question that ~. Pack~ brought up. It's a State Environmental ~ality Revue Act. One of the first t~s that these Bo~ds will have to do is to elect a lead agency and once they do that we will submit some for~s - e~iror~.ental assessment forms - and then the lead agency will n~d~e a decision ~s to whether to ~e a positive or negative declaration. I believe...a neg~/~ive decl~r~tion because they'll find. that whether this property is zoned two acres in the ~ or zoned two acres in the Village~ it will not hs~e any adverse enviro~ental affect as it will be the exact same use - just ~ different gove~ment. Now that is one of the ways that we can prooeed~ That's the way that i believe Z s~ ~oing to reco~.end to my client and I ~m going to reco~end to the ~llage a~ Beside. ¥~aat that would mean if ~ ~dvice is followed, and if it isn't, that the depart~ent review - the lead deps~tmental review will not take place ~util ~ client applies to the Village Trustees for a cha~ of zone. Now, somebody said - who's going to pay for the improvements? ~ client's going to Day for the improvements, hTe are not asking smyone else to F~y a rAckel, Not asking the Vill~e or the Totem or anyone else. He's going to p~ and it had not occ~red to us that w~ would ask anybody else to [f~ay for it. Now~ the wa~ter will not be e~:tended and the utilities will. not be extended '~- less the Village decides tt:~t it will allow that. ~e don't have the ability to force the Villa~ to do it. So that will be a Vills,ge decision t~% it will arrive ~t subsequent to the a~er~tion ~nd subsequent to the chsnges of zone, I thim~ those are the general things ti~t i wanted to outline on tecb~uical basis. I just wanted to mention oo.e more thing~ As the ~st ~d Towms go to t~-zo and three and five-acre zonir~ they h~ave one real legal problem~ I say, and that is that there is a requirement for every large ~ni- cips~lity to provide housing for everybody. ~nd there are a series of c~ses that say theft. I'm not just t?e one who says that. The fa. ct gets into reasonableness ~ud how ~ch housing you h~:,ve to supply for every end of the le~l and econor~c and e~aotional..,spect~m, The criticsm that i've ~ade ~d other lawyers ~ve ~de against various East E~d tow~is they don't provide housing for te lowor-middle~,class ~ven middle class let alone the poor. ~acre housing in this rowan arid other to~ms is getting to the point where 'it is virtually i~vossible for peop~]e at the average end of the ecom~c . spectr~, especially t~e younger people, to afford housing based on two- acre density, It leaves to the pickings - wha~t's left over. ,~ad, I believe, that on the farce of it the zoning is not proper and t~t there is an affi~a- tire duty on the p~t of the To:~zi ~ard in this ~vm and town boards in other to ts~ke steos to atlevi~,te the 'f~ ~ ,' ~ ~eso~ problem to supply and m ~ ~e e~vzils~ble ~ffordable housing. ~o~d the only way that you c~ ~ke affordable housing zvaiiable~ considering the Co~nty sad the Depa~rtment of He~lth Se~ices - is to b~e w~ter supply ~nd/or sewerage disposal. Otherwise you h~ve to have ~ zcre lot. That is a ve~ ve~ logical rezson wi~y people choose to have 'affordable housing next to the £ew east emd eo~niiies t?~a% h~¢e public wa~er amd sewers. Very simple. Gree~por~ has i~. It attracts people who ~herefore cae have to~s of less ~h~a one a~re s~d i'~s for ~ha~ reason ~ha~ people ~ oliem~ wan~s ~o bray t-]~ is )?roperty~ w~a~s ~o de~eiop i~ in ~his fashion. Tomigh~ is ~he ~ery firs~ s~ep which I beiia~e will go~er week% months and I hope no~ years~ ~,ir. ~phy: Tha~< you. ~]r. Esseks: joe Ra3mor who is the e~gineer for it, s project will give a litile bit of background and discussion about a!ternati~¢es concerning water suFpty. John Ra~mor ~,Or. Ra~or~ ! =~in~ain an orifice ir. ],fate~iii~ N~ Y. s~d am a professional engineer a~.d le_nd s~zeyor sxcd I was retained by Jobm Costeilo in connection with ~his project 2o lore]care the ...placed on 2he wall over there ~d ~o maswer a few ques~ions 2onicb.2 regarding water supply and sewage dis~?osa!. I find 2ha~ Bill Ess~t~s has 2ouched on mos% of 2he points I would hs~,e brough2 up ~o you and I rind ~zyseif in 2he position of many off the people wino spoke earlier. A Few 2hou~?~ts - i Ye spoken e~rlier ~ods:g with ~r. Me-z~sell~ who is ~o. perintendent of Utilities as you ~ow, re~,rding the c~pabilities of ~he Village 2o F~rovide 2he ~,~m~ter supply and sewage disposa!,..~hat ~his type of development will re- quire, And he has assr_red me 2ha2 2he capabilities are there. He has gib-em me 2he n-~bers as 2o ~he design capacities off 2he sewer system ~d 2he water system acid i have gone %,~roag~ the aritimmetic neeess~~ 2o creek t~ o~ pro- posed needs will not exceed the capaeities...There will be a co~ortable cushion for the peak de~,nd days which occur generally in 2he s~m~er, i'd like 2o ?oin2 om2 2ha2 if 2his property ~ere developed in two acre io~s~ it's highly likely 2ha2 since i~3 is no2 ?,ri of 2he ~liage~ ~ha2 2he sewers~e dis- posal would be o~ site in septic systems. I2 may be possible 2o e~ez~.d the sewer district 2o include 2~se area but I 2hir~k it's quite a bit more 5Xffficu!2 ~o extend 2ha2 sewer district ffrom the Village into 2he ~. There is also ~he prohibitive factor of a premi~s~m on %he oos~ of co,co,ion ~o ~he sewers because of the ~ * -~c, that the sites would not be with_in the Village. So if we simply on the ~oss characteristic b~anc~ on sit sewerage dis~,osal in the vici~ty of the ~,~ter su-0ply .... ~ s~.~em in the Village of Greennort_ ~a~_s'~ ~ a ~_blic sewer system "~ m~ the project as proposed~ I thim~ there's good ~eason to consider the proposed project that is ~neximg it to the Village so t~m~t the sewers can be readily extended to have some positive factors in its favor. In either case, I believe, whether it w~ two acre lots or the proposal~ it it Likely to hs~e public water. I believe ~hat tie p~0iic water is available to areas outside the Village of Greenport and tn~ ~uestion then ~,~out~ be at what rate the water would be used. Certainly on the smaller lots and the total ~ea involved in the residential lots proposed ~ ti:e :ptea~ on the wall is 13.3 acres. The domestic ....... co~su~,~on associated with drifting water ~nd the no~l uses in and ~o~ud the home would be tl0e s~me as tt would be in the same number of residences on two acre lots. The largest difference is like~ to be the i~i~,tion capability. Those who can afford two acre lots quite frequently c~ afford s~ s~utom~atic i~ig~tion system and that, in r~ost cases~ is the ~eatest cons~er of water ~ud it far exceeds the water conscription that woul8 be associated wit~ the domestic use. I ~ ' %~ tampa that this ?~ticul~ loca- ~ut~o~a because it is adjacent to the water supply tion is '~uique in t~e ~m of .... ~d sewage disposal systems of the Village of Greenport. Tle u~zoning to two acres in the rest of the Totem certaznm~ am~ess~s some cz ~. ~ ..... ~ of ~:~re- sem~-ing your water supply, t~ s~om~ be done in the ~eas where each of yo~ residents relies on individual, wells on the lots for their water suo~_r~ -. ~mt you s=e missing one of the most importamt as~:tects of plarming if you don't ta~e advantage of the s~eas that are provided with public utilities so that you can ad.ess the needs t]~at ~:-=-~ ~ o o~=~.-s rie~e spoken so well about tonight. M~?hy: Tha~ you Jobm.~,~r.~'~ Pack. sm would you like to. ... i°e~cta~ ..~. our water problems than wa he. ye before. ~...~ have more in~ for~.tion about o~~ ~re ~.~b~e~s~ about o~ sewerage problems.. ~ave more information than we had before and based upon theft additional ir~o~ tion~ based u]~:on at least as far as the To~ of Southold is concerned when they made judgements and until they get the~ ~taster ?!~ they did not w~t ~o ~fect t~he balance of water and sewerag~ in the area in its fragile condi- tion on the >~orth Fork~ The ~oblem as I see it is that if we continue to talk about this as a zorJng ~tter we ame getting into a spider's web of spot zo~ng and we shouldn't be doing that. Because ~uiess we have a ~ster Pt~ either in the To~ of Southold which is up-dated and has made a .jud~ent as to how this parcel of property is to be utilized and ~utii the Master ~ the Village of areenpo_t ~kes a determination that if ~nexatio~ is ~co take place~ t~at it shoed be developed in this particular fashion~ any talk about the kind of zoning that you ~e talking about here will be spot zoni~ ~d it will be subject to atts~ck i~ the co,ts. ~ud though I ap5~reciate Judge Tasker's appeari~ on his o~ behs~If without a fee and appreciate he is concerned about the Village and the To-~ being subjected to Is~ s~its~ I thiDJ~ that those people who were offended bl~ this - if it doesn't meet the test of ~he SEO~UA process and if it doesn't meet the test of p~biic be~efit then these Bo~ds will be subject to lawsuits ~ufor~atety. ~d the ultimate cost will be bo~e by t~e peoiole in the area. And t~.~t shoui~'t be the case if you follow the proced~es that are required. I'm merely submitting sn envirorm~enta! assessment statement as !~. Essek says and his tho~ght it will be negatiYe in nat~e. Ail of a sudden he can anticipate the decisions of the Boards~ he can define them~ It's in~eresti~ to note. t don't believe that's the case. I don't believe these Boards havemade up their minds. I don't thir~ they haYe e~ou~ information for them to be able %o maC~e up their minds and ~hat a full er~-iro~mnental i~pact statemen~ will have to be~ ]step,ed before this Board - t~<e either of t!~ese Do,ds - take action on the a~ney~tion. That is a determi~s~tion which requires a full pa~oi;ly of enr¢iro~=~ent impact sts~tements and if it isn't done you will be subject to having void actions which will cost money in the end. Tha~ you ve~ much, >k~. Murpb$~: Th~ you Sir. Okay is there anyone further in the audience would like to ~e s~ny comments for or against - Jim l~ionsell? I~. Pacla~n~ Mr. ~pe~isor - here are some petitions that they wanted to h~md ~. i!'~p?~f: They cert~inly James i. }4onsell ~, ~donsell: I am Superintendent of C~eenport Villgg~ Utilities. I'd just like cl~rify ~ statement or severs~l st~tements theft were made on the wg~ter supply, Judge Tasker did coz0ment or m~ke s~ st~tement gsa quote from the Superintendent of Utilities in the paper but I don't thi~ he continned with the entire ~ent that ws~s presented in t~e pz]~er - that ws~s present in the article. The Village Board of Trustees of Greenport and the Utility ~ttee ~long with the consulting~ engineer s~nd the superintendent is making a very thorough and de- tailed study of the needs and the demands u]?on the w~ter system and wha, t it will be i'or the future s~nd ]~ow they c~n get the necesss~y meney to h~ze an ?~olic water supply. This money hopefully will come from those ~no need the w~.ter sulply in the furore. ?~s subdivisions come on they ~ill have to give us up front ~oney - ]~t in place the necessa~ money so th>at we can get the necessary i~roduction to put on line and se:~e the custbmers. This has not been fully adopted but it is still in the study st~g~s. There is water in Southold To~n but the qu~lity has deteriorated over the last ten ~tever wa~ter is t~ken by either public water s~?ly or private wells will have to be tree, ted to the point t~s~t the cons~m~er cern cons~e it and meet the he~,ith st~de~rds. ~,!e intend, to do that. ~,re intend to take that ob!i~tion on if we put a well in we intend to ~ - ore=~o it~ That's w?~y we're studyi~ the Silver L~ke project, why we're still some~st studyi~ the Great project, why we are going into the desalinazation project. ¥~e~re t~ing to find some sciences of water tb~t we can keep our production level up. As far as the sewer plant goes you people on the To~,~-n~ard - gentlemen s_nd ladies - ~ ' ~ ~ ~-~age of Green- felt secure e~oug.~ to be able to make an a~eement with the ~ '~ '~ port, spend z million point eig~t - two ~llion dollars of to~m money - most of it 9~ ~ant - but you got the 9~ g~ant on the basis of the Greenport Sewer ~stem or waste water treatment pl~tcom.~eo~ ..... with the ~aw ~ complied, with the .... permit or you couldst have got a 9~ ~ant to build that scavenger waste plant. So I just wanted to put into li~t ~ little bit different pic- t~e that Greenport is ~king evez$~ effort that they can to comply with the water and sewer load, se P{~., H~lrp~z: Tna~ '~ou~ Jim. Once a~in is ~ere anyone in the audience - HicY~ei Langone i~,, Langone: I live in u~ree~_po~. I'm here %o s'~ in f~tver of %his project %~% was going on. I~m also ~he Chief of the Greenpo~% Pi~e Depar%men%~ I will ' %,~e youth is the say one ~hing and it will be fo~ %he Fire De~artment that ~ backbone of ti:e Pire ~-'.}~tment. The young peo¥ie are t~n~ ones th~ get out ali hours of the day, 24 ho,~s a day, seven days a week s~d they keep going. As a member turns older he tuz~s a little more lax. t thi~< the ~em and the Village should consider that the youth are the backbone more or less of the tonality. The youth will probably lay the ~ter lines for the water pro- jects that is coming on bore. It will. be the local young people. It seems a ~' if ~ ~e~ ~name we would put in et water line even to bring people from the ~ ~d of S'~folk County out here to do the work that the local peo'ple could do. ~d if with the housing, with the co~m~erci~l that's going in, it Should attract jobs, it should attract people out here for housing. I look at the class that - ~r sat down today and _1 looked at ~¥~.~ class that _r ~aduated with - the school - in ]-962 and 12% of ~ class is ~ ~ here ~-~t out - they ha3e moved sl~ay ~ lack of jobs~ lack of housing, affordable housing. I asked somebody today t~at ~adue- ted two years ago. I sa~me~ :~Eow m8~ly people in your class that ~u ~aduated with are still ~ sro~d '~er~e~ W~e says "Not ~ ~ ~ ~ ...... s~._c~ . I don ' t thr~r~ there ' s 25~. ~d it is people being driven away - unr~fford~3ole housi~, lack of jobs of unemployment. So that's why i third~ the To~ and the ~ll~ge Bo~ds should look f~.vor~fole on this '~ + '~ ~o~=c~. Thank you. ~r. ~m~rphy: Okay s~?~in is there anyone would like to m~}~e any f~ther co~ents on this? Sir? ~. Jerome Bloom ]~. Bloom: I'm a ~racticio. g dentist n~re in ~uthold. No one ~.a~ seesawed to come up and given se s. cut and ~ied snswer~ ~& specific answer is ~aat is the bene- fit for the ~w~0. of Southold, what is the benefit for the ~. of Greenport. ~/e've gotten peripheral issues - housing e~_d you know~ employment~ o~r yo~ kids for the fire depe~rtment. But I ws~nt to kuow what is - wh~t s~e we going to ~in in ~he ~ and what is Oreenoort_ going to gain s~eoz~ca_~~ '~ ~ '~ ~. ~n~t cloud and ~d~~ mT~ issues as I'm getti~ here. I see not~ing except no benefit - except to the builder, t~e develo~er will b~ve ea~sier access for sewerage~ easier access for wster. ~meone clarify that for me. ~'. l~]~mphy~ Thar~ you. 0kg~~ is there ~yone else that ~<ould like to make some f~ther statements to the combined Boards? Sir? John ~stello ~. Costeilo: I would just like to - you know - some of the questions and the pro- blem t~, Blum will b~ve. 0~0.e of the benefits to bot~ and especially the Greenport School District~ will be tax revenues, i~. i~udel one time asked the question of why I don't w~t to build the houses on the property. ~_~ of these yo~_ug people could not afford to contract s~ builder to do it. They would have to do it themselves. ~<d'. Tasker asked why the Greenport Se~er Dis- trict~ I mean C~eenport Sewer, who~ going to bear ths~t burden, Greenport c~a't afford it. l~e would. The restrictions on the property and I'd like to have something worked out between attorneys of both the ~ Board and the Vill~e T~stees and ~dz g~ttorney, l~e're willing to go with a~y kind of restrictions. I wslat to see t~he property end ui in the hands of the working people~ Right now we can put %we-acre housing on that projec%¢ use wa%er~ put sewerage into the ~ound. I think we'll put Yery close - ~o use ~he same wa~er and i~ no sewerage in~o ~he ~ou~.d if the proposal goes somev~ere near in~ended. kind of 8~.aran~ee? I can guarantee ~h¢~ Shis Will go over to ~he ~orking ~¢~s - wha$ wealthy re~ire~,~.n is ¢oing to look for a sma,!! quarter-acre lo~? The=e's pie~;~y of %;o-acre lo~s in Sou~ho!d. There's plenty of condomi~u3~s. Ye will also ~,g~ee to ha~e restrictions ~king sure tbm,t there's a buy back and it keeps into the ~or~ng m~u's h~ds ~d I was sad to see Ruth 0live have ~ ~lified '~no", i thi~ that it was awfully preme~ture to have a qualified ~no~. Ri[~t now we ere just goir~g on to getting this property armexed. I we~nt to be above board smd tell you what the intended uses are. If it doesn't comlsly with Southold or with the Village of Greenport we ~ill sit down with the Pla~ing Bo~rds and i'm sure we viii have more meetings a,nd resolve it at that time. Thank you. ~. i~Turphy: Thar~k you ~. Se~uels: Tom Samuels a,gain. is one of the mos~ interesting public he~-~rings I~ve been ~o in some time and t~% it's such a direct - you can just see the polarization that ey~sts here. All too frequently in the To~n of Scut old - only one sid~ of the issue is represented and that side is re;~resented constant, fly, frequently, intentively. They ha~-e the time~ they have the means and they are keeping th~ags the way they w~%t them. ~.t there are people in this to~ that work here and live here and they should be represented saad you're going to find that this is the first of m~y public hearings on this retorter. There's going' to be a lot of I just had to t~e this opportua~ity tonight. This them as Mro Ps,ck~n has alluded to. The ~,ttorneys will use the SEQUA process, Ti~,:e SE~JA process is a wonderful process, it's been used~ abused and really over-used. ~.,~t we're goi~0.g to need you people here again - the ones that in fa,vet ,of this project and other projects si,v,~iar to it, ¥~e're goi~ to need you at public hearings egg, in. Hopefully it will 'be at hi,at. But I'll betcha, there' s going to be so~e during the day ',,~zen its going to be tou~a for certain of us to get here. The problem is t~m~t the ~wn is getting one- sided input for the most part and its vez~j, very f_~,zstrating to somebody that is t~i~,g to .,~,.?~e a living in the tm~, or who works for someone ~nose t~ing to ~e a living. It's a tough scene. You are going to hsr~e to come beck a~in if your in favor of this project ~ad others like it. You're going to b~ve to go to Master ]~l~ hearings because they ara goir~g to come up smd if thee Town~d hears Ruti~ 0!ira ~d Y~a~ Beer and nobody else ~ they don't ~ow what we thir2~. ~md if we t~irfi< the way we do - the way ! do - and i thi~ tiara are people here that d% I t~lk to them all the time, I work with them~ you got to come. You c~'t sit back because what's happening is happeni~. Yes~ there's tw~acre zor~ng. ¥~no s]f~oke against it? Yes~ there was five-acres south of the ~in road in Orient~ ~o is going to speak against it? There has to be a contro-voice to t~is business. SEQU;~ will work~ l~blic opinion is the ~ A . ~ ~,~e going to ~ie on the results of the ~swer to o~,~UA. These peoole up here I sees - they ~re going to :~le on whether it's a negative or a positive declara- tion. You got to let these people here know how you feel about what's going on in the Town. Dj~re t~e people going to live ?.ere or a~e we going to barge zero- ~o~rth~ second homes for senior citizens. There's more to that - there's room for tl~t, But you got to get out there. U~ort~mately, ~d this was brought up to me by one of the reporters in the local paper, the To~ Bo~d, the Pl~ing Bos~d~ the Village Board are getting one-sided information ~d you got to get both sides. I ara not the one to lead this opposition. I don~t want to do it. I don't ~:,re time for it. ~aybe we don.ti need leaders but we need yo~ vigi- lance. If you ~e interested in the Tovm and if ~rou are interested in living in the To-~m you got to go to these hearings because the people with the second homes that wa~ zero-~o~h c~ hire the help o~selves - we~ve got to get in there, Fig~m.t for o'~selves. I~ll cl~p in any way I can. Somebody just has to ask me. Taa~ you. ~, ~durphy: Th~ you~ ~ir~ I~]ar tin EY-mer~reich _~/k'. Ehrer~reich: I li%Te in F~ast Shores. I've been living out in Greenpor% for yes. rs. I love i2 as ~ch as m%~bo~. I s%srted a business here - no one gave me ~%hing. I employ %hir%y some-odd people, i would jus2 like 2o ask a question. ¥~a2 is affordable housing? This appe~ed in Newsday ~his week, "Housi~ i%'s a word tha% has a!mos% become a eliche in housing circles. A single ~hrase that defines %~aa% experts say is a g~rowing na%zon-~lme problem, I'ueled by i~la%iom and rising in%eres% ra~es, in areas like Long Island where housing ?rices are generally higher %hen ne%ion-wide average~ %he problem is even more acute. .Affordable housing is ~ ~ ~ ~ene~.a~ defined a.s a home whose mortgage and other l:a~ents cost a reasonable percen ~a~ - usually one-third of ~ family's ~oss monthly income. That's a fam~!y with a $30,000 income theoretically can afford a house, theoretically a $75~000 home. In a where the average i0rioa of a si~!e family house, both nationally ~nd !ocai~ hovers arced .$100~000 ~ that's bad news for a lot of potential home buyers. Forget the size of the lot for a moment - '~ao is going to subsidize that house and bow's the poor gf~3y going to build it~ i emi~!~some 35-odd people, working people love to pro~ide housing f ~ ~ - ..o ......em. ¥?~o is going to build ~a~ house~ how are ~hey going ~o ~ford ~o pay for i~ if basalts woui~'~ give ~hem mor~.ges? .... Let's ~aik ~bom~ ~he prise of ~he house. I~ ~oo~ contributed ~o ~his community. Cs~I ha:~e I no~? (Carl: l~p). Tha~ you, ~. M:rphy: Th~3~ you sir. is there anyone else in the audience would like ~o m~e ~y oo~en~s. >~. Esseks: :~Te should be allowed to respond to ~hg~. TLe q:.es~ion was asked or five ~imes arid ~he opportunity should e~s~ for }.~. Cos4eito ~o explain how he in, ends to deal with affordable housir~, >~. I~.urphy: Yfe're asking anyone would like ~o m:,ke a co~men~. John.? I~ Cos~eilo: l~,reli we ~end ~o ask ~?~'s affordable. Ts same way I afforded my house and i am s~e 9~ of all worki~ people did i~. A ii~%ie a~ a ~ime. ?ut one stor3~ on~ finish the dos~_stairs and live there. I~any years !ate~ the~ ~ar~eo ~ on~ .,.'0ut the familY~ room on. I did ~-;bat I had to do. I don't care ~d everybody here is entitled to have something - work for something and ob- tain something~ }Z~. ~{~phy: Thank you, Is there sr~yone else would like to address the combined Bos~ds on this proposed a~uexation? APj other co~ments? ~. Pac~an: ~, Supe~-isor - I have ti~ose petitions ~uich I neglected to b~,nd out. I hsare been a~d.vised there a,re some 300 si~,tures on flat petition opposing the a~exs~tion ~-t this time. ~" ~ s~re ,. ' ~ ~ ~e_e other '~etitions still beir~ which will be t~ned into the To~rn~erk's office and those signatures are not only from the ~ea of >~,ste~ Shores but the whole tow~ of Southold and the Villa~ of Greenport. ~. ~phy: They will, be ~n~de part of the record. !~Ir. Pac~: Thar~ you. ~,~. there any other oo~ents at this t~mee Yes, 1%.~ould like to say something. Alex Geo~gi l~. Georgi: i live in Greenport ~nd everybody in here is saying something a~out fordsfole housing ~,nd not sayi~g s~%hing about ~for~ble wages. ~:ere are these kids goin~ %o get the money to buy these ~,ffordable housin~ ~ud when Costello says that he's only going to ~ut a thing in there ~bout giving it to the kids - tbm~t~s discriminatory u:Eon me s~nd any senior citizen who~w~ts to buy ~uy one of those lots. ~. i'E~phy: Th~i~ you sir, Is there a~one else %~ao would like to ~3ne some comments? Yes, ~ Patricia Forest i,%~ Forrest: I live in Greenport. I'm one of those kids and i just want you to know I'm just twenty yeE~rs too late to be one of those kids. ~t i'm one of those kids we're talking about, t am ~, single person %,fno supports ~yself a project of this nature would benefit someone like ~rself. i dcn't feel like ~here is any prejudice here. This is o.~,en to me also. T~e objective was to ~ke affordable housir~g for workers, not ~uecessariiy youth. ~f~en we talk about youth it is importan~ because youth is o~ fut~e and we want to ~ow where the wa~es ~e going to come From - they a~e going to come from these come,amies ~hat we acm.~ut ir;~to this p~ where t~.~ can e~i~and and ?~re more people and keep them sallied. This is important. If we don't have ali these in~edients tLen we have only the people t!~,t came out ~ere bu~- the homes that they could afford, that aren't working any longer~ m~,de their ~r~gemen~s for their i~ture and eventually it s~ems to me that to be no more Southold. So I am in favor of this project a~%d i would like ve~; much to see you take into considers, riCh the a~Jzexatton of the Vitl~ge and the Tow~. I t.ai~ it ~as to be beneficial to all of us~ Th~ you. ..... =,by. Th~.~ you.. Oksy again is there ~r~one else w~o would like to ad,ess t~ms time I the Boards? ~uyone outside? Okay at ~' ~ would like to th~ Bolla help here who worked so very iqubbard ~nd his Board, ~utbo!d Totem - ~~,,~ hard and deligentiy. A decision will be made within 90 days by the combined Bo~ds on this proposed ar~ex~tion and ~t this ~ ' ~ ~ a, omn~ · would like to close the hearing ~d tha~ you for your kind attention and sorry for the shortage of space ~ere. Meeting closed at 9:30 p.m. Res ectfu!iy sub~itted~ JUDITH I'. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OI,' VITAL ST/\TISTIC~S OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 December 7, .1984 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 Church Street Patchogue, New York 11772 Re: East End Associates Gentlemen: It is the determination of the Southold Town Board that East End Associates should complete the enclosed Long Environmental Assessment Form so the Town of $outhold may pursue the SEQR project in connection with the petition of East End Associates to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Green port. Upon completion of this EAF please return to this 'office so 1 may begin processing same. Clerk TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ENVIRO;iMENTAL ASSESSMENT :'PART I Project In for~n~tion NOTICE; This oocum~nt ~ des~ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the eDv~rcq,'nent. Please comc lete the entire Data Sheet, Answers to these ouestions w~ll be considered as Dart of the a~olication for aoDroval and may be subject to further verification and~ublic review· Provide any additional infor~Cion you believe will be needed to comolete PARTS 2 and 3. It is expecteo ~nat c~mDlet~n of the EAr will ~e dependent on information currently available an~ will not involve new studies, research or investlQation. If information requirin~ such addicional worm is unava~ble, so indicate and s~ecify each instance. NAME OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF OWNER (If Different). (Name} ADD~ESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: (Street) (Street} (P.O.) BUSINCSS PHONE: (State) (Zip} {P.O.) (State) (Zip) DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: {Briefly describe type of project or action) {PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) SITE DESCRIPTION (Physical setting of overall project, both develoned and undeveloped areas).. _., acres . acres C-enera) character of the land: K~nerally uniform slope __ Present land use: Urban , Industrial . , Con~nercial _, Agriculture , Other Total acreage of ~roject area: acres. Approximate acreage: Presently After Comnletion Meadow or Brushland acres __acres Forested acres acres A~ricultural .... acres __acres Uetland {Freshwater or Tidal as her Articles 2~, :5 or F.C.L.) 4. '4~at is "redomin~nt soil typu(S) on nroiect site? Generally uneven and rollin~ or ~rregular , Suburban ., Rural ., Forest ¥1ater Surface Area Unvegetated {rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildinqs and o~ner paveo surfaces Other {indicate tyne) ..... Yes ~_.Nc ~.at ~s UeDt~ to bedrock? ...................... ('n Feet) Presently After Completion acres ___ac.es acres ___._acres _acres _ acres acres acres 6. Approximate oercentage of proposed project site with slooes: 0-10% %; l~-l~S ~; 15% or greater %. 7. Is project contiguous to, or contain a building or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places? Yes No 8. What is the depth to the water table? feet g. Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes No lO. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or enoanQered - ,Yes ~;o, according to - Identify each species 11. Are there any uniaue or unusual land forms on the project site? {ioe. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes No. {Describe 12. Is the project site oresently used by the con~nunity or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes No. 13. Does the present site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary 15. Lakes. Ponds, Wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name : b. Size (in acres) 16. What is the aominant land use aid zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project single family residential, R-2) and the scale of develooment (e.g. 2 story). B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions anO scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor acres. b. Project acreage developed: acres initiallyl acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain Undevelooed d. Length of oroject, in miles: (if appropriate) e. if project is an expansion of existing, indicate percent of exoansion proposed: building scJare foot- age ; developed acreage f. Number of off-strut parking spaces existino ; proposed g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour (upon completion of project} h. If residential: Number snd type of housing units: Initial Ultimate If: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Co~ercial Industrial Orientation ~leighborhood-City-Regional j. Total height of tallest nroooseo structure Estimated Emoloyment How much natural material {i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will oe removed from the site cubic yards. 3. How many acres of veqetation (trees, snru~s, ground covers) ~ill oe removed from site - ... acres~ Will any mature forest {over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removeo By tn~s project? Yes No 5. Are there any plans for re-vegetation to replace that removed during construction? Yes rio 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction months, {including demolition). 7. If multi-nhased project: a. b. d. B. Will blasting occur during construction? Yes No g. Number of jobs generated: during construction ; after project is complete In. Number of jobs eliminated oy this project ll. Will project reouire relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes . No. Total numDer of phases anticipated No, Anticipated date of commencement phase I month demolition) Approximate completion pate final phase month Is phase 1 financially dePendent on subseouent phases? year (including . year. , Yes No If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liouid waste disposal involved? Yes No. b. If yes, indicate type of waste {sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, pays or other surface waterways be increased or Oecreased by proposal? Yes No. YeS No Will project result in'an increase in energy use? Yes No. If yes, indicate type(s) __ 14. Is project or any portion of project located in the 100 year flood plain? 15. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disposal facility be used? Yes No c. If yes, give name: : location d, Uill any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? .les 16. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Yes No 17. Wilt project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Yes No 18. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambience noise levels? 19. Yes NO )4O 20. 21. 22. If water Supply is from wells indicate pumoing capacity Total anticipated water usage per day __~als/day. Zoning: a. d. kVhat is dominant zoning classification of site? Current s~ecific zoning classification of site ~s proposed use consistent ,vith nresent zoning? If no, indicate desired zoninq gals/minute. 26. Approvals: a. Ia any Federal permit reouired? Yes No b. Does project involve State or Federal funding or financing? Yes No c. Local and Regional a~erovals: Approval ReQuired Submittal AoDroval (Yes, No) {Type) (Date) (Date) City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village Planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies C. INFOR~ATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse imoacts aasociated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and ~ne measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid them. PREPARER'S SIGNATURE: TITLE: REPRESENTING: DATE: EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENZ - PART II .Project Impacts and Their MaGnitude General lnf~nati,an FReed Carefully) - In coml>leting toe Form the reviewer should De guided Dy the ouestion: Have my decisions and determinations been reasonaole? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst, - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2} does not mean that it is also necessarily sionif!cant. Ar:v large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. By identifying an e~ect in column'2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The ~x~moles provided ere to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever possible the thresho! of magnl%uoe that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for moss situations. But, for any specific project or site o:ner examples end/or lower thresholds may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples have been offered as guidance They po not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each nuestion. - The number of examples ~er question does not indicate the importance of each question. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be ~ny effect. b. Maybe answers should De considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the eomrooriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the ~otential size of the impact, if impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column l, d. If reviewer nas doubt about the size of the impact ~en consider toe impact as ~otentially large and proceeo to PART 3. e. If a potentially )arge impact or effect can De reduced by a change in the project to a less than large magnituou, ~tace ~ Yes in column 3. A No response indicates, that such a reduction is not ~ossible. IMPACT ON ZAND WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO PROJECT S~TE? Examples that Would ApPly to Column 2 ©© Construction on Land where the depth to the wa:er table is less than 3 feet. Construction of ~aved Darkino are~ ~mr l,*~n or more vehicles. C~nstruction on land where bedrock is exQosed or generally w~thin 3 feet of existing grouno surface. Construction rna? will continue for more than 1 veer or involve Excavation for m~n~ng 9urPoses that would remove more than 1,O00 tons cf natural material {i.e. rock or spill per year. Construction of any new sanitary landfill. -5- SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT !~PACT PROJECT CHANGE NO YES Any construction on slopes of 15% or grea~er, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length}, or where :ne general sloees in :ne project area exceed 10%. Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: PO YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LAND FOUND ON THE SITE? {i.e..cltff~, dunes, Geological forma- ti(ms, etc.) Specific land forms: ?!PACT ON WATER 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER BODY DESIGNATED AS ......... PROTECTED? {Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Exammles that Would A~ply to Column 2 Oredginm more than lO0 cubic yards of material from channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other imoacts: YES '(DC Examoles that Would Apply to Column 2 A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a l0 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds l~ acres of Other imnacts: 14-0' YES ~!~ALL TO ~ P~TE~TIAL ! CAN !'IPACT BE ~nDERATE ) LARGE REDUCED BY IMPA~T ~ IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE gILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACE OR GROUNDWATER NUALITY? Examoles t~at Would Apply to Colu~ 2 Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of ~ source of water that does not nave approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water SuPPly from wells with greater than ~S gallons per m~nute numoing capacity. Construction or operation causing any contamination of a puolic water SuDPly system. Project will auversely affect groundwater. L1Qu~d effluent will be conveyed off the site to fac~)it~es woicn oresently OD not exist or nave InadeQuate capacity. Project reou~nng a facility that would Jse water ~n excess of 20,000 gallons per gay. Project w~ll likely cause siltation or other discharge ~nto an exlStlng ~oy of water to the extent that there will De an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. C)© ;~tALL TO POTENTIAL C. AN I)iPACT BE ~IDEP. ATE LARGE REDUCED DY :4PACT I~'P~CT PROJECT CH~;GE ................................................... C)O Examnle that ~ould Anoly tO Colunn 2 Pro)eot wnuld impede flood water flows. Project is likely to cause substantial erosion. Project is incomoatible with existing drainage Patterns. IMPACT ON AI~ DO YES ,'ILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY? ........................... ~ ~ V Examotes that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will induce 1.OO0 or more vehicle trios in any given Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton Project emission rate of all contaminants will excee~ 5 million BTU's per hour. Other i moacts: IMOACT ON PLANTS AND AN)H. ALS .NO YES WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? ~ ~ Examoles that Would ApPly to Colunm 2 ~duction of one or more soecies listed on the New York found on the site. ~emoval of any ~ortion of a critica) or significant wild- life ~bi~. Am~licatinn of Pesticide or he)~ici~a over more than tv,ice a year ocher tt~n ~o~m+~ur~l puri~o~es. g. !~LL PROJECT SUBSTA;ITIALLYAFFECT NON-THREATE;~ED OR NO YES ....................................... ©© E~ramole that Would APPly to Column 2 or m~gratory fish or wildlife s~ec~es. -7- I"nACT 0'~ VISUAL ~ESO','RCE ~ ' ~ ~ISTAS OR lO. ~:ILL THE m:OJFCT AFKcC, VI ..(., T)IE V)SIIAL NQ YES CNARACTER OF TtlE ~IFIGHBQR~OD OR CO""'?IIT¥? .............. ~ ~ Exammles that t~ould Apply to Columm 2 An ;ncom~atible v~sual affect caused ]y the intromuc~ion of new materials, colors and/or forms in cen:ras~ :o tile surroundine landscage. A orojec~ easily visible, hop easily screenee, that is obviously different from ~thers aroun: it. Project will resul~ in the elimination or major screening of scenic views or vis~as KnoYm ~o oe important :o the area. Other imoacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES ll. WILL PROJECT II,PACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC. NO YE~ PRE-HIST~oIC ~R PALEQNTOGICAL I~POPTANCE? ................. ~ VV Examples that Would ADoly t6 Column 2 Proiect occurino wholly or nartially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Renis:er of historic ~laces. Any imeact to an archeological ~ite or fossil bed located within the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION 12. WILL THE PROJECT AFFECT THE OUANTITY OR QUALITY OF E×ISTING NO YES OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES OR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU~IITIES? ...... ~ ~ Examoles that ~lould Aeply ~o Column 2 The ~ermanent foreclosure of a future recreational opoortuni~y. a major reduction of an open seace important tO the co~unity. Other immacts: I~P~CT n~J T~NSPORTAT!ON 13. t'ILL THERE BE Aq E~FECT TO EXISTIIIG TRANSPORTATION NO YES SYSTEMS? ............................................... 00 Examoles cnac Would Annlv tO Co)umr 2 Alteration of presen~ 2atterns of movement of neople and/or goods. Prolect will result ~n severe traffic oroblems. Other Imoacts: -8- ODTE~!TIAL LARGE i'~PACT CA:~ i~IPACT BE REDUCED ~Y PROJECT 14. I~PACT ON ENERGY ~IILL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL OR NO YES ENERGY SUPPLY? ........................................... ,.~'~ ,~ Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project causing oreater than 5% increase in any form of energy used in municipality. Project reouiring the creation or extension of an energy transmission or suooly system to serve more than BO sinqle or'two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE WILL THERE BE OBJECTIONABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? Examoles that Would Aooly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will Produce ooerating noise exceedino the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. ~)ther imnacts: 16. YES '00 ?PACT ON HEALTH & HAZARD} NO YFS ,~ILL PROJECT AFFECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY? ............. /~/~i Examoles that Nould Apply to Column 2 Project will cause a risk of exolosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides, chemicals, radiation, etc.) in toe even~ of accident or uPSet conditions, or there will he a chronic low level discharge or emission. Project that will result in the burial of nazaroous wastes" (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, e:c , includinq wastes that are solid, semi-solid, liquid or contain gases.) Storaoe facilities for one million or more gallmns of liouified natura] gas or other liouids. S~ALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE ~DER~TE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IHDACT PROJECT CHANGEi Other impacts: IMPACT ON GRO~Y'FH AND CHARACTER OF COMHUNITv OR NEIGHnCDR~OgD 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHARACTER mF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY? NO YES ................................................ C)C) Example that Would Apoly to Column 2 The Dooulation of the City, Town or Village in which :ne proJec: is located is likely to grow Dy m~re than 5% o~ resident human Dopulation. The munt:tDal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 5% per year as a resul: of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an,agricultural distri:t or remove Dr~me agricultural lands from cultivation. The P~jedt will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or ~reas of h%storic impor:ance to :ne community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. P~ec~ will se~ an imoortant precedent for future proiects. Project will relocate I5 or more employees in one or more businesses. Other im~a cts: NO YES MODERATE I)!PACT 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? ...... ExemDles that Would Apply to Columo 2 Either government or citizens of adjaceqt communities have expressed opposition or rejected the project or nave not Deep contacted. Obiections to the Dro.]ect from within the community. IF ANY ACTION I)J PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A POTENTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETEr!NE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. DETERMINATION ~TE;~TtAL CAN ~HPACT ~ LARGE REDUCED BY IfIPACT PROJECT CHARGE PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED FOR THIS PROJECT: PART I __ PART II PART 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts l, 2 and 3) and conslderinq both the maqnitude and imoortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The project will result in no major impacts and, therefore, is one which may mdc cause significant oamaoe ~o t~e environmenc~ B. Altnouon the ~roject could have a s~gnificant effect on the environment, there will not Pea significant effect ~n this case necause the ~tigation measures described (n PART 3 have Deep included as part of t~e proposed project. C. The project will result in one or more major adverse impacts tDat cannot De reduced and may cause significant damage %0 Signature of Preparer lif different from responsible officer) PREPARE A NEr-ATIVE DECLARATION PREPARE A NEG,'~TIVE DECLARATION PREPARE POSITIVE DECLARATION PROCEED WITH EIS Signature of Responsible Official ~n Lead Agency P"F~-~-t or type name of responsible official in Leao Agency EqF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART III EVALUATIO?I OF THE iHPORTANC£ OF IMPACTS INFORMATION - Part 3 is prepared if one or more impact or effect is considered to be potentially laroe. - The amount of writing necessary to answer Part 3 may be determined by answering the ouestion: In briefly completing the instructions below have I placed in this record sufficient information to indicate the reasonableness of my decisions? I~STRUCTIONS Complete the following for each impact or effect identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact. 2. Describe (if apolicable) how the impact might be mitigated or reduced to a less than large imnact by a pro- ject change. 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important to the minicipality (city, town or village) in which the project is located. To answer the question of importance, consider: - The probability of the impact or effect occurring - The duration of the impact or effect Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources or values Whether the impact or effect can oe controlled - The regional conseouence of the impact or effect - Its potential divergence from local needs and goals Whether known objections to the eroject apply to this impact or effec:. DETERJ~INATION OF SIG~!IFICANCE An action is considereo to be significant if: Qne (or more) imoact is determined to both larne and its (their) consequence, based on the review above, is important. PAPT III STATEMENTS (Continue on Attachments, as needed) -11- JUDITH T. TERRY TOX¥~ CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 9:30 P.M., Thursday, December. 6, 1984 Present: Southold Town: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy, Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran, Town Clerk Judith T. Terry, Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker. Greenport Village: Mayor George W. Hubbard, Jr., Trustee William Lieblein; Trustee David Kapell, Village Clerk Nancy W. Cook, Village Attorney John J. Munzel. Town Attorney Tasker addressed the question of the SEQR process which was brought to light at the public hearing of East End Associates for Annexation (7:30 P.M., December 6, 1984}. it was agreed that the SEQR process must be pursued due to the fact the annexation would me a matter of going from 2 acre zoning (when the property is under the jurisdiction of the Town) to 1/4 acre (iflthe property should come under the jurisdiction of the Village). It was the determination of both Boards that East End Associates should be requested immediately to complete a Long Environmental Assessment Form, and upon receipt of same the Town Board will declare themselves lead agency and follow the SEQR process through. ~Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk We , the residents of Southoid Tov~, hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation ~ of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores L~ae and Route 48 by the Village of Greenporto We further petition She To~ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. the reside'nts ~'~ ' ~,~ ;-~oathold Pown, hereby petition the Town .... ' ~ not to allow the annexation Board o± the '.[!own of S~,~tno_,d, o£ the ~ acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ :oores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zo~iing. f We, the members o£ Sterling Eastern Shores ?roperty Owner's AssociatiOn, hereby Petition the Town Board o£ the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Tov~ Board to continue said property under the current two-acre residential zoning. We, 'the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Totem Board of the Tovm of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, 'the residents of Southold Tovm hereby petition the To%m Board o£ the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South ~ud ~%oute 48 by the ~T~ ~ ~+ ~ ~,.~+s~ ~+~+~ the Tov~ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Town Board of the Tov~ of Southold, not to allow the annexa%ion of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane South sa0.d Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the ~o~,~ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Town Board of the To~n of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South ~r~d Route 48 ~-- +~ ~T~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... ~ .... ~ .... the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Address We, the residents o£ Southo!d To,~n hereby petition the Totem Board of the Tov~n of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We £urther petition the Tovm Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Address We, the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Board o£ the To-w~ o£ Southold, not to allow the annexation o£ the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village o£ Greenport. We £urther petition the Tovm Board to comtinue said property under the current residential zoning. Address / We, 'the residents of Southoid Town hereby petition the To,ma Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village o£ Greenport. We further petition the Tov~_ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, the residents o£ Southold Town hereby petition the To~m Board o£ the To,ma o£ Southold, not to allow the annexation o£ the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South amd Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further peti2Aon the ~]ovm Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, 'the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Town Board o£ the Town o£ Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Tov~ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, the residents o£ Southold Town, hereby petition the Town Board O~ the Town of Southo!d, not to allow the annextion oF the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenportl We further petition the To~_ Board to continue said ~+ prope~,~y under the current Board o~ the mown off Southold, not to allow the annexation off th~ 59 ac~e parge~ on th~...~?~.~.~st~.9~...o~ M~.~.~ane and ~0~t~8 ~Y~he.~.!l~ 9f~Gr~e~gr~'._We_.£u~_r.~he~ D~t!t~0n the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning, 0 0 We, the residents of Southotd Town hereby petition the Town Board of the Tow~ of Sol,hold, not t~ allow the anuexat~on of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moor_s Lane South and. Route ~8 by the Village of Greenporv. We further petition the Towm Board to continue said property ~uder the current residenti~ zoning. ~ e We, the residents of Southold Town, hereby petition the Board of the Town of Southold, not To allow the annexation o£ the ~ acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current :ntiat zoning. ~fe, the residents of Southold Town, hereby petition the Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the armexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the To~n Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. the reslaen~s of Southold ~own, hereby petition the To~r_ . Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the ~ acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane · and Route 48 by the Village of Greenporto We further D'etition the To~fn Board to continue said property under the ~current residential zoning. We, the residents of Southold Town, hereby petition the'TSwn Board o£ the Town of Southold, noz to allow the armexation of the ~$ acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane · and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Town Board To continue said property under the current residential zoning. We, the residents o£ Southold To,~n, hereby petition the Tow~_ ~Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation o£ the ~ acre parcel on the southeast corner o£ Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. to Box 373, Greenport, N.Y. 11944. Your contribution serves your best interest, YOUR PROPERTY VAL~S. You can also help by letting your views be kno~ to the members of the Southold Town Board. Write to I~. Murphy, Town Supervisor, Town Hall, Southold N.Y. 11971 or call him at 516-765-1800. The council members are Jean Cochran; Joseph Townsend, 477-0153; James A. Schondebare, 765-3802; Paul Stouten- burgh, 734-6605. If you have not had an opportunity to sign one of the petitions, please sign the attached and mail it to Mr. Abate, Box 583, Greenport, N.Y. 11944. Since the first meeting regarding this annexation will be held on December 6th~ 1984, it is URGENT that you respond as soon as possible. As m~y members as possible should make every attempt to attend this meeting. We need your support, financially and physically. Yours truly, Emanuel Abate President We, the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the Tov~m Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores I,~ue South ~ud Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. We further petition the Tov~ Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address We, the residents of Southold To~n, hereby petition the , To~n Board of the Tow~n of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and Route 48 by the Village of ~Greenport. We further petition the Town Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. NAM~ ADDRESS Orient East Marion Greenpert Southoid Pecenic Ovc~mb~r 3, 1984 Southoid Town 8oard Southolo Town Hall 53095 Main Road SouLhold, New York llgYl Ge'ntlemsn: The Board of Directors of the Greenoort-Southold Chamber of Commerce nave reviewed the planning oroject of John Costetlo orooosed co de located on property st Moored Lane aha North Road, Greenporn, N.Y. and look favorably uoon the concept of it. We support job opportunities and affordable housing for The young oeople of our town. We favor the increased tax dose and light commerce district it will oro¥ide for the area. we therefore, reoues~ that the application for the annexation of thms property into the Village of Greenport de approYed. Very truly yours, On 5ehalf o? the~rd of Oiroectors Gresnport-South~d Chamber o, Commerce GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 NEWS ELEASE I'd A I'N,S T RE communications committee December B, 1984 RATIONALE OF THE CHAMBER'S ADVOCACY OF A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL WHICH PROVIDES JOBS AND MODERATE PRICED HOUSING. In arriving at a decision to offfar its advocacy of the the John Costallo proposal for annexation of Town property to Greenport Villager the Chamber Directors considered several aspects of the proposal as well as its'- implications. Df prime importance to the Chamber is assurance that the properties designated as "building lots For young~ working people" are actually built and occupied by such persons within a ~easonable length of time. Without such assurance there ia the danger that these properties could be held For speculation, their value inflated, and the whole substance of the proposal thereby destroyed. The Chamber also considered, that by granting the annexation, the Town anticipates th~ provisions of the forthcoming Master Plan for zoning. In so doing, there is an appearance of inequity with respect to other applicants for zoning decisions who are awaiting the final determinations of the Plan. It is the Town Boamd's responsibility to see that its decision in this case be clearly and emphatically baaed on the the benefits the proposal offers to the moat people of the town in terms aF housing and jobs. The disposition of this application must not be $ mere instance of a favorable dispensation and thereby reflect disorder in the Town's program of overaeeing $outhold~s land usa. -~qORE- Chamber-cont..'- By peason of the propoeed annexation certain benefits of Will ecrus to the Village of Greenport. The Chamber offers its a~vocac¥ of this proposal in the. hope that the Village Trustees will be es positive in their response to other pressing needs of the people, many of which ~he Greenport-Southold Chambem has pointed out in the past; most motably, the development of the weterfmont and the clearing of unsightly properties on Route ~5 to the west of the village in the vicinity of ~he Chembem's Toumi'st Ir~fommetion Station. In the ligh~ of its survey of people's a~itudes toward town planning, the Chamber welcomes the opportuni~w of advising on proposals aimed et benefiting the most people. It will undertake this activitw in the regular meetings of its Communications Committee with the Town Commerce Committee, next scheduled for Wednesday December ~, 7:3D PM in Town Hall ~ith Mr. Schondebame and Mrs. Cochmen. The Chamber's goal is e smooth tmsneition to the zoning proposals of the new Mestem Plan. The case discussed hems is clear end concrete evidence of the need fop comprehensive end fair development of such a plan aa soon as it can be made possible. information 477-047~ Committee Membems: J. Berryman, B. Dempeey, H. Mardel, N. Miller, B.Wetmore, In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property of the territory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, NOTICE OF HEARING STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS. : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) NANCY W. COOK, Village Clerk of the Village of Greenport, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 13th day of N0ve~.e?., 1~8~, she affixed a notice of which the attached printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, on the Village Clerk's Bulletin Board in the Main Lobby of the Village Hall, 236 Third Street, Greenport, New York. That deponent caused to be published the attached public notice in the "Suffolk Times" on November 15 & 22, t984. That deponent notified the attached list of persons at the addresses set forth of said Public Hearing to be held on December 6, t984 by depositing same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in the official post office at Greenport, New York. Sworn to before me this ~ ~day of ~ , 1984 Nota~ublic Nancy ~. Cook, Village Clerk Village of Greenport 0j~c¢~'$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM Il. LIEBLEIN 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 APPLICATION OF EAST END ASSOCIATES JOINT PUBLIC HEARING-DECEMBER 6, 1984 VILLAGE OF GREENPORT-BOARD OF TRUSTEES SOUTHOLD TOWN COUNCIL LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS & PERSONS NOTIFIED TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGFILIN East End Associates (Applicant) Mr. James Kalin, Clerk William J. Mills & Co. Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 Church Street Patchogue, New YOrk 11772 Union Free School District No. t0 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 125-127 Main Stree~ Greenport, New YOrk 11944 Mr. John Costello Village of Greenport 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New YOrk 11944 236 Third Street Greenport, NY 11944 Southold Town Adjoining Section Block Lot Property Owners: 33-3-15 Theo Harry Berdebes 146-34 25th Drive Flushing, NY 11354 Southo]d Town Adjoining Property Owners, Cont. Section Block Lot 33-3-16 33-3-i7 33-3-i8 33-3-19 33-3-36 33-3-37 33-5-16 33-5-17 Manuel Gavas and wife 144-35 38th Avenue Flushing, New York 11354 Edgar Burr North Road Greenport, NY 11944 Cornelia Keogh Box 239 Greenpor~, NY 11944 Sa1Caiola 230 East 85th St. New York, NY 10028 R. Galllte111 Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Monroe Burt North Road Greenpor~, NY 11944 Arthur Nichols North Road Greenpor~, NY 11944 Claudio Giovannelti 3 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 Moores Lane Adjoining Property Owners-District 1000 Section Block Lot 40-5-2 WJ'llard Crayton and wife M1ddteton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-3 James Chute and Wife Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-4 Mary Z~pKas P.'O. BOX 222 Greenport, NY 11944 -3- Moores Lane Adjoining Property Owners - District 1000, Con%. Section Block Lot 40-5-5 Otto Funk and wife 15 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 a0-5-6 Antone Volinski, Jr. Middletown Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-7 William Adams, Jr. Middleton Road, Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-8 Barbara Mc Ginness 820 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-9 Mrs. lan Campbell 23 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-10 Bertha Martocchia 960 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-5-11 Paul Poersc~ke and wife 27 Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 40-2-10 Dmitrios and Katina Kontos 77-12 31st Avenue Jackson Heights, NY 11370 40-2-11 Ollian Gildersleeve 1335 Pulaski Road East Northport, NY 11731 40-2-12 Edgar Gildersleeve 1335 Pulaski Road East Northport, NY 11731 40-2-13 Ned J. Deegan and wife P.O.Box 417, 410 Homestead Way Greenport, NY 11944 40-2-14 Edgar Gildersleeve 1335 Pulaski Road East Northport, NY 11731 -4- Moores Lane Adjoining Property Owners - District 1000, Cont. Section Block Lot 40-2-15 Theodore Miller 69-26 43rd Avenue Woodside, NY 11377 40-2-19 John Vaccaro 1125 North Sea Drive Southold, NY 11971 40-2-20 Miriam Vaccaro 1125North Sea Dirve Southold, NY 11971 40-2-2 Constantinos Zervos P. O. Box 758 7420 Main Road Greenport, NY 11944 41-2-1 Robert Campbell, Jr. and Wife 139 Fourth Street Greenport, NY 11944 41-2-2 Paul Corwin 31Middleton Road Greenport, NY 11944 41-2-3 Florence Klein 1420 Middleton Road Greenpor%, NY 11944 MAYOR t,hORGEW HUBBARD TRUSTEES ~,1 lAM D ALLEN DAVID E. KAPEL/ SAMbI:L KATZ WILLIAM It, LIEBLEIN i[[a ff e of , t'ee nlo o t,t 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK [1944 November 14, 1984 TELEPHONE { 516j 477.2385 CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN Mrs. Judith Terry $outhold Town Clerk Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Judy: Please find enclosed for your file, a copy of the Public Notice with regard to the joint public hearing to be held on December 6, 1984 concerning the application of East End Associates to annex a parcel of property into the Village of Greenport. This notice was placed in the Suffolk Times and will be published twice on November 15th & 22nd. I will also be sending notices to the parties of concern, the School District and adjacent property owners. Would you be so kind as to forward a copy of our notice to Supervisor Murphy and Town Attorney Tasker? Thank you for all your help. CC: Southold Town Supervisor Frank Murphy Southold Town Attorney Robert Tasker Village Board & Village Attorney Very truly yours, Nancy W.~ZZook Village Clerk MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLtAaM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H, LIEBLEIN 236 THIRD STREE~ GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Pursuant to Article 17, Section 704 of General Municipal Law, notice is hereby g~ven that a Joint Public Hearing will be held by the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Council on Thursday, December 6, 1984 a~ 7:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. The purpose of this Hearing is to hear the application of East End Associates to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenpor%. The property in question is located on the southeas5 corner of Moores Lane and County Road 48 (North Road), further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 40, Block 05, Lot 01, more fully described as follows: ALL that certain plot, piece orparcel of land lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING a5 the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane: RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees 02 minutes lO seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 985.10 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 342.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; Village of Gre~nport;~_ . ' RUN-NING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 secer~ds West along said last mentioned land 714.04 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last men- tioned 1and 670.00 feet to the eas- terly side of Moores Lane; RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said eastetly side of Moeres Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place Of BE- GINNING. The Greenpert Board of Trus- ~ees and the Southold Town Council will at said time and place hear all persons ifiterested in the above application, BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILT.AGE OF GREENPORT Nancy W. Cook, Village Clerk 2TN15,22-4708 . as side, STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ANNA LEKKAS of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, 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 ~wn weeks successively, commencing on the 15 th day of November 19 84 Principal Clerk the Sworn to before ms this day of November JUD{TH ~L CH~F..N NOTARY PUB/lC, State of New ¥o~k No. 479~131, S~ffolk C0~ty ~2 19 84 Notice of Public Hearing. 12/6/84 Cont. RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees O1 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said las% mentioned land 714.O4 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane t523.22 feet ~o the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING. The Greenport Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Council will at said time and place hear all persons interested in the above application. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Nancy W. Cook, Village Clerk 2T Nov. 15 & 22 STATE OF NEW YORK ; SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ANNA LE~<A,q of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES. a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, 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 TWO weeks successively, commencing on the 7 day of March 19 R5 ANN M. ABATE, Suffo, k Ceur, b' Ne. 4~,~o.to~. Term E~ ~res Niarch 30, 19~ Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 14 davof March 19 85 ANN M. ABAT[ '";'q -- -- ,,, - r:iOTA~'¢ PUBLIC. State of N,~,,: ~, AREA dALCOLM F WHITE 171} SOUT HOLD , INVESTIGATION WATER RESOURGES PLATE C ... : '~" /'REPRODUCTION OF PLATE & O$). ,,, :: ~ WATER ~ SUPPLY PAPER 161'~ '~0 RNIE: ENGINEERS SCALE ~ AS NOTED PLAINS, N.Y. DATE ,IUNE 1167 P. O. BOX 66 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 P. ELEASE ~ A I-NS T RE A ~ communibations commi[tee '~o~n Cle~ So~hoJd December 6, 19B4 RATIONALE OF THE CHAMBER'S ADVOCACY OF A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL WHICH PROVIDES JOBS AND MODERATE PRICED HOUSING. In arriving st s decision to offfer its advocacy of ~he the John Costello proposal For annexation of Town property to Greenport Village, the Chamber Directors considered several sspects of the proposal as well aa its' implications. Of prime importsnce to the Chamber is : assurance that the properties designated as "building lots For young, working people" ere actuslly built smd occupied by such persons within a messonable length of time. Without such sssurance there is the danger thst theme propemties~c~ "~ bs h~d,_. ;--._. specu!etion, their value inflated, sad the whole substance of the proposal thereby destroyed. The Chsmber also considered, that by granting the annexation, the Town snticipates th~ pmovisions of the Forthcoming Mamter Plan For zoning. In so doing, there is sm appearsnce of inequity with respect to other spplicants For zoning decisions who are awaiting the Final determinations o~ the Plan. It is the To~n. Board's responsibility to see that its decision in.this case be clesrIy and emphaticslly based on the the benefits the proposal offers to the most people of the town in terms of housing sad jobs. The disposition of this application must not be a mere instance of a Favorsble dispensation and thereby reflect disorder in the Town's program of overseeing Sou~hold's land use, .-~ORE- Chamber-cont. By reason of the proposed annexation certain benefits of will ecrus to the Village off 6reenport. The Chamber offers its advocacy of this proposal in the hope that the Village Trustees will be es positive'in 'their response to other pressing needs of the people, many of which the Gmeenport-Southold Chamber has pointed out in the past~ most notably, the develspment of the waterfront and the of the village in ~he vicinity of the Chambem~s Tourist Information Station. In the light of its survey of people's attitudes toward town planning, the Chamber welcomes the opportunity of advising on proposals aimed at benefiting the most people. It will undertake this activity in the regular meetings cf its Communications Committee with the Town Commerce Committee, next scheduled for Wednesday December 4~, 7:30 PM in Town Hall with Mr. Schondebare end Mrs. Cochreno The Chamber's goal is a smooth transition to the zoning proposals cf the new Master Plan. The case discussed hare is clear smd concrete evidence of the need for comprehensive' and fair development of such a plan as soon es it can be made possible. For more information 477-0472 Committee Members: J. Berrymsn, B. Dempaey, H. Mardel, N. Miller, B Wetmore, R.Wilton. 4390 Orchard Street Orient, New York 11957 December 5, 1984 Town of Southold Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold~ New York 11971 Dear Board Members: I urge the Southold Town Board to oppose the annexation of the property at Moores Lane and the North Road by the Village of Greenport. The North Fork Water Supply Plan recommended that only rezoning and variances resulting in less water use be approved in areas east of Arshamomaque Pond. The proposed downzoning of the property from the current two-acre residential to high density residential and commercial will certainly result in greater water use. If approved, more water will have to be pumped and piped in from other areas of the town. Given the poor condition of the physical plant of the Greenport Water District and the reluctance of the Village Trustees to fund capital improvements needed to meet current demands, approval of the annexation would be inviting catastrophe. The Greenport Village Trustees do not have the responsibility of representing the interests of all Southold residents. The proposed annexation only serves the parochial interests of the Village of Greenport in expanding their tax base at the expense of the rest of the Town of Southold. It is a sad situation when Greenport Village officials can decide the reallocation of Southold Town's water resources to serve their own interests. Very truly yours, MarGin Trent MT/lst cc The Suffolk Times DFC - 5 1@84 495 Moore's Lane North Greenport, NY 11944 December 4, 1984 Mr. Frank Murphy, Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Murphy: We would like to go on record in opposition to the annexation of the 46 acre plot located at Moores' Lane and Rite 48 to the village of Greenport. We purchased our retirement home in 1983 after vacationing in the Town of Southold for two decades. We chose an area buffered from industry and zoned to provide the spaciousness we feel is important for rural living. We heartily approved the Town of Southold Master Plan because it is designed to preserve the quality of life we have so long sought. Now we are faced with the Town of Southold finding a solution for avoiding the Master Plan. Give away the land to a village that has no such plan. Industrialize an area that is at present ecologically sound. Increase traffic on already busy Rte 48 with the knowledge that the state has no plans to widen the road. It is very evident that the governing body of the Village of Greenport has little or no interest in esther ecology or traffic. Their interests lie in expanding their commercial base and making real estate valuable. It would be hard to believe that the Southold Town Board would be anxious to give away its land for such reasons. We would therefore urge you to vote negative on the proposed annexation of this land to the Village of Greenport. We would appreciate your circulating this letter to the remaining members of the Town Board. Very truly yours, CHRISTOPHER A. MILONAS 155 MANHASSET AVENUE MANHASSET~ NEW YORK 11050 2 December 1985 Mm.. ~ancis Murphy, upervxsor Town o£~Southeld Town Hall Southol~, New York 11971 Mr. Murphy, This is to inform you and the Town Oo=ncil of my opposition to the annexation of the $8 acres at Moore'sLane and Route ~$ by the Village of Greenport as planned ~y Ess2 End Associates with the Messrs. Mills and Oestelle. The ramificatiens of such actie~ would be highly detrimental to o~ area($~irling Eastern Shores) as well as to the rest ef ~reenp~rt as to~the impact en water su~ply, sewage, sanita%ien, &raffic, schools, taxes te name seme major fac2ers. I de~hope tha2 the political/~siness coalition does not impose its insensitive and personally incensiderate action upen the residemts ~nd property ewner~ whe pay a major per,ion of the taxes supporting the village a~d township. ?hank ye~ fer your attention te this matter and your support. Christopher Milonas .% 'TTT LD CHAMBER GREENPORT, NE~yORK 11944 ~e~ Orient East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic DeCember 3, 1984 Southold Town Board Southold:Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: The Board of Directors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce ha~e reviewed the planning project of John Costello proposed to be located on property at Moores Lane and North Road, Greenport, N.Y. and look favorably upon the concept of it. We support job opportunities and affordable housing for the young people of our tomn. Ne favor the increased tax base and light commerce district it mill provide for the area. He therefore, request that the application for the annexation of this property into the Village of Greenport be approved. Very truly yours, On Behalf of the~rd of Directors Greenport-South~d Chamber of Commerce Fairwind Yachts Inc. Manhanset Avenue Box 568 Greenport, New York 11944 3 0 198 47%0124 Area Code 516 November 29~ 1984 Mr, Frank Murphy, Supervisor Southold ~ ~ " ~ow~. Boarm of Trustees Town Hall, Main Road~ Southo!d NY 11971 Dear !~ Murphy, We wish to express our full support for the application of East End Associates to have the p~_cel of land at the South- East corner of Moores Lane and North Road annexed into the village. The applicants want to provide this area for businesses in the co~m. unity to operate while also developing affordable housing to those who are locally employed. If we as a community fail to plan for such developments, a number of unfortunate consequences will result: the tax base will gradually shrink as businesses are forced to move elsewhere$ available jobs in the area will shrink in quality and number~ land and housing costs will increase dramatical!y~ and real estate taxes will go up, hitting ?~rdest at our sizeable retirement community~ The end result must drive local children away from their home town and finally create a towm in which only the wealthy can afford to live, just as in now happening on the South Shore~ The strength of the East End has always been its solid core ~ ~ha~ core and of locally employed residents ~et us keep · ~ strengthen it by supporting this application. ~s ver~y truly,. Mr~ & Mrs. Bill Farr ~a~rwmnd Yachts cc: J. Rumpler, Wm J. Mills & Co. T~.e the Greenport Vi _ Concerning the 48-acre ~ores Lane and the ~orth Eoad was very interestingte Say the least. How cs~u the Greenport Village Planning a great idea in a meeting~ As a resident o£ the .Town of Scuthold I believe a great deal more study should be given to a project e£ this magnitude. I would expect our ~own Board will .consider all the environmental aspects before coming to any decision. I .am definitely opposed to the ommercial asDect' of this DroJect. it would ppear that this is just a moving about of already established commercial enter- prises - some of which I would not consider '~clean" industry. ~k~rthe~, even ~. ~onselt hedged as far as the utility de~ds of the commercial park are concerned, He conceded the Villag~ could not ~h~udle the demands of all applic~uts, commercial and residential now on tap. HOW do they expeo~ this pro~ect ~o get off the ground? c/c P, Stoutenburgh J. Townsend ~ cc ,Tours tru~ly, J40V 3 0 1984 dOHN G. POLES MELVIN J. TUBLIN MICHAEL PATEST] DES CHRIST ST RAtA:~IS POLES, TUBLIN. PATESTIDES & STRATAKIS 46 TRINITY PLACE NEW YORKi NEW YORK November 20, 1984 Mro Murphy Supervisor Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 1,10V 2 6 1984 Dear Mr. Murphy: i have recently been informed that Mr. John Costello of Costello Marine and Jamie Mills of William B. Mills & Co. have requested permission for the annexation of their 50 acre parcel, situated on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South and Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. It is my understanding that such annexation is requested for the purpose of establishing an industrial park and one-quarter acre housing sites, rather than the present two acre lot zoning. As a taxpayer of the township, long time resident and concerned with the quality of life in our village, I should like to register my strong opposition to this proposal for the following reasons: i. Violation and circumvention of the intent and purpose of the present Master Plan. 2. Increase in the strain on our already fragile water system in the area. 3. The presence of several homes in such a congested area will increase the problems of pollution and sewage disposal. 4. Horrendous traffic problems should be anticipated as a result of such development. Unfortunately, our road system is not designed to carry such an increased load. 5. Based on past experience, it should be anticipated, as a strong possibility, that some of those sites may be used for parking construction vehicles and sanitation trucks. Mr. Murphy Page Two November 20, 1984 It is obvious, under the circumstances, that such de- velopment would result in substantial devaluation of nearby property and, what's even more undesirable, a significant lowering of the environmental conditions which attract so many discriminating re- sidents in the Village of Greenport. I am enclosing herewith four extra copies of this letter with the request that you kindly forward %hem to your council members, specifically, Messrs. Jean Cochran, Joseph Townsend, James A. Schondebare and Paul Stoutenburgh. Ve~r~7 truly ~ou~ CS:em Enclosure Peggy Milonas 155 Manhasset Avenue mannasset, New_ York 11030 We, the residents of Southold Town hereby petition the To~m Board of the Town of Southold, not to allow the annexation of the 50 acre parcel on the southeast corner of Moores Lane South Mud Route 48 by the Village of Greenport. ~e ~rther petition the Tovm Board to continue said property under the current residential zoning. Name Address .0 .Box 692 Dea~ ~. Mumphy As a resident of Southold my wife and i Moores Lane ~outh. We object fo~ the following reasons: Violation of the intent and purpose of oum Master Plan. Increase the strain on ou~ already Fragile water system. Pollut~ts and sewage pPoblems. Horrendous t~affic p~oblems. Possibility of some of the sites containi~ construction vehicles and sanitation trucks. Most important,devaluation of our p~operty values. Hopefully you wilt give this you~ most s e~ious attention. Th~ you. Willi~ & Helen Sc~idZ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H. LIEBLEIN ~ECEi1VED 1 41984 Tewn ~Ierk $~ufholct Vi[[a Te of t'eenflot,t 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 November 14, 1984 TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN Mrs. Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Main Road $outhold, New York 11971 Dear Judy: Please find enclosed for your file, a copy of the Public Notice with regard to the joint public hearing to be held on December 6, 1984 concerning the application of East End Associates to annex a parcel of property into the Village of Greenport. This notice was placed in the Suffolk Times and will be published twice on November 15th & 22nd. ~ will also be sending notices to the parties of concern, the School District and adjacent property owners. Would you be so kind as to forward a copy of our notice to Supervisor Murphy and Town Attorney Tasker? Thank you for all yOur help. Eno. Southold Town Supervisor Frank Murphy Southold Town Attorney Robert Tasker Village Board & Village Attorney Very truly .yours, N a n/~"fy W .~ook Village Clerk O~C~$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H. LIEBLEtN NOV 1 4 E84 / /v/aye olr 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HFAP~NG TELEPHONE (516) 477-2385 CLERK NANCY w. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN Pursuant to Article 17, Section 704 of General Municipal Law, notice is hereby given that a Joint Public Hearing will be held by the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees and the Southold Town Council on Thursday, December 6, 1984 at 7:30 p.m. a~ the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. The purpose of this Hearing is to hear the application of East End Associates to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenporg. The property in question is located on the southeast corner of Moores Lane and County Road 48 (North Road), further identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 40, Block 05, Lot 01, more fully described as follows: ALL that certain plot, piece orparcet of land lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane: RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds Eas~ along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 985.10 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 28 minu~es 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 342.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; - 2 - Notice of Public Hearing 12/6/84 Cont. RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees O1 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formsrly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb i450.11 feeg to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; RUNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes O0 seconds West along said last mentioned land 714.04 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes O0 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING. The Greenport Board of Trustees and the $outhold Town Council will at said time and place hear all persons interested in the above application. BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE OF GREENPORT Nancy W. Cook, Village Clerk 2T Nov. 15 & 22 NPOR; COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold. in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchr man once each week for ......................... ../.. ............ weeks successively, commencing on the ............. ./....~....z~.. ............ day .of~,....~.~.~.. ............. 19...~ .... : .......... ,~ ..... Z~ ..... ~...~ Sworn to before me this ............... ../....~....~.. ..... day of .............. ..~...~~ ....... , 19..~.?[. Notary Public BARBARA FORBES lqotary Public, State of New York No. d806846 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires March 80, 19 ~ to ~to of COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF, NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duJy sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a punic newspaper:orinted at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, nas been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for ........................ ../. ............. weeks successively, commencing on the ..i ........... ./...~....~'... ........... do~, of .~..~ ............ 19......~.. Sworn to before me this .............. ../...~....~'.. ....... day of .............. /;.?..~ ........ , 19..5 Notary Public BARBARA FORBhS l~otary Public, State of New York lqo. 4806846 ~uaHfied in S~d~fOlk County Commission Expires March S~. 19 c~ i ,. 'l.lll;lllilJ;',.~ :1.('1' ,)1' ii:,. I-I('c"'! .:,,,,.,..,,,,.,,, ,,,. ~,,,.,. ,,. ,,, , ~.:.,.-~-;.;-,(~.,,...~.- .~_~';"~'~ ,,r -.1, ,,I ;,,w .('h(,,,I d'--Irl('l, hr(' Principal Clerk '~'~worn to before me this· ]-" -' lay of '.::.;...~'_.~;Z ...... 19 ~: -~. o, 47B81~I, Suffolk of Greenport, in he/she is TIMES, a Weekly in the Town of New ch the annexed is .a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for One weeks successively, commencing on the L5 ' dayof :':~:"; '" ' 1984 Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this ': * day of ............... X In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article 17 of the General NOTICE OF HEARING Municipal Law -to annex,a·parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, X STATE OF NEW YORK) SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, is over 18 years of age and resides at Southold, New York. That on the13thdaY of November, 1984,, deponent served the within Notice of Hearing upon the persons named below at the addresses set forth opposite their names by depositing same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper in the official post office at Southo]d, New York East End Associates Pelletreau & Pelletreau 20 Church Street Patchogue, New York 11772 James kalin Cterk Union Free School District No. 10 Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 Sworn to before me this 13thday of November 1984 Notary Public ~ i~m F2f~es Merch ~0, Judith T. Terry lion i1~ '~;Ili([ · ." pill ..piecu la~ e'. lyifig of'( ~ I SUt fo~k . ~. ' . ..,~ .' ;. North* 0 ..Oran [Y OF SUFFOLK S'! ATE OF NEW YORK P:tricio Wood, being duly sworn, soys that she is the r ...... of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, :': '>cl.:lie newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and ":.t the notice of which the annexed is o printed copy, · c., t.'uen published i'n said Long Island Traveler-Watch- .-::.cnee each week for ......................... ../. ............ weeks s,,cccssively, commencing on the. ............ ./....5~..5 ............ · :, ............ , Sworn to before me this ................ ./....~....~.. ..... da~y of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES lqotary Publie~ State of New York No. 4806846 Qt~liff~d hi SUffolk Cotmty commission Expires Mareit 30, 19 ~ ~';l'ow rt of ti[ 'Su"rlblk I?IOFU I'pl- or i'Nbrlh sMa ili feel 69 de- 312.64 fce~ Y','~..s, '.',dll. af?rl~ said laml 070.00 feel ia ~de.g['c~. s, '5 ~.s O0 .~ecorlds 0 !COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in, Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is o printed copy, has been published' in said Long Island Traveler-Watch- man once each week for / ........................................ weeks successively, commencing on the .............. ./...~....~,.. ........... day of~~....~.~ ....... i..., ~9~~ Sworn to before me this ................~.,.'~.....~'.. ...... day of .............. ........ , Notary Public BARBARA FORBES ~rot,&~ PI;lbli~ ~t~e Of New York ~ion E~ires M~h ~>, t9 ~ erry 704 .8 4 2 g ~ECE~PT FO~ CERT~F~E~ ~AfL NO INSU~AN~E Cgt~ERAGE P~OV/}El}- NOT FOR tNTE,~NAT ONAL ~,r~A~L (See Reverse) · SENDER: Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on reverse. !. The following service is requesied (check one). ~_~ ~] Show to whom and date delivered ......... *.kc~ ~.¢ [] Show to whom, date, and address of delive~.. ¢ ~ RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered ..... ¢ ~ RESTRICTED DELIVERY. Show to whom, date, and addres~ of delivery ~ $ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: ' James Kalin~ Clerk Union Free School District No. 10' Front Street R~ "~ ~O4 0346425 I have received the a~icle described above. tGNATUE ~ Addressee: ~ Authorized agent 6. UNABLE TO DELIVER BECAUSE: " ~ SENDER: Complete it~ms 1, 2, and 3. :Add your address in the "RETURN TO" space on ~ reverse. !. The fo[lowing service is requested (check one). ~[ Show to whom and date delivered ........ . .¢ ~ Show to whom, date, and address Of delivery. [] RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom and date delivered .......... ¢ [] RESTRICTED DELIVERY Show to whom, date, and address of delivery,$ (CONSULT POSTMASTER FOR FEES) 2. ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO: East End Associates Pelletreau & 'Pelletreau : 20 Church Street ---- ~ ~ . - r- :11772 _ . 3. ARTICLE DESCRImlON REGISTERED -- ; (Alway~bm;n signatu~ of ~ m ~nt} I haveJ~cei~ed the article described above. SIGNA~ . ~' .,_ - .-tho~e~t ;}~ LS i In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article I7 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the ~erritory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, X NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 704 of the General Municipa~ Law, that a petition of East End Associates, for the annexation to the Village of Greenport of certain territory adjoining said Village has been received by the Town Board of the Town of Southo~d, being the town in which the said territory proposed for annexation-is located and is described as follows: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 66 degrees 09 minuest 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; running thence North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road' 985.10 feet; running thence North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road 312.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; running thence South 16 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; running thence South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along last mentioned land 714.04 feet; running thence South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of beginning. That a joint hearing will be held on such petition by the aforesaid Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Southold Town Hall Greenport at the Main Road, Southold, New Yorkon the 6th day of December 1984, at 7:30 P.M. on said day. That the members of the aforesaid governing boards of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport will meet at the time and place above specified and will hear any objections which may be presented against such p~tition for annexation upon any of the following grounds: (a} That a person signing the petition is not qualified therefor, or {b) That the persons signing such petition do not constitute twenty percentum of the persons residing within such territory qualified to vote for town officers, or ..... (c~)-~-T'hat~-the-"persons~-si.gning-such petition .do .not.represent the owners of a majority in value of the property within such territory assessed upon the last preceding-town assessment roll, or {d) That the petition does not otherwise substantially.comply in form or content with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal La~ of the State of New York, or (e) That the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest (1) of the territory proposed to be annexed, or (2) of the local government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed, or [3) of the remaining area of the local government or governments in which such territory is situated, or [4} of any school district, fire district or other district corporation, public benefit corporation, fire protection district, fire alarm district or town or county improvement district, situated wholly or partly in the territory proposed to be annexed. Objections, based upon any of the grounds set forth in paragraphs a, b, c or d above, shall be submitted in writing. Dated: November 8, ,1984, BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD E~Y JUDIT~H T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 15, ,1984, AND FORWARD THREE AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD,.NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Greenport Village Clerk for Greenport Village Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board East End Associates James Kalin, Clerk, Union Free School District No. 10 In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 704 of the General Municipal Law, that a petition of East End Associates, for the annexation to the Village of Greenport of certain territory adjoining said Village has been received by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, being the town in which the said territory proposed for annexation is located and is described as follows: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of ladd, situate, lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 66 degrees 09 minuest 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; running thence North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road 985.10 feet; running thence North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road 312.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; running thence South 16 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; running thence South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along last mentioned land 714.04 feet; running thence South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of beginning. That a joint hearing will be held on such petition by the aforesaid Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Southold Town Hall Greenport at the Main Road, SDuthold, New Yorkon the 6thday Of December 1984, at 7:30 P.M. on said day. That the members of the aforesaid governing boards of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport will meet at the time and place above specified and will hear any objections which may be presented against such p~etition for annexation upon any of the following grounds: (a) That a person signing the petition is not qualified therefor, or (b) That the persons signing such petition do not constitute twenty percentum of the persons residing within such territory qualified to vote for town officers, or (c) That the persons signing such petition do not represent the own~r~ of a majority in value of the property within such territory assessed upon the last preceding town assessment roll v or (d) That the petition does not otherwise substantiall~ comply in form or content with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal ~.a~,~ of the State of New York, or (e) That the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest (l~ of the territory proposed to be annexed, or C2) of the government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexec~, or (3) of the remaining area of the local government or governments in which such territory is situated, or (4) of any school ~tistrict~ fire dis'~rict or other district corporations public benefit corporation, fire protection distric~ fire alarm district or town or county improvement district, situated wholly or partly in the territory proposed to be annexed. Objections, based upon any of the grounds set forth in paragraphs a~ b, c or d above, shall be submitted in writing. Dated: November .8, ;198~ BY ORDER OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD BY JUDITH t. TERRY, TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 15, ,1984, AND FORWARD THREE {3) AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH To TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD,. NEW YORK 1:197~. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Greenport Village Clerk for Greenport Village Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board East End Associates James Kalin, ClerK, Union Free School Dis1!rict No. 10 -2- In the Matter of the Application of EAST END ASSOCIATES, Pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport Petitioner, NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 704 of the General Municipal Law, that a petition of East End Associates, for the annexation to the Village of Greenport of certain territory adjoining said Village has been received by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, being the town in which the said territory proposed for annexation is located and is described as follows: ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of la.nd, situate, lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 66 degrees 09 minuest 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; running thence North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road' 985.10 feet; running thence North 7t degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road 312.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfield"; running thence South 16 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Silas Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of Greenport; running thence South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along last mentioned land 714.04 fefit; running thence South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; running thence North 17 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Montes Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of beginning. That a joint hearing will be held on such petition by the aforesaid Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Southold Town Hall Greenport at the Main Road~ Southold, New Yorkon the 6thday of December 1984, at 7:.30 P.M. on said day. That the members of the aforesaid governing boards of the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport will meet at the time and place, above specified and will hear any objections which may be presented against such petition for annexation upon any of the following grounds: (a) That a person signing the petition is not qualified therefor, or (1~) That the persons signing such petition do not constitute twenty percentum of the persons residing within such territory qualified to vote l=or town officers~ or (c) That the persons signing such petition do not represent the owners of a maiority in value of the property within such territory assessed upon tl~e last preceding town assessment roll~ or (d) That the petition does not otherwise substantially ~comp~y in form. or content with the provisions of Article 17 of the Genera~ Municipa~ La~ of the State of New York~ or (e) That the proposed annexation is or is not in the overa~ public interest (1) of the territory proposed to be annexed~ or ~2~ of the ~ocal government or governments to which the territory is proposed to be annexed~ or (3) of the remaining area of the Local government or governments in which such territory is situated, or (4) of any school district~ fire district or other district corporation~ public benefit corporation r fire protection d~strict~ fire alarm district or town or county improvement district~ situated wholly or partly in the territory proposed to be annexed~ Objections, based upon any of the grounds set fo-rtl~ in paragraphs a~ b~ c or d above~ sha~I be submitted in writing. Dated: November 8, 1.984: BY ORDER OF THE SOU"FHOLD TOWN BOARD BY JUDIT. H T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, NOVEMBER 15, ,1984, AND FORWARD THREE AFFIDAVITS OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD,, NEW YORK 1:1971. Copies to the following: The Long Island Traveler-Watchman The Suffolk Times Town Board Members Greenport Village Clerk for Greenport Village Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board East End Associates James Kalin, Clerk, Union Free Schoo~ District No. ~0 RESOLUTION of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD - NOVEMBER 8, ,1984 WHEREAS, a petition has been received by this Board from East End Associates for the annexation to the Village of Greenport of certain territory adjoining said Village, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, a hearing must be he~d with respect to said petition jointly with the Village of Greenport, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a joint hearing to be held on said petition of East End Associates by this Board and the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December' 1984 at 7:30 P.M. cD'clock P.M. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. IT IS-'FURTHER '-RESOLVED ' that the Town ~;lerk be and hereby is authorized and directed to give all notices of such hearing required by said Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. In the Matter of the Application of EAST END Am~O~IAT=~ Pursuant to Article 17 of~ the General Municipal Law to annex a parcel of property to the territory of the Village of Greenport TO: Petitioner, TO?~N BOARD OF THE TOK~q OF SOUTHOLD VILLAGE TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT The p_~ltlon of EAST END A~SOC~AT=S respectful.!y shows as follows: 1. This is a petition pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law to annex to the territory of the Village of Greenport~ Suffolk County, New York, a parcel of property owned by petitioner, East End Associates~ which property is situate within the Town of Southold~ Suffolk County~ New York as more particularly bound and described upon Schedule A annexed hereto~ 2.. Petitioner, East End Associates, is a partnership organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of New York. The members of the partnership and their respective addresses are set forth upon Schedule B annexed hereto. 3. This petition is submitted to the Town Board of the Town of Southo!d (hereinafter '~Town of Southoid") and to the Trustees of the Village of Greenport (hereinafter "Village of Greenport") for the purposes of having the Town of Southold consent to the annexation of the property described in paragraph 1 hereof to the Village of Greenport. 4. There are no "inhabitants" of the subject property as defined in ~703 of the General Municipal Law. 5. The owners of a majority in assessed valuation of the subject property, as shown upon the last preceding assessment roll of the Town of Southold, joins herewith. 6. Annexed hereto as Schedule C is a certificate of the Assessor of the Town of Southold pursuant to ~703 of the General Municipal Law. WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the governing parties of the Village of Greenport and Town of Southotd, pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, entertain this petition. Dated: October 29, 1984 STATE OF NEW YORK) ~ ~ SS.: COUNTY OF E~'~%t~ ) EAS~.ND ASSOCIATES, Petitioner says: i reside at '~o'a f~' ~ ~ ~~'~j, in the County of ~o~3~o!,/~ in th-~ ~-State of New ?ork~ I know each of the persons whose names are subscribed to the above sheet having ~ signature~ and each of them subscribed the same in my presence~ Sworn to before me this ~ day of /~o~e~- , 1984. Pub!~c J GLORIA G. O'MALL~'Y NOTARY ,PUBLIC, State of New Yore No. 4803137 Suffolk County ~ COmmission F~pire$ ,March 30, ] 9~.-~ SCHEDULE A DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ALL that certain plot, piece or parcel of land lying and being at or near the Village of Greenport, Town of Southold~ County of Suffolk and State of New York~ more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road with the easterly side of Moores Lane: RUNNING THENCE North 66 degrees 09 minutes 10 seconds East along said southerly side of North Road, 96.61 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 69 degrees 02 minutes 10 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 985.10 feet; RUNNING THENCE North 71 degrees 28 minutes 20 seconds East still along said southerly side of North Road, 342.64 feet to land now or formerly of Henry Fleet and Clarence Fleet, now or formerly known as "Fleetfie!d"; RUNNING THENCE South 16 degrees 01 minutes 50 seconds East along said last mentioned land and along land now or formerly of Constant Booth and the heirs of Siias Webb 1450.11 feet to land now or formerly of the Village of.Greenport; ~JNNING THENCE South 58 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West along said last mentioned land 714.04 feet; RUNNING THENCE South 74 degrees 45 minutes 00 seconds West still along said last mentioned land 670.00 feet to the easterly side of Moores Lane; RUNNING THENCE North 17 degrees 15 minutees 00 seconds West along said easterly side of Moores Lane 1523.22 feet to the corner, the point or place of BEGINNING. SCHEDULE B NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF PARTNERS iN EAST END ASSOCIATES John J. Hart, Jr~ 20 Church Street~ Patchogue, N.Y. 11772; Estate of Richard A. Schoenfeid, c/o Frederic Atwood, 20 Church Street, Patchogne, N.Y. 11772; Louis J. Scordamag!im, M,D., 284 Beaver Dam Rd.~ Brookhaven, N.Y. 11719; Robert A. Seigel, 260 Private Road, East Patchogue, N.Y. 11772; James R. Warner, 10 Rogers Lane~ Betlport, N.Y. 11713; Jacob Bush, Tiffany Apartments, t Maple Avenue, Patchogue, N.Y. 11772; Ronald Bush, 46- Middle Road, Ba~ort, N.Y. 11705; Louis A. Pfeifle, 175 Atlantic Avenue, Blue Point, N.Y. 11715; Robert Rosenbiatt, 57 So. Main Street, So. Hampton, N.Y. 11968. SCHEDULE C C~R~-ICA~E OF THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOW~ OF SOUTHOLD STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLKiSS': i,~L~O~A-rT-~ ~ a duly elected assessor of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County~ New York do hereby certify: 1. That I am a duly elected assessor of the Town of Southold~ Suffolk County, New York, and was one of the persons responsible for the preparation of the assessment roll for the year 198 . 2. That the real property described in paragraph 1 of the annexed petition is situated in the said Town of Southoid, Suffolk County, New York~ and is assessed on the tax roll of the said Town of Southold~ Suffolk County~ New York, for the year !98~ which is the last preceding assessment roll of the said Town of ~outno_d, Suffolk County, New York 3~ That the total assessed valuation of said real property described in the said annexed petition as shown on the assessment roll of the said Town of Southold for the year 198~, is 4~ That the petitioner~ East End Associates, is the owner of a majority in assessed valuation of the real proeprty described in the said annexed petition which is now situated in the Town of Southotd, Suffolk County~ New York~ and which is sought to be annexed to the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York and that the assessed valuation of the ~ ~ as p~oper~y shown on the assessment roll of the Town of Southotd~ ~o~ the year i98~ is as follows: (a) The real property assessed to East End Associates~ as described in the annexed ~e~ition is assessed at $ Dated: Southold, New York ~ 1984o Assessor, Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York ROBERT W, TASKER Town Attorney RE~.EIVED. NOV 2' ' 84 Town Clerk Southold OFFIC~ ,D 425 MAIN ST. GREEN-PORT, L.I/, NEW-YORK 11944 November::l, I98~t: TF.,LEPHONI~ (516) 47%1400 Hon. Francis J. Murphy Supervisor, Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Town Land at Moores Lane to the Village of Greenport Dear Frank: I have today received a draft of a Petition of East End Associates to the Town Board seeking annexation of its property located at the southeasterly corner of the intersection of County Route 48 and Moores Lane, comprising 48..7186 acres. As I exolained to the Board members at the October 23, 198u, meeting, when such a Petition is filed, within 20 days of the receipt of the Petition, the Town Board must cause a notice to be published once in its official newspapers advertising a public hearing which must be held not less than 20 or more than 40 days from the date of publication, and .also mail a copy thereof to each person or corporation owning real property in such territory. In addition, a copy of the notice must be mailed to the school district in which the territory is located, which notice must be mailed not less than 10 days prior to the hearing. In ardor to be prepared when the formal Petition is filed with the Town, i have prepared the following: A resolution of the Town Board calling for a Public. Hearing jointly with the Village Board of Trustees. A Notice of Hearing on the matter which must be published and mailed pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. An affidavit of mailing of the Notice of Hearing on the school district and owners of the real property in the territory. Since the hearing must be a joint hearing of both the Village Board and the Town Board, a hearing date, time and place should be agreed to with the Village prior to the adoption of the foregoing resolution. In reviewing my old flies, I finct~that in 1972 and 1973, East End Associates applied for annexation of this same property which was not approved by the Southold Town Board. I believe that the resolution disapproving the 1972 annexation is in the Town Clerk's Minute Book as well as the minutes of the hearing held by the joint boards. This information may be of assistance to the members of the Town Board in considering this new Petition. Yours very truly, RWT ;aa eric. cc: Hon. Judith T. Terry ROBERT W. TASKER PR. ESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on the30LVday of July , 1985. Francis J Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman .lames A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean ~¥. Cochran', Councilwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requestin9 that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly held iointty with the Board of Trustees of the Vil!age of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1985 to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in t'he overall public inter-est; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the~"ocm-~.,ay of 'July , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overal! public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said petition; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Murphy it is ORDERED that this Town Board does hereby determine that it is not in the overall pubIic'interest to approve the proposed annexation of the territory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be filed in the office of the clerN of the ViIlage of Greenport; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County Clerk of the Count~/ of, Suffolk. Councilman Paul Stoutenbur~h Justice~'.~2nond W. Edwards Co~nc~man Joseph L. Townsen~ CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the annexed Or~er of the Town Board of said }own made on the30~hday of Ju y .., 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in' the Minute Book of said Town Board,and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 3~day of July _, 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk (SEAL) COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK SS.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I, JULIETTE A. KINSELLA, Clerk of the County of Suffolk and the Court of Record therof, do !2greby certify that I have compared the annexed~ith the °rigina ~.L~..' office ~., ,-~,,~, ./. ~. ff./..~.,, :::: '~j~/~}~Jt' ~jj sar ~mLeai: ~ntr:~ copy thereof~nd of the whole of such original. ' In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set nly hand an~/~.~ed the seal of said County and Com:t thisT?.~...~..~./.~. ,~.~j.~. Form Nc,. 236 12-I02:1/84 PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on the30.tl~ay of July , 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman jean W. ~ocnran, Counciiwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly held jointly' with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1985: to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the30thday of July , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overall' public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said petition; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Murphy it is ORDERED that this Town Board does hereby determine that it is not in ~he overall public interest to approve the proposed annexation of the territory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Village of Greenport; and it 'is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County Clerk of the County ~$uffolk. Councilman Paul Stoutenbur~h '~'~Cgunci iw o~m a n~j ~a n~ W .~C o~ h ran yncilm~n Joseph 'L. Townsen~d,~',' Jr. CERTIFICATE 1, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffoik, £~a~ of N-~.w York, HEREGY CERTIFY-that the forego.~ng annexed' Order of the Town Board of said Town made on the30thday of ~July _, 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board,and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 30thday of July , 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town ,~erk (SEAL) PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County New York held on the 30th day of July, 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare.. Councilman Jean W. Cochran, CouncilWoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justic~ Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. RESOLUTION AND DETERMINATION The following resolution was offered by Councilman Schondebare , seconded bY Councilman Stoutenburgh WHEREAS, East End Associates has heretofore presented a petition to this board requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to said petition was duly held jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, .1984, to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest, and WHEREAS, this Board was determined to be lead agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of 'the Environmental Conservation Law by resolution duly adopted on the 18th day of December, 1984, and WHEREAS, by resolution duly adopted on the 8th day of January, 1985, this Board determined that the annexation requested in said petition was likely to have a significant adverse affect upon the environment, and that the petitioner shall prepare a draft environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion of such draft environmental impact statement and the filing and acceptance thereof, this Board held a public hearing thereon, pursuant to due notice, on the 16th day of May, 1985, and WHEREAS, this Board thereafter by resolution adopted on the 4th day of June, 1985, determined that the proposed annexation was likely to have a significant adverse affect upon the environment and requested that the petitioner prepare and file a final environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion, filing and acceptance of the final environmental impact statement this Board duly adopted a resolution on the 16th ~lay of July, 1985, determining that the proposed annexation was not likely to have a significant affect upon the environment for the reasons set forth therein, NOW, THEREFORE, this board does hereby make the following findings and determinations with respect to compliance of the said petition with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law and with respect to the affect of such proposed annexation on the overall public interest, to wit: I. That the said petition substantially complies in form with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. I!; That the proposed annexation is not in the overall public interest (1) of the territory proposed to be annexed, or (2) on the remaining area of the Town of Southold' in which such territory is situated, for the following reasons, to wit: (a) Zon. ing and Plaon.ing. As indicated on the map annexed to said petition, the area of the territory sought to be annexed comprises 48.7186 acres of vacant land. The land on the south and west of the territory in question is within the incorporated Village of Greenport and owned by the Village of Greenport and is uninhabited land utilized for park and watershed purposes by the Village. The land to the east and north (across North Road, County Route 48) is outside the incorporated limits of the Village of Greenport and is used, occupied and zoned for one family dwelling purposes. The territory sought to be annexed and the land lying to the north and east thereof is within the present "A" Residential and Agricultural District under the Town of Southold Building Zone Ordinance which provides for a minimum size lots of 80,000 square feet. The zoning ordinance of the Village of Greenport adopted in October, 1971, provides that areas annexed to the Village shall be in the R-1 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet without regard to whether public sewer or water is provided. Therefore, if the territory in question were annexed to the Village of Greenport, the zoning requirements of the Village of Greenport would permit eight times the number of dwellings to be built than is allowed by the Town's current zoning code. 'Fhe petitioner, at the public hearing., held pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal 'Law, and the hearing on the draft environmental impact statement indicated that it was proposed to develop the land in the territory to be annexed by subdividing a portion thereof into in excess of 70 lots of 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in area for sale as single family dwelling plots to provide "affordable homes" for local residents. Petitioner also proposes to seek a rezoning of the westerly portion of the property to permit the creation of eight plots each containing approximately 3 acres, to be sold for the establishment of commercial uses thereon. At the present time, the Village of Greenport has no laws or regulations providing for the approval of plats, nor any standards and specifications regulating the construction of streets and other required facilities and improvements to be constructed therein, as authorized by Article 7 of the Village Law. The petitioner, at the hearing held on the annexation petition, indicated that if the annexation is approved, he desires that Town Planning Board have jurisdiction of the development of the project rather than the Village Planning Board, since the Town Planning Board has in effect rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land and standards for the construction of the required facilities, as well as many years of experience in such matters, whereas the Village of Greenport has no such rules, regulations or experience. There appears to be no objection to such procedure voiced by the~ Trustees of the Village of Greenport, In furtherance of such desire, the petitioner, during the pendency of this proceeding, has filed plans and maps with the Town Planning Board for the development of the subject property and attended several meetings of said Board with respect thereto. With respect to the Planning Board exercising.jurisdiction with respect to plat approval and the supervision of the construction and development of the -3- subject property, if annexed to the Village of Greenport~ the simple answer is that neither the Town or any of its boards, agencies, officials or employees have any juriscliction, powers or authority in such matters with respect to land located outside the territorial boundaries of the Town. As previously indicated~ the petitioner proposes to seek the rezoning of a substantial portion of the subject property to commercial uses. The area to be rezo~ed is located along the westerly portion of the property abutting Moores Lane (a Village Street). On the west side of Moores Lane is approximately 250 ~acres of land owned by the Village of Greenport and dedicated for watershed and park purposes. Under the Town zoning map and zoning code, all other surrounding land is zoned for single family residential use. To create a commercial use zone district as proposed by petitioner would, in this Board's opinion, constitute spot zoning, and further would be in conflict with the Town's Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the Town. It is also this Board's opinion that the establishment of such a commercial zone in close proximity to the planned development of the remainder of the subject property for single family residential uses would not be in the overall public interest of the homeowners purchasing such residential sites. (b) Real Property Taxes. The subject property is presently assessed on the current tax rolls of the Town of Southold at an assessed valuation of $14,400.00. The current taxes for Town, County, School and Special~ District purposes is $5,103.81, of which the'tax for general town purposes is $693.24. The current Town Tax rates (1984-85) for rea! property outside and inside the Vii!age of Greenport per $1,000.00 of assessed value are: Outside Village $69.324 Inside Village 26. 765 The current (1985-86) Village of Greenport tax rate per $1,000.00 of assessed value is $148.30. If annexation is approved, the Town and Village taxes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation would be $175.07. If annexation is not approved, the Town taxes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation would be s69.32. If annexation is approved, real property taxes for Town and Village purposes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation will increase from $69.32 to $175.32, an increase of 152.54%. Such a significant tax increase cannot be deemed in the overall public interest of the future homeowners purchasing 'lots in the territory in question, and would not appear to be consistent with petitioner's purported purposes of providing "affordable housing". (c) Water and Sewer. Petitioner asserts that his principal reason for having the subject premises annexed to the Village of Greenport is to qualify for hook-up to the municipal water and sewer systems of the Village of Greenport. The Village of Greenport now holds a franchise to supply water service within its franchise area, which embraces a substantial area in 'the Town outside of the Village's incorporated limits. The territory sought to be annexed is within the Village's franchise area. The Village presently services more water customers outside the Village than within the Village. As the holder of such franchise, the Village is obligated to supply water services to the subject property under the same terms and conditions as it presently does to the residential communities to the north (Eastern Shores) and to the East (Fleetfield) of the subject property, whether or not it is annexed to the Village. The petitioner also asserts that if the subject premises is not annexed, he will be required by the Village to pay it a water and sewer hook-up charge of $4,500.00 to $5,000.00 per lot. Presumably, if annexation is approved, such charge will be waived. No explanation is given for such charge. It has not been extracted in other similar instances (i,e. San Simeon Retirement Community). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Village seeks to increase its tax base by withholding its water and sewer services, unless annexation is approved. There appears to be no rational reason why a hook-up charge is demanded by the Village for sewer and water extensions outside the Village, and no such charge made for such extensions within the Village, unless it is assumed that such charges within the Village are defrayed by taxes assessed against all the taxable real property within the Village. If such is the policy of the Village, then to approve the annexation of the subject territory would not be in the overall pul~li¢ interest of the present taxpayers of the Village of G reenport, For the reasons hereinbefore set DETERMINE that it is not in the overall forth, this Board does hereby public interest to approve such proposed annexation of the territory set forth in the petition of East End Associates. The foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote which resulted as follows: Supervisor Murphy voting Councilman Townsend voting Councilman Schondebare voting Councilwoman Cochran voting Councilman Stoutenburgh voting Justice Edwards voting The resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. Yes Yes Yes Yes CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of $outhold, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing annexed Resolution and Determination of the Town Board of said Town adopted on the. 30~hday of July ,. 1985, has been compared by me with 't~l~e original Resolution as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board, and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 30thday of JulY , 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town~erk (SEAL) PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County New York held on the 30th day of July, 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean W. Cochran, Councilwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. RESOLUTION AND DETERMINATION The following resolution was offered by Councilman Schondebare seconded by Councilman Stoutenburgh WHEREAS, East End Associates has heretofore presented a petition to this board requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to said petition was duly held jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1984, to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest, and WHEREAS, this Board was determined to be lead agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law by resolution duly adopted on the 18th day of December, 1984, and WHEREAS, by resolution duly adopted on the 8th day of January, 1985, this Board determined that the annexation requested in said petition was likely to have a significant adverse affect upon the environment, and that the petitioner shall prepare a draft environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion of such draft environmental impact statement and the filing and acceptance thereof, this Board held a public hearing thereon, pursuant to due notice, on the 16th day of May, 1985, and WHEREAS, this Board thereafter by resolution adopted on the 4th day of June, 1985, determined that the proposed annexation was likely to have a signifii;ant adverse affect upon the environment and requested that the petitioner prepare and file a final environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion, filing, and acceptance of the final environmental impact statement this Board. duly adopted a resolution on the 16th '~tay of July; 1985, 'determining that the proposed annexation was not likely to have a significant affect upon the environment for the reasons set forth therein, NOW, THEREFORE, this board does hereby make the following findings and determinations with respect to compliance of the said petition with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law and with respect to the affect of such proposed annexation on the overall public interest, to wit: I. That the said petition substantially complies in form with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal [;aw. II. That the proposed annexation is not in the overall public interest (1) of the territory proposed to be annexed, or (2) on the remaining area of the Town of Southold in which such territory is situated, for the following reasons, to wit: (a) Zoning and P!annin_,g. As indicated on the map annexed to said petition, the area of the territory sought to be annexed comprises 48.7186 acres of vacant land. The land on the south and west of the territory in question is within the incorporated Village of Greenport and owned by the 'Village of Greenport and is uninhabited land utilized for park and watershed ourposes by the Village. The land to the east and north (across North Road, County Route 48) is outside the incorporated limits of the Village of Greenport and is used, occupied and zoned for one family dwelling purposes. '1'he territory sought to be annexed and the land lying to the north and east thereof is within the present "A" Residential and Agricultural District under lthe Town of Southold Building Zone Ordinance which provides for a minimum size lots of 80,00.0 square feet. The zoning ordinance of the Village of Greenport adopted in October, 1971, provides that areas annexed to the Village shall be in the R-1 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet without regard to whether public sewer or water is provided. Therefore, if the territory in question were annexed to the Village of Greenport~ the zoning requirements of the Village of Greenport would permit eight times the number of dwellings to be built than is allowed by the Town's current zoning code. The petitioner, at the public hearing, held pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, and the hearing on the draft environmental impact statement indicated that it was proposed to develop the land in the territory to be annexed by subdividing a portion thereof into in excess of 70 lots of 10,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in area for sale as single family dwelling plots to provide "affordable homes" for local residents. Petitioner also proposes to seek a rezoning of the westerly~portion of the property to permit the creation of eight plots each containing approximately 3 acres, to be sold for the ~stablishment of commercial uses thereon. At the present time, the Village of Greenport has no laws or regulations providing for the approval of plats, nor any standards and specifications regulating the construction of streets and other required facilities and improvements to be constructed thereinf as authorized by Article '7 of the Village Law. The petitioner, at the hearing held on the annexation petition, indicated l~hat if the annexation is approved, he desires that Town Planning Board have jurisdiction of the development of the project rather than the Village Planning Board, since the Town Planning Board has in effect rules and regulations !~overning the subdivision of land and standards for the construction of the required facilities, as well as many years of experience in such matters, whereas the Village of Greenport has no such rules, regulations or experience. There appears to be no objection to such ~orocedure voiced by the '~'rustees of the Village of Greenport~ In furtherance of such desire, the petitioner, during the pendency of this proceeding, has filed plans and maps with the Town Planning Board for the development of the subject property and attended several meetings of said Board with respect thereto. With respect to ~the Planning Board. exercising ~jurisdic~ion with respect to plat approval and the supervision of the construction and development of the -3- subject property, if annexed to the Village of Greenport, the simple answer is that neither the Town or any of its boards, agencies, officials or employees have any jurisdiction, powers or authority in such matters with respect to land located outside the territoria! boundaries of the Town. As previously indicated, the petitioner proposes to seek the rezoning of a sulJstantia~ portion of the subject property to commercial uses. The area to be rezoned is located along the westerly portion of the property abutting Moores Lane (a Village Street). On the west side of Moores Lane is approximately 250 ,acres of land owned by the Village of Greenport and dedicated for watershed and park purposes. Under the Town zoning map and zoning code, all other surrounding land is zoned for single family residential use. To create a commercial use zone district as proposed by petitioner would, in this Board's opinion, constitute spot zoning, and further would be in conflict with the Town's Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the Town. It is also this Board's opinion that the establishment of such a commercial zone in close proximity to the planned development of the remainder of the subject property for single family residential uses would not be in the overall ,public interest of the homeowners purchasing such residential sites. (b) Real Property Taxes. The subject property is presently assessed on the current tax rolls of the Town of Southold at an assessed valL~ation of $14,400.00. The current taxes for Town, County, School and Special Dis~ric~ purposes is $5,103.81, of which the tax for general town purposes is' $6'93.24. The current Town Tax rates (1984-85) for real property outside and inside the Village of Greenport per $1,000..00 of assessed value are: . Outside Village $69.324 Inside Village 26.765 The current (1985-86) Village of Greenport tax rate per 51,000.00 of assessed value is $1 48.30. If annexation is approved, the Town and Village taxes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation would be $175.07. If annexation is not approved, the Town taxes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation would be $69.32. If annexation is approved, real property taxes for Town and Village purposes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation will .ncrease from $69.32 to $175.32, an increase of 152.54%. Such a significant tax increase cannot be deemed in the overall public interest of the future homeowners purchasing lots in the territory in question, and would not appear to be consistent with petitioner's purported purposes of providing "affordable housing". (c) Water and Sewer, Petitioner asserts that his principal reason for having the subject premises annexed to the Village of Greenport is to qualify for hook-up to the municipal water and sewer systems of the Village of Greenport. The Village of Greenport now holds a franchise to supply water service within its franchise area, which embraces a substantial area in the Town outside of the Village's incorporated limits. The territory sought to be annexed is within the Village's franchise area. The Village presently services ~more water customers outside the Village than within the Village. As the holder of such franchise, the Village is obligated to supply water services to the subject property under the same terms and conditions as it presently does to the residential communities to the north [Eastern Shores) and to the East (Fleetfield) of the subject property, whether or not it is annexed to the 'Village. The petitioner also asserts that if the subject premises is not annexed, he will be required by the Village to pay it a water and sewer hook-up charge of $4,500.00 to $5,000.00 per lot. Presumably, if annexation is approved, such charge will be waived. No explanation is given for such charge. It has not been extracted in other similar instances (i.e. San Simeon Retirement Community). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Village seeks to increase its tax base by Withholding its water and sewer services, unless annexation is approved. There appears to be no rational reason why a hook-up charge is demanded by the Village for sewer and water extensions outside the Village, and no such charge made for such extensions within the Village, unless it is assumed that such charges within the Village are defrayed by taxes assessed against al'l the taxable real property within the Village. If such is the policy of the Village, then to approve the annexation of the subject territory would not be in the overall public interest of the present taxpayers of the Village of G reenport. For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, this Board does hereby DETERMINE that it is not in the overall public interest to approve such proposed annexation of the territory set forth in the petition of East End Associates. The foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote which resulted as follows: Supervisor Murphy Councilman Townsend Councilman Schondebare Councilwoman Cochran Councilman Stoutenburgh Justice Edwards voting voting voting voting voting voting The resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. Yes No Yes Yes Yes No CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing annexed Resolution and Determination of the Town Board of said Town adopted on th~30thday of July ,. 1985, has been compared by me with ~l~e original Resolution as' officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board, and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said'Town this 30thday of July , 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town~lerk (SEAL3 PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on the30tll:lay of July , 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean W. Cochran, Ccunci~,;;cm~,n Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly held jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1985 to hear any testimony, and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question 'of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the30thday of July , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overall public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said petition; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Mur~phy it is ORDERED that this Town Board. does hereby determine that it is not in the overall public ' interest to aPprove the proposed annexation of the territory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Village of Greenport; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County Clerk of the County of..Suffolk~ Councilman Paul Stoutenbur~jh ~Cl~u n ci Iw~a ~~h ran ~ncil~an Josel~h L. Townsen/d~,, Jro CERT I FI CATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County~ of~Suffo~k, St~t~ Of New York,~ HEP. E~Y EEP, T]FY that the foreg_~ing annexed Order of the Town Board of said Town made on th'e30thday of :July __, 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in' the Minute Book of said Town Board,and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto 'set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 30thday of July , 1985.. /~/~ludith T. Terry, Town Cle~ (SEAL) CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing annexed Resolution and Determination of the Town Board of said Town adopted on the :30thday of July ,_ 1985, has been compared by me with ~l~e original Resolution as-officially recorded in my office in the Minute .Book of said Town Board, and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of tl~e whole of said original Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town'this 30thday of Jtil¥ , 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk (SEAL) PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on the. 3Od-day of July 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., C-ouncilman James A. Schondebara, Councilman Jean W. Cochran', CounciIwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly heid jointiy with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 7985 to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the:3~J~,ay of Ju[y , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overall public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said pet[don; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Murphy it is ORDERED that this Town Board does hereby determine that it is not in the overall public'interest to approve the proposed annexation of the reft[tory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be fi[ed in the office of the clerk of the ViIlac~e of Greenport; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County CIerk of the Count~, of. Suffolk. Councilman' Paul Stoutenbur4jh C~unc[[woman Jean ~. Cochran CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southotd, in the ~O~,L}, u, ~L;~,,., ~O_ OT ,'4C.;',~ '¥'or[~j ........ r-~-~,~., ., ~ tb~ ~ ...... ... annexed Order of the Town Board of said Town made on the30thday of July .., 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board,and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, [ have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 30+j-Lday of July _, 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk (SEAL) Form No, 286 COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTy OF SUFFOLK SS.: I, JULIETTE A. KINSELL , the Court of Record thero~ .~ · A~ Clerk of the County orS, annexed with t~ . . "~-~ereb!,l certify that' ~ ~,,~Ik a,,d .... ~ ue on~_~nal .~_.(_~/~d~ ~ -- · nave COmpared the ..... -'~/; ..... /. ~. o?/__C-- .............. FILED in copy thereof~nd of ~e' i'.f ', ' '.' ....... and, that the sam-' . my whole ot SUCh original. · e ~s a true In Testimony Whereo£, I have h the seal ~f . ereunto s 12-102:1/84 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK - REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 26, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Pachman: In response to your letter of August 20, 1985 relative to the $outhold Town Board's Order in the matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Green- port, i am enclosing herewith a copy of the certification of filing with respect to same. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure PACHMAN ~ OSHRIN, P. C. ATTORNEYS 566 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY P.O. BOX COMMACK. NEW YORK I 1726 August 20, 1985 TELEPHONE AP~EA CODE § ! 6 Ms. Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Greenport Annexation - 48.7 Acres Dear Ms. Terry: Thank you for forwarding a copy of the determination of the Town Board of the Town of Southold dated July 30, 1985 in the above-captioned matter. I would greatly appreciate your advising the date on which the certified copy of the Order and Resolution were filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk. Your continued cooperation in this matter is very much appreciated. Very truly yours, HEP:ss Howard E. Pachraan AL G 1 91985 August 13, 1985 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: 7'he Board of Directors of the Greenport-Southolc Chamber of Commerce wish to exoress their extreme disappointment with the Tomn Board voting on the "Annexation Petition of John Costello." From the comments made by the various Town 8card members who voted against the annexation, they each seem to elude to the idea of some system of creating affordable housing in the town. We wait with bated breath on specifics, not rne%oric, but specifies. What are you going to do zo create affordable housing in the Town of Southold? How are you going to incoroorate it into the new Master Plan and Zoning Regulations? Very truly yours, Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce On Behalf of the Board of Directors JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS REC£ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 5, 1985 T OF DELIVERY Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEP l-I ONrE (516) 765-1801 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Nancy W. Cook Greenport Village Clerk. Greenport Village Hall Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Nancy: Pursuant to the provisiOns of ,Subsection 2b of Section 711 of the General Municipal Law, I am filing with you herewith, the petition, the notice, the written objections, testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing and all other documents, letters and papers kept in:the official file in my office in the matter of the Petition of East End AssoCiates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of G reenport. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Received: - ' Sigd~ure & Title D ate JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD August 5, 1985' Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 HAND DELIVERED Honorable Nancy W.. Cook Greenport Village. Clerk Greenport Village Hall Third Street Greenport, New York 11944 Dear Nancy: 'Pursuant to the provisions of .Subsection 2b of Section 711 of the General Municipal Law, I 'am filing with you herewith, the petition, the notice, the written objections, testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing and all other dOcuments, letters and papers kept in'the offici:a[ file in my office in the matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of G reenport. Very truly yours, Judith T.. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OFTHE TOWN CLERK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD August 1, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Honorable Juliette Kinsella Suffolk County Clerk Suffolk County Center Riverhead, New York 11901 Dear Mrs. Kinsella: I am enclosing herewith a Certified Copy of the Order In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport~ said Order adopted by resolution of the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on the 30th day of July '1985. This Order is .required to be filed in your office pursuant to the provisions of Subdivision 5 of Section711 of the General Municipal Law. I am enclosing $22.00 filing fee to cover same. Very truly yours~ ~nclosure .dl~lO]~t N~f~/'::lkt Dl±S'ql~loa ~86L Alnr 'L L[I~ tu.~o::t Sd- PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on th~30tiday of July 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean W. Cochran~, Councilwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly held jointly' with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1985: to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the30thday of July , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overall public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said petition; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Murphy it is ORDERED that this Town Board does hereby determine that it is not in the overall public interest to approve the proposed annexation of the territory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Village of Greenport; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County Clerk of the Count)/ of Suffolk. -5> / ~.,Ul~/~.z~j~' F~,~ncis'J. Murphy oman Jean W. Cochran yncilm'~n Joseph L. Townsen/c~,, Jr. CERT I Fl CATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the bu ~,,k, ~r York annexed Order of the Town Board of said Town made on the~0.thday of .July -, ~ 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town 'Board,and is a true, complete and correct, copy thereof and of the whole of sa~d original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 3~day of July , 1985. (SEALJ / Judith T. Terry, Town Cl~erk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York t 1971 TELEPHONE (516~ 765-1801 August 2, 1985: Mr. John A. Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 1'1944 Dear John: Enclosed herewith is the Resolution and Determination of the Southold Town Board, and the Order of the Southold Town Board with respect to your petition for annexation of 48.7 acres to the Village of Greenport. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associates, inc. Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York held on th~30~ay of July 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean W. Cochran, Councilwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board In the Matter of the Petition of East End Associates for Annexation of TerritOry to the Village of Greenport, ORDER There having been presented to this Town Board a petition of East End Associates requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to the Village of Greenport; and a public hearing with respect to said petition having been duly held jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1985 to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest; and this Town Board having, by a resolution duly adopted on the30tl~d_ ay of July , 1985, duly determined that it was not in the overall public interest to consent to the annexation of the territory described in said petition; Now, on motion of Councilman Schondebare seconded by Supervisor Murphy it is ORDERED that this Town Board does hereby determine that it is not in the overall public interest to approve the proposed annexation of the territory described in the said petition of East End Associates and does hereby disapprove such proposed annexation and does not consent to the same; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order, together with copies of the petition, the notice, the written objections, if any, and testimony and minutes of proceedings taken and kept on the hearing, to be filed in the office of the clerk of the Village of Greenport; and it is further ORDERED, that the Town Clerk shall cause a certified copy of this order to be filed in the office of the County Clerk of the Count Icis J. Murphy Councilman Paul oman Jean W. Cochran Justice- Ra~rnond W. Edwards -£6uncilman Jame ^. $chondebare pCilm~an Joseph -L. Townse~d~, Jr. CERTIFICATE !, JUDITH T. TERRY~ Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing annexed Order of the Town Board of said Town made on the30thday of -July , 1985, has been compared by me with the original Order as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board,and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Order. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this 30thday of Jul_~/y , 1985. ?~/Ju/dith T. Terry, Town C~rk (SEAL) PRESENT: At a Meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County New York held on the 30th day of July, 1985. Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Joseph L. Townsend, Jr., Councilman James A. Schondebare, Councilman Jean W. Cochran, Councilwoman Paul Stoutenburgh, Councilman Raymond W. Edwards, Justice Members of the Town Board the Matter of the Pel~,ition of East End Associates for Annexation of Territory to the Village of Greenport. RESOLUTION AND DETERMINATION The following resolution was offered by Councilman Schondebare , seconded by Councilman Stoutenburgh WHEREAS, East End Associates has heretofore presented a petition to this board requesting that the territory described in said petition be annexed to thc: Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, a public hearing with respect to said petition was duly held jointly with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Greenport on the 6th day of December, 1984, to hear any testimony and receive evidence and information which may be presented concerning the said petition and the question of whether the proposed annexation is or is not in the overall public interest, and WHEREAS, this Board was determined to be lead agency pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law by resolution duly adopted on the 18th day of December, 1984, and WHEREAS, by resolution duly adopted on the 8th day of January, 1985, this Board determined that the annexation requested in said petition was likely to have a significant adverse affect upon the environment, and that the petitioner shall prepare a draft environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion of such draft environmental impact statement and the filing and acceptance thereof, this Board held a public hea~ring thereon, pursuant to due notice, on the 16th day of May, 1985, and WHEREAS, this Board thereafter by resolution adopted on the 4th day of June, 1985, determined that the proposed annexation was likely to have a significant adverse affect upon the environment and requested that the petitioner prepare and file a final environmental impact statement, and WHEREAS, upon the completion, filing and acceptance of the final environmental impact statement this Board duly adopted a resolution on the 16th day of July~ 1985, determining that the proposed annexation was not likely to have a significant affect upon the environment for the reasons set forth therein, NOW, THEREFORE, this board does hereby make the following findings and determinations with respect to compliance of the said petition with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law and with respect to the affect of such proposed annexation on the overall public interest, to wit: I, That the said petition substantially complies in form with the provisions of Article 17 of the General Municipal Law. Ii. That the proposed annexation is not in the overall public interest (1) of the territory proposed tO be annexed, or (2) on the remaining area of the 'II'own of Southold in which such territory is situated, for the following reasons, to wit: (a) Zoning and Planning, As indicated on the map annexed to said petition, the area of the territory sought to be annexed comprises 48.7186 acres of vacant land. The land on the south and west of the territory in question is within the incorporated Village of Greenport and owned by the Village of Greenport and is uninhabited land utilized for park and watershed purposes by the Village. The land to the east and north (across North Road, County Route 48) is outside the incorporated limits of the Village of Greenport and is used, occupied and zoned for one family dwelling purposes. The territory sought to be annexed and the land lying to the north and east thereof is within the present "A'~ Residential and Agricultural District under the Town of Southold Building Zone Ordinance which provides for a minimum size lots of 80,000 square feet. The zoning ordinance of the Village of Greenport adopted in October, 1971, provides that areas annexed to the Village -2- shall be in the R-1 zoning district which requires a minimum lot size of 10,000 scluare feet without regard to whether public sewer or water is provided. Therefore, if the territory in question were annexed to the Village of Greenport, the zoning requirements of the Village of Greenport would permit eight times the number of dwellings to be built than is allowed by the Town's current zoning code. The petitioner, at the public hearing, held pursuant to Article 17 of the General Municipal Law, and the hearing on the draft environmental impact statement indicated that it was proposed to develop the land in the territory to be annexed by subdividing a portion thereof into in excess of 70 lots of I0,000 to 15,000 sq. ft. in area for sale as single family dwelling plots to provide "affordable homes" for local residents. PetitiOner also proposes to seek a rezoning of the westerly portion of the property to permit the creation of eight plots each containing approximately 3 acres, to be sold for the establishment of commercial uses thereon. At the present time, the Village of C'.reenport has no laws or regulations providing for the approval of plats, nor any standards and specifications regulating the construction of streets and other required facilities and improvements to be constructed therein, as authorized by Article'7 of the Village Law, The petitioner, at the hearing held on the annexation petition, indicated that if the annexation is approved, he desires that Town Planning Board have jurisdiction of the development of the project rather than the Village Planning F~oard, since the Town Planning Board has in effect rules and regulations governing the subdivision of land and standards for the construction of the required facilities, as well as many years of experience in such matters, whereas the Village of Greenport has no such rules, regulations or experience. There appears to be no objection to such procedure voiced by the Trustees of the Village of Greenport. In furtherance of such desire, the petitioner, during the pendency of this proceeding, has filed plans and maps with the Town Planning Board for ,the development of the subject property and attended several meetings of said Board with respect thereto. With respect to the Planning Board exercising iurisdicl~ion wittfl respect to plat approval and 'the supervision of the construction and development of the -3- subject property, if annexed to the Village of Greenport~, the simple answer is that neither the Town or any of its boards, agencies, officials or employees have any iurisdiction, powers or authority in such matters with respect to land located outside the territorial boundaries of the Town. As previously indicated, the petitioner proposes to seek the rezoning of a substantial portion of the subject property to commercial uses~ The area to be rezoned is located along the westerly portion of the property abutting Moores Lane (a Village Street). On the west side of Moores Lane is approximately 250 ,acres of land owned by the Village of Greenport and dedicated for watershed and park purposes. Under the Town zoning map and zoning code, all other surrounding land is zoned for single family residential u~se. To create a commercial use zone district as proposed by petitioner ~ould, in this Board's opinion, constitute spot zoning, and further would be in conflict with the Town's Comprehensive Plan for the future development of the Town. It is also this Board's opinion that the establishment of such a commercial zone in close proximity to the planned development of the remainder of the subject property for single family residential uses would not be in the overall public interest of the homeowners purchasing such r'esidentiai sites. (b) Real Property Taxes. The subject property is presently assessed on the current tax rolls of the Town of Southold at an assessed valuation of S14,400.00. The current taxes for Town, County, School and Special District purposes is $5,103.81, of which the'tax for general town purposes is $693~24. The~ current Town Tax rates (1984-85) for real property outside and inside the Village of Greenport per $1,000.00 of assessed value are: Outside Village s69.324 Inside Village 26.765 -4- The current (1985-86~) Village of Greenport tax rate per $1,000~00 o1: assess~d value is $148~30. If annexation is approved~ the Town and Village taxes per $1~000.00 of assessed valuation wouldbe $175.07. If annexation is not approved, the Town taxes per $1,000.00 of assessed valuation would be $69~32. ~f annexation is approved, real property taxes for Town and Village purposes per $11000~.00 of assessed valuation will increase from $69.32 to $175.32, an increase of 152~54%. Such a significant tax increase cannot be deemed in the overall public interest of the future homeowners purchasing lots in the territory in ~tuestion, ancl would not appear to be consistent with petitioner's purported purposes of providing "affordable housing". (c) Water and Sewer. Petitioner asserts that his principal reason for having the subject premises annexed to the Village of Greenport is to qualify for hook-up to the municipal water and sewer systems of the Village of Greenport. The Village of Greenport now holds a franchise to supply water service within its franchise area~ wl~ich embraces a substantial area in the Town outside of the Village's incorporated limits. The territory sought to be annexed is within the Village's franchise area~ The Village presently services more water customers outside the Village than within the Village. As ~he holder of such franchise, the Village is obligated to supply water services to the subject property under the same terms and conditions as it presently does to the residential communities to the north (Eastern Shores) and ~o the East (Fleetfield) of the subject property, whether or not it is annexed to the Village. The petitioner also asserts that if the subiect premises is not annexed, he will be required by the Village to pay it a water and sewer hook-up charge of $4~500.00 to $5,000~00 per lot. Presumably, if annexation is approved, such charge will be waived. No explanation is given for such charge. It has not been extracted in other similar instances (i,e. San Simeon Retirement Community). The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Village seeks to increase its tax base by withholding its water and sewer services, unless annexation is approved. There appears to be no rational reason why a hook-up charge is demanded by the Village for sewer and water extensions outside the Village, and no such charge made for such extensions within the Village, unless it is assumed that such charges within the Village are defrayed by taxes assessed against all the taxable real property within the Village. If such is the policy of the Village, then to approve the annexation of the subject territory would not be in'the overall public interest of the present taxpayers of the Village of G reenport ~ For the reasons hereinbefore set forth, this Board does hereby DETERMINE that it is not in the overall public interest to approve such proposed annexation of the territory set forth in the petition of East End Associates. The foregoing resolution was duly put to a vote which resulted as follows: Supervisor Murphy voting Councilman Townsend voting Councilman Schondebare voting Councilwoman Cochran voting Councilman Stoutenburgh voting Justice Edwards voting The resolution was declared duly ADOPTED. Yes Yes Yes Yes No -6- CERTIFICATE I, JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, in the County of Suffolk, State of New York, HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing annexed Resolution and Determination of the Town Board of said Town adopted on the 30thday of. July 1985, has been compared by me with the original Resolution as officially recorded in my office in the Minute Book of said Town Board, and is a true, complete and correct copy thereof and of the whole of said original Resolution. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ! have hereunto set my hand and affixed the corporate seal of said Town this30thday of July. __, 1985. Judith T. Terry, Town~ (SEAL) FRANCIS J. MURPHY _qUPE RVISOR OFFICE .'RVI~OR MAIN ROAD $OUTHOLD. L..I.. N.Y. 1197! July 30, 1985 From my surveys, my personal knowledge and experience, and the town surveys, I know that there is a desperate need for affordable housing in Southold Town. In each of my campaigns I've stressed the fact that we must find ways to provide such housing for the young people and the senior citizens in our Town. I've worked for six years to provide accessory apartments ~o help our towns- people to find an affordable place ~o live. Unfortunately I've had little if any support. Let me make mysel£ very clear - I am in favor of legally guaranteed affordable housing. TELEPHONE (5161 765-1800 (516) 765-1939 However, the issue we all confront today is not an issue o£ affordable housing. Mr. Gustavson, executive editor of a local newspaper, has done a great disservice both ~o the people of Greenport Village and to the entire township by presenting the story as one dealing only with affordable housing. Our vote today is one concerning annexation - that is - we are ~oting to determine if we want to turn approximately 50 acres in the Town of Southold over to the Village of Greenport. Our vote today is to decide about allowing either approximately 20-24 lots (according To Southold Town two acre zoning per building lot) or up to approximately 190 lots (according to Greenport Village ¼ ~cre zoning per building lot) Page 2 on the parcel o£ land presently owned by Mro John Costello. I£ this annexation occurs~ there can be no legal covenants that will assure affordable housing. Mr. Gustavson says that I have a dilemma. You are wrong, sir~ I have no dilemma and furthermore I resent your making th£s vete into an affordable housing issue when it clearly is an issue of annexation~which would result in a zone change. A zone change holds many implications for all of us. At numerous Town Board Meetings, alt members of the board voiced various concerns about this annexation which is an unprecedented zone change. The straw vote resulted in a majority of the members of the Town Board in a bi-partisan grouping, not a political one, two Democrats and two Republicans~ voting against annexation. Now I ask the editor - does he have a dilemma in trying to remain objective as a political commentator while his natural instincts and long standing friendship with my opponent tend to have him see controversy where there is none? I repeat~ sir~ I have no dilemma! I will continue to search for ways to provide affordable housing for Southold Town residents, but I will not vote £or a zone change which holds no guarantees and which jeopardizes both the fiscal stability of the Village of Greenport and the legal position of the Town o£ Southold. Now, let me explain my specific concerns. Page 3 ~. There is a possible loss of $375,000 up to one million dollars to the Village of Greenpor~ in the proposed plan because of the special exemption held by being in the Village. Do the people of the Village of Greenport want to lose this potential money? 2. The residents of this project would pay approximately 1/3 more in taxes by being part of Greenport Village. How does this help these people? 3. The Town of Huntington and the former Town Supervisor are presently being sued for over a million dollars because of a lack of good faith effort to provide affordable housing. Since our last meeting, I've been assured that the Town of Southotd will receive H.U.D. credit whether or not the site in question is annexed by Greenport Village. This verbal commitment allays my concern about the Town of Southold being able to continue town funding from H.U.D. My concern was not a personal one as indicated in the newspaper - as usual I was doing my job as supervisor - which is to insure that the Town's interests are being protected and the future possibility of a town wide law suit is being avoided. This is the complete explanation of what is meant by credit. 4. I am very concerned whether or not this project of Mr. Costello's will truly provide affordable housing. We can have no legal guarantee that this will happen and if the land is annexed the Village of Greenport can have no legal guarantee either. There is no legal way that we or the Village can place any covenents on the project. Pa~e 4 My past experience would rely on the history of Driftwood Cove. This was affordable housing, which now has evolVed into coops ~ and Southold Town people art being forced out by escalating costs. 5. I sincerely believe the best interests of the people of Southoid who are seeking affordable housing would be met by the town buying Mr. Costello's housing property. This land could be turned over to the Greenport Housing Alliance to develop affordable housing on ¼ acre lots. This concept is presently being provided for ~ in the new Master Plan which we hope to adopt soon. Seed money could be provided by the Town to the Alliance through unique financing and then repaid as the homes are sold, Legal covenants and restrictions, which are appropriate under these condition~ will protect both the Town and the homeowners. I first mentioned this concept at the dinner meeting of the League of Women Voters last spring and was disappointed that the local Greenport paper failed to report it. 6. According to appraisals received by the Farmland Preservation Committe, raw farmland sales presently average $8,000 an acre. At ~ acre zoning each lot selling for the advertized price of $20,000 a lot, the developer would receive $160,000 per two acres which is a Southold Town building lot. This is hardly anfaf£ordable housing issue. 7. Finally, construction is now underway at Lakeside Gardens on North Street in Greenport. Mayor Hubbard and I, under the auspices of the Greenport Housing Alliance, have fully cooperated Page 5 in seeing this project through - complete with all appropriate legal guidelines and covenants for the protection of all involved. Affordable housing can be a reality in Southold Town without imposing a financial burden upon the taxpayers and by remaining within the guideline (credit) established by H.U.D. Please understand this issue. I have proven that I am in favor of affordable housing. However - I repeat- a vote on a zone change is not a vo~e on affordable housing regardless of what political pundits would have you believe. I intend to see that the Village of Greenpor~ is not pushed into fiscal chaos again. I repeat, I have no dilemma. My priorities are clear - as Supervisor, I am committed to protecting the interests of all the people of the Town. I am aware of my legal and moral responsibilities. I will not be bullied into making politically expedient decisions, simply because a local newspaper editor has a difficult time assessing his own responsibilities to the public. I will continue to provide methods for Southold Town to have affordable housing BUT I will NOT place Greenport Village in a difficult financial situation in the the process, nor will I vote for a zone change which gives no one any legal guarantees. ihope, for the Town's sake that all reporters can take as strong an ethical sta~d as I have and fairly report all of the facts .in any issue in the future. Thank you, Frangis J. Murphy PETITION ~JUL $ 019BE~ I_N FAVO~ O~ANNEXATION O.~F_~_~8 A~C~RES OF _~LA~D ~_~_ .__~__~ AS a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to ~o~br~nt~Cradnn~nxdat~ohne oVifllt~gee4~+UaSctreeesS otfha~anIdW~nn°l~ohoera~ysedil~ne and County Road 48 into the Village of Greenport. Name A~dress Date PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION QF 48 ACRES OF' LAND As a Southold Town resident~ I would like to express to the 5bwn Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedly support the annexation, of the 48+ acres of land on ~oore's Lane and County RDad 48 into the Village of Greenport. Address PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the Town Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedly support the annexation of the 48+ acres of land ~n Moore'-s Lane ~nty Road 48 into the Village of Greenport. Name Addre ss Date PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the Town Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedly ~ the annexation of the 48+ acres of land on Moore's Lane ~nty RDad 48 into the Village of Greenport, Name A~dre s s Date PETITION IN FAVOR OF.. ANNEXATION OF 48,. ACRE S OF' LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would the Town Board and the Village Trustees support the annexation of the 48+ acres and County Road 48 into the Villag Name A~dre s s PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resider~t, I would like to express to the Town Board and the Village Trustees that I w~oleheartedl~ sup~grt the annexation of the 48+ acres of land on Moore's Lane and County RDad 48 into the Village of Greenport'. A~dress Date PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 As a Southold Town resident, the ~bwn Boa'rd and the Village Trustees that support the annexation of the 48+ acres of and County R~ad 48 'into the Vill Name Addre s s PETITION IN FAVOR OF ~NNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND AS a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the Town Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedl~ support the annexation of the 48+ acres of land on Moore's Lane and County Road 48 into the Village of Greenport. ,,PETITION IN F,AVO'R OE ANNEXATION OF 48,ACRES OF LANp AS a Southold Town resident, I would like ' the ~bwn Board and the Village Trustees that support the annexation of the 48+ acres of and County N~ad 48 into the Villa§ Name A~dre s s IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF the ~Ibwn Boa'rd and the % Nam~ ~A~d~e s s PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the %bwn Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedly support the annexation of the 48+ acres of land on Moore's Lane and County Bad 48 into the Village of Greenport. PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANND(ATION OF 48 ACRES ( As a Town resident supgort the annexatior andC~nty Mad 48 into the V il Name Add~ess PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the 5bwn Board and the Village Trustees that I wholeheartedl); support the annexation of the 48+ acres of land on Moore's Lane an~ County Mad 48 into the Village of Greenpor~. Name ~ Address Date PETITION IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION OF 48 ACRES OF LAND As a Southold Town resident, I would like to express to the Town Board and the Village Trustees tha~ I wholehear%edly support the annexation of th~ 48+ acres of i~nd on Moore's Lane ~nt-[t ~r] ~ { rl~n Fha ~{.J ] ] ~j~ r~r qvOanL-,n~-,I- . Name A~dre s s ~ ~te Orient .g',,~/.']~,~¢'~ ~¢~,~,/.~ ~,,~,~,~¢~'~ ,~' East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic December 3, 1984 Southold Town Board Southoid Tomn Hall 53095 Main Road Soutnold, New Ycrk 11971 Gentlemen: ~ne Board of Directors o~ the Greenoort-Southold Chamber of Commerce have reviewed the olanning project o= John Costello oroposed to be located on prooerty at Moores Lane and qorth Road, Greenoort, N.Y. and look favorably upon the conceat of it. We suooort job opportunities and affordable housing for one young oeoo!e of our ~omn. we favor the increased tax oase and light commerce district it mill provide for the area. We therefore, request that the application for the annexation of this property into the Village of Greenport be approved. Very truly yours, ~ernard Oempsey, ~re~imf~'nt ' ~no=Behalf of the~rd of Directors Gr~nport-South~d Chamber of Commerce RECEIVED YOUNG WORKERS FROM SOUTHOLDTOWN TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WE ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOME DAY. WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE US THAT WE ~WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME REASONABLY. WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING YOUNG WORKERS FROM SOUTHOLOTOWN TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WE ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOME DAY. WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE US THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME REASONABLY. WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING HIGH ,RENTS FOR APARTMENTS. PETTITION YOUNG WORKERS FROM SOUTHOLD TOWN TO THE SOUTHOI,D TOWN BOARD WE ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOME DAY. WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE US THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME REASONABLY. WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING HIGH RENTS FOR APARTMENTS. YOUNG WORKERS FROM SOUTHOLOTOWN TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WE ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOME DAY. WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE US THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME REASONABLY. WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING HIGH RENTS FOR APARTMENTS. PETTITION YOUNG WORKERS FROM SOUTHOLDTOWN TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD WE ARE THE YOUNG PEOPLE OF SOUTHOLD TOWN WHO WANT TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD TO BUY A HOME IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOME DAY. WE WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO TAKE STEPS TO ASSURE US THAT WE WILL BE'ABLE TO PURCHASE A HOME REASONABLY. WE ARE TIRED OF PAYING HIGH RENTS FOR APARTMENTS. PETTITION JUL Olg05 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 30, 1985 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southotd, NY 11971 Re: Costello project Dear Boardmembers: One of the questions raised on the Costello project was, how can we be assured that the proposal will not change upon annexation. As per our discussion, enclosed is a copy of covenants and restrictions from Mr. Costello indicating that the site plan will be subject to the approval of the Town Planning Board, if the property is annexed. Very truly yours, Bennett OrlowsKit or., Charrman Southold Town Planning Board dins cc: Town Clerk DECLARATION DECLARATION made this day of , 1985 between JOHN A. COSTELLO (hereinafter "Costello") residing at 206 W~.ia~s Lane, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, party of the first party and the TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, a municipal corportaion with its principal place of business at 53095 Main Road, $outhold, New York, and the VILLAGE OF GREENPORT, a municipal corporation with principal place of business at 236 Third Avenue, Greenport, New York, parties of the second part. WHEREAS Costello is the owner of a certain premises described upon Schedule A annexed hereto, and WHEREAS said property is situate within the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, and WHEREAS Costello's predecessor in interest, to wit, East End Associates, heretofore petitioned the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport pursuant to General Municipal Law Article 17 to have the property, which is described upon Schedule A annexed hereto, annexed to and made a part of the Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS the subject property is now subject to the jurisdiction of the Town Board of the Town of Southold and the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, and WHEREAS the consent of the Town of Southold is necessary in order to effectuate the "annexation" detailed in the foregoing petition. WHEREAS Costello, as successor to East End Associates, is desirous of assuring both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold that the subject property will only be employed for uses and pursuant to a site plan that meets the approval of the appropriate "Boards" of both municipalities, and WHEREAS the covenant set forth in this instrument shall only be effective if, as and when the subject property becomes, and so long as it remains, within the territorial boundaries of the Village of Greenport; NOW, THEREFORE, the undersigned, John A. Costello, herewith covenants and agrees as follows: 1. This covenant will run with the land and be enforceable by the village of Greenport, Town of Southold and/or the property owners who from time to time may own the subject premises or any portion thereof. 2. This covenant shall become effective and shall be enforceable only if, as and when the subject property becomes a part, and continues to be a part, of the Incorporated Village of Greenport. 3. No change in the zoning use regulations or the dimensional regulations of the subject property shall be effective unless and until approved by a majority of the Planning Board of the Town of $outhold. 4. No site plan, which may hereafter be approved for the subject premises, shall be effective unless and until approved by a majority of the then Planning Board of the Town of Southold. 5. The foregoing necessary consents and/or approvals of the Planning Board and/or the Town Board of the Town of Southold are in addition to all otheLnecessary approvals which are required by law, code or regulation. R~C~iVED 'JUL 2, 9 ~5 Town ¢~ Soufr~d July 29, 1985 NOTE: This is a revision of an earlier memo on the Housing Committee's resolution. In the earlier memo the names of councilpersons were erroneously included as committee members. July 26,. 1985 _ TO: FROM: RE: Southold Town Board Housing Advisory Committee The following action was taken by the Southold Housing Advisory Committee on July 25, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Housing Advisory Committee recommend to the Southold Town Board that it expend every effort to approve and expedite the proposed annexation by the Village of Greenport of the "Costello property" provided that unequivocable zoning provision be incorporated into the agreement to insure the construction of houses on the site within a period of no more than 5 years from the date the annexation is completed and the final map approved. It is our considered opinion that this is an excellent opportunity for the town to evidence a forward looking policy toward affordable housing on the North Fork and such housing would be beneficial to all our residents. ~ Herbert ~1 Chairm \ Committee Members Ms. Lois Callas Mr. Douglas Clark Ms. Edith Crosley Mr. Walter Krupski Mr. Anthony Leone Mr. Herbert Mandel Mr. James McMahon Ms. Bessie Swarm Mr. George Wetmore cc. Board Members July 26, 1985 TO: FROM: RE: Southold Town Board Housing Advisory Committee The following action was taken by the $outhold Housing Advisory Committee on July 25, 1985. RESOLVED that the Southold Housing Advisory Committee recommend to the Southold Town Board that it expend every effort to approve and expedite the proposed annexation by the Village of Greenport of the "Costello property" provided that unequivocable zoning provision be incorporated into the agreement to insure the construction of houses on the site within a period of no more than 5 years from the date the annexation is completed and the final map approved. It is our considered opinion that this is an excellent opportunity for the town to evidence a forward looking policy toward affordable housing on the North Fork and such housing would be beneficial to all our resident. Herbert ~nd~ Cha i rmy Ms. Lois Callas Ms. Jean Cochran Mr. Douglas Clark Ms. Edith Crosley Mr. Walter Krupski Mr. Anthony Leone Committee Members Mr. Herbert Mandel Mr. James McMahon Ms. Bessie Swann Mr. Joseph Townsend Jr. Mr. George Wetmore cc. Board Members Dear Mr. Murphy: I am writing this letter to advise you that I am 100% in favor of the affordable housing project on Moore*s Lane as proposed by John Costello, and that I do not understand the reasoning behind your vote on the "straw poll". This letter is being written from three different aspects. I had hoped that I WOuld not have to get involved because of my positions but you have gotten me very mad and I cannot stay out of it. First, I am writing as a mother of teenagers, all of which will probably have to leave Southold Town to find good jobs and housing. As a fathe~ don't you realize how difficult it is for young people just starting out these days????? Secondly, my husband has a business which employs young men who would like to stay here and raise their families. Why are you against them instead, of trying to help them???? Thirdly, I work for John Costello (which is one of the reasons I did not want to write) BUT, I know for a fact that most of our employees will never be able to own their own homes in Southold Town without help.from parents, and quite a few of them do not have families in a position to help them. No matter how hard these men work, by the time they would think they could afford a home, either homes will be constantly out of reach, or will be bought up by "outsiders". Mr. Murphy, I do not get involved in politics but I can tell you this much, if you do not vote YES for the annexation project, it looks to me as if you will have a very difficult time getting re-elected. Please, for the sake of our kids and all young people, change your vote and VOTE YES. Sincerely, Marion G. Latham July 26, 1985 oe~ Mr. Frank Murphy Southold Town Supervisor Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Murphy: As an east-end businessman and employer of forty-five individuals and also a resident of Southold Town, I feel compelled to express my extreme dismay a~ your board's decision to veto ~ne Costello Annexation which would orovide affordable housing. You, as a former businessman, must oe aware that a business needs people to make it happen, but a growing business must oo it with people that can be hired at reasonable levels of compensation that a~ the same time can afford ~nem a comfortable living s~an- dard for themselves and their families. In effect, oy your board's straw-vote decision to stop Costello's olan of annexation, the Southold Town Board is effectively saying that the well-being of the business community of Eastern Long Island is of minor concern relative to your board's and their memoer's ohilosohical and political positions. I strongly suggest that you and the board's members reconsider the board's oosition so that on July 30 they make the correct ,sion. s/ly, & S. Trea~eo Lumber Coro. Southold Town Beard SouOhold Town Hall Main Ed. $outhold, NY 11971 ./ Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of p~rt of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town not even being utilized at present that down-zoning a~itional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? we think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this'parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE3 WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS // Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. ~. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily'mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lanes Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE~ WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town not even being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ~ ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one aq yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but n~rw this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we hav~~' another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of thet we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Laner Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE~~ WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenporto Don~t back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same r~asons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we haue learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vo~e NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. ,/J .,/.~_AME ADDRESS WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town not even being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we ha~e learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane~ Greenport to the Village of Greenport. N ADDRESS PAGE WE, the undersigned taxpayers peti%ion to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarilymean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers., let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "S~TA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking uD the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TO~ OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we haue learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. ADDRESS WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. 9NAME Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Board: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the winos? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be opposed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we hame learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS Supervisor Murphy and members of the Town Bcard: We support your straw vote against annexation of the 48- acre parcel to the Village of Greenport. Don't back down - annexation doesn't necessarily mean affordable housing. No one as yet has even attempted to address the question of affordable housing. Until we have answers, let us not be naive enough to think any developer will be a "SANTA CLAUS". Will Mr. Costello be the prime contractor or merely the land speculator? Have we also been led astray regarding our fragile water system? We think not - but now this valuable resource is being offered, free of hook-up and sewer charges. Do we have another "Santa" in the wings? Sooner or later taxpayers will be picking up the tab - of that we can be assured. Now let us direct our opposition back to its beginning. The commercial zoning of part of this land parcel. This has been and remains the core of our opposition to the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport. Somehow, this aspect has been orchestrated out of the scenario. There is certainly more than sufficient commercially zoned property in Southold Town noteven being utilized at present that down-zoning additional acres is totally outrageous. Downgrading is always simple - upgrading is always difficult. Why are we again going thru this futile annexation process for the third time? Twice before annexation has been denied for the same reasons it should be oppOsed now. IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. It is hoped that we haue learned from past experience and trust our Town Board will consider this question and vote NO to annexation. We, the undersigned taxpayers petition the Town Board to vote NO to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane~ Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAME ADDRESS PAGE WE, the undersigned taxpayers petition to the Town Board to vote No to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel on Moores Lane, Greenport to the Village of Greenport. NAM. E ADDRESS SUpervisor l~:mphy and Members of the Town BOard Southold Town Hall Southold The attached notice is an insult to the To~ Board and very much so to the people of SouShold. William SchmidI P.0.Box 692 GreenpoPt .,~ p £,a P--., OUT- GREENPORT WATER SUPPLY The Suffolk County Department of Health Ser- vices has recommended that we notify our con- sumers that the concentration of nitrates in our water supply has reached and sometimes exceeds the limit set for drinking water. The water should not be used for infant inges- tion without consulting your physician, Nitrate concentrations in excess of the limits will not affect older children or adults. Containers of processed water are available at The Power Plant, Moore's Lane, Greenport, be- tween the hours, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact the office of the Suffolk County De- partment of Health Services, 348-289~. Supervisor Frank Murphy Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, N~¥~ 11971 PO Box 128 Orient, N.Ye 11957 July 26, 1985 Dear Mr. Murphy:. I am very much concerned about the Town Boardts straw vote defeating the ~roposed annexation of the Costello property to the Village of Greenport. Whether or not the project isbell will supply any low-income housing, it will serve to free up the housing situation in the Greenport area to a much greater degree if annexation is allowed. As for the tax issue: at present~ Southold Town is collecting taxes on the undeveloped land. This is the only tax that will actually be "lost." I am willing to be assessed my share of this "short-fall." As for the "credit" Southold Town May lose: I feel that there is enough "credit" -- and some "debit"-- for all parties to share~ in the matter of providing affordable and low-income housing for the young and the elderly of the Township. Sincerely, Barbara D. Schriever ~ OF SOUTHOL~ July 22, 1985 Supervisor and Members of the Town Board of Southold Town Southold Town Hall Route 25 Southold, New York 11971 Mayor and Trustees of the Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenpor~, New York 11944 Re: Proposed Annexation of 48 Acres Application of John Costello Dear Supervisor, Mayor and Town Board Members and Village Trustees: I read with interest the account of the Town Board's proposed action in connection with the above application. It evidences a concern for the interests of the taxpayers of both the Town and Village as well as for the interests of the residents of both Town and Village who are serviced by the Village for water, light or sewer services, as opposed to the interests of the applicant for annexation. It is to be hoped that the Village Board will consider it's actions in the same light. It should be evident to both Boards that annexation would require that there be provided to the subject property for it's proper development streets, sewers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, water and electrical services. It ms equally evident that the developer hopes that by annexation he will not have to provide these services at his expense. Last week's article in the local press indicates that position with respect to hook-up charges at $4,800. per unit which the developer would not have to pay. The total involved in that alone would be 76 times $4,800.00 which equals $364,8G0.00 which would be lost to the Village. Strangely enough, this amount just slightly exceeds the interdepartmental debt of $350,000.00 which is being paid off in instalments. Ail of this leaves the taxpayers of the Village to assume the cost of providing these services. There are approximately 917 taxable parcels of property in the Village, and the owners of those taxable parcels -~-will be paying for the development. This seems a little one-sided, to say the least. The same argument ms advanced with respect to the costs of providing streets, sewers, sidewalks, curbs and gutters. Again the ~axpayers should not be expected to assume that burden to Town and Village Boards July 22, 1985 enhance the fortunes of the proponent of annexation. If it is argued that the read department and the utility department can readily perform this without additional cost, that argument must fall of its own weight. The road department has a budget for 1985-86 of $176,500.00, of which $105,000. is allocated to personal services (department workers) and the remainder to the day to day costs of operation of the department. Neither department has the expertise, equipment or man power necessary to accompliSh such an undertaking, nor the funding to do so. In closing, I would respectfully request that you review the material set forth in my letter of May 28, 1985 and consider it in the light of this letter. I have not made an analysis of the cost by way of taxes to the purchasers of lots in the 48 acres, except that by annexation the overall tax increase to the lot owner will be somewhere in the area of 25% or more. In other words total Village and Town taxes will exceed the Town taxes if annexation is granted. HT/s copies to Board Members and counsel who have appeared Yours very truly~ Henry Tasker Letters to thc Con Annexation Orient Dear Troy: I must. strongly di~agroe with your reeen~ editorial concerning the prop- osed annexation of the property at the North' Road and Mooros Lane from Southoldinto the Village of Grsenport. The tewn can best maintain planning control of the property by keeping it part of Southold Town. It should be of absolutely no concern co the Southold Town Board what Mr. Costello's in- terest payments are [or the properW. Their deliberations must be guided by what is best for Southold Town - no~ by what is best [or Mr. Costello's nances. Mr. Costello is a,land speculator who took a calculated risk in buying the property, knowing that it was zoned for two-acre lots when he purchased it. He 'is attempting to have the land down- zoned ~o one-quarter-acre lots because he can realize a much grea~er profit from selling 85 lots than he would be able to with a possible 24 lots under the current zoning. NO amount of smokesc- reen about this so-called, but as ye~ un- disclosed, "affordable housinf' scheme can hide that fact. ---~'~ The best use of the property would be to retain the curren~ zoning wi+.h the Southold Planning Board mandating a cluster on one-acre lots. The Grsenport Water District is desperately Seeking new sources of uncontaminated water. This plan would leave approximately 20 acres undeveloped which could bd used as a much-needed watershed for a new- village wellsite. With only nine months of relatively dry weather, the chloride (salt) concen- tration in the village's distribution s~vs- tern has ~lready exceeded 100 millig- rams per liter this spring. What happen with the increased water usage this summer, if the dry spell continues? If developed under the proposed anne- xation plan, the water usage of the prop- erty would be approximately four times as much as that required bythe current zoning, and under the proposed annexa- - tion plan, 'all of that water usage will be consumptive -- i.e., lost out the vil- lage's outfall pipe. It is ludicrous to consider increasing · density by annexation in light of the able the --r? ;_ .shg~uld~ be ?yen the. Kreatest protection_ Ossib_le?~ ~ not be covered with c9 ~mm-~fal b_~' n-- ~er~ truly yours, Martin Trent T LD REC.,EIVEI~. S~Y JUL 2,3 1985 Southold N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 July 22, 1983 Southold Town Board Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Re: Costello Project Gentlemen: The Planning Board is deeply interested in having the above project brought to fruition regardless of which governmental body handles the situation. We might suggest that a meeting with the Town and Village officials might resolve this matter to the advantage of all concerned and provide affordable housing. We are available to assist in any way we can. Very truly yours_~ ~ /7 /~ rman'-. Southold Town Planning Board dins c:c: Town Clerk Town Attorney RE, SERVED JUL 2.2'1 STIRLING EASTERN SHORES ASSOCIATION GREENPORT, N.Y. 11944 July 22, 1985 ~. FrankFmurphy, Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear F~. Murphy: The Stirling Eastern Shores Property Owners Association and the hundreds of Southold Town petitioners who have been opposed to the annexation of the 48-acre parcel off Moores Lane in Greenport applaud the board's decision not to allow this parcel to be annexed to the Village of Greenporto We hope that the Town Board will continue to use the utmost discretion in plaguing for the future of Southold Town o you. Sincerely, WilliAm ~. Schroeher President W~S PACHMAN /~: OSHRIN, P. C. ATTORNEYS 066 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY P.O. BOX COM14ACK, NEW YORK I 17~ JUL 2:2 July 19, 1985 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 516 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Board Town Hall, Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Annexation - Village of Greenport Dear Ms. Terry: This will confirm our telephone conversation of today's date, wherein you indicated to me that there has been a negative declaration with regard to the encaptioned annexation. We would greatly appreciate your sending us a copy of that resolution when it has been recorded in your office. In addition, when the vote is taken on the annexation resolution, which may occur during the next two weeks, would you please send me a copy of that resolution. As ever, your cooperation is greatly appreciated. HEP:km JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK RI~ISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 19, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Mr. John A. Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 Dear John: Enclosed herewith is a certified copy of the Southold Town Board's findings and conclusions with respect to the SEQR process in connection with your petition for annexation of 48.7 acres to the Village of Greenport. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associates, inc. Southold Town Planning Board Southo]d Town Building Department JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY '16, '1985: WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has received a petition for an annexation of some 48.7+ acres to the Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold has been designated as lead agency for this action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act on December 18, 1984. and WHEREAS, by resolution dated January 8, 1985. the Town Board as lead agency determined that the proposed action is a Type I action and likely to have a signifJ icant impact on the environment and that an environmental impact statement be prepared by the applicant. East End AsSOciates. and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Board and the Greenport Village Board, of Trustees conducted a joint public hearing on the annexation petition on December ,6, 1984, and WHEREAS, on February 15. 1985; one John A. Costello took title-to the premises. the subject of the proposed action, and WHEREAS, on March 5. 198'5 by letter to the Tow-n, of Southold and Village of Greenport agreed to complete the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS}, and WHEREAS. said DEIS was filed with the Town Clerk on March 11, 1985 and found to be complete and sufficient for reivew and circulated for public comment, and WHEREAS. a hearing on said DEIS was held on May 16, 1985 following a public comment period, and WHEREAS, by resolution dated June 4, 1985 the Town Board directed the applicant to prepare a final EIS (FEIS) to address concerns raised at the public hearing and by the Town Board, and WHEREAS. the comment period on said FEIS expired on July 8, 1985~, and WHEREAS, 6NYCRR 617.9(c) requires that the ~Town Board make findings before rendering a decision on the proposed action, now. therefore, be it RESOLVED that pursuant to 6NYCRR 617.9{c} the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby makes the fo]lowing findings for the petition of John A. Costello for 48.7 acres proposed to be annexed to the Village of Greenport: A. All SEQR Procedural Requirements Have Been Complied With. ~. All requirements of SEQR and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold have been complied with. 2. The Town Board has given consideration to the DEIS, public comments thereon, and the FEIS and comments thereon. Page 2 - John A. Costello B. The Proposed Annexation Will Not Have a Sic~nificant Adverse Effect on the Environment. 1. The annexation and subsequent rezoning to the R-1 Zoning classifica- tion of the Village of Greenport will not have a significant effect on the environment. 2. Potential negative impacts have been identified in the DEIS, and measures to mitigate adverse impacts have been proposed in the DEIs and FEIS. 3. Any proposed development on the premises proposed to be annexed to the Village of Greenport would be subject to a SEQR determination at the time it is submitted for local approval. C. Summary The SEQR findings can be summarized as follows: 1. The proposed annexation of 48.7 acres to the Village of Greenport will not have a significant effect on the en~fironment. 2. The concomitant rezoning from RA to R-1 will not have a significant effect on the environment. 3. Mitigative measures to minimize~ potential adverse impacts of development proposed under the Village Zoning Ordinance have been incorporated into the FEIS; 4. Development proposed in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Greenport would again be subject to SEQR at the time of submission. D. Conclusion 1. Consistent with Social, economic and other essential considerations, from among the reasonable alternatives examined in the SEQR process for the proposed'action under consideration minimizes adverse environ- mental effects to the maximum extended practicable, including the effects disclosed in the DEIS and FEIS. 2. Consistent with social, economic and other considerations, adverse impacts revealed in the SEQR process will be minimized to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating those mitigative measures in the DEIS and FEIS. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk I JUL 8 4390 Orchard Street Orient, New York 11957 July 3, 1985 Hon. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mrs. Terry: The Final Environmental Impact Statement submitted by John Costello for the annexation of 48.7 acres into the Village of Greenport is totally inadequate and does not support his conclusion that annexation and the resultant zone change from two-acre residential to one-quarter acre will have no significant environmental impact. Thedocument either does not address or else only gives the most superficial treatment to the nine points of concern specifically outlined in the Town Board Resolution of June 4, 1985. The FEI$ quotes from the North Fork Water Supply Plan and admits that the water supply conditions of the area are critical and that the Greenport water supply has "a steadily decreasing systems capability." To illustrate how "critical" the situation is, let's examine the facts. Water analyses performed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services during the month of June show that the chloride (salt) concentration in the Greenport water supply's wells and distribution system is approaching or at the limit established by New York State for drinking water (250 milligrams per liter). Samp!? Location 7-Eleven Store, Greenport Island's End Golf, Greenport E.L.I. Hospital, Greenport Well 4-6, East Marion Well 4-7, East Marion Well 4-8, East Marion Well 8, East Marion Chloride Date Concentration 5/16/85 105 mg/1 6/4/85 205 mg/1 6/17/85 223 mg/1 6/25/85 162 mg/1 6/25/85 161 mg/1 6/25/85 93 mg/1 6/25/85 250 mg/1 These figures indicate that the Greenport water supply is eurrentlM, operating at capacity for the area east of Arshamomaque Pond. Any increase in pumpage of these wells will be of saltwater, not fresh. That is the meaning of "critical," and is the reason why the North Fork Water Supply. Plan warns against the type of downzoning being requested. Hon. Judith Terry Page 2 July 3, 1985 As proposed, the 76 housing units and 9 commercial lots will require approximately four times the amount of water needed under the current two-acre zoning. As proposed, all water usage would be lost out the Greenport sewer outfall pipe, further exacerbating the problem. For some reason, the applicant does not consider quadrupuling the consumptive water use a significant effect on the environment. His reason is profit! The applicant can make a lot more money selling 85 lots as opposed to the 24 lots currently allowed. The Town of Southold doesn't have this incentive. We only stand to lose in this proposition. The FEIS states that a test well on the property was installed and pumped at a rate of 250 gallons per minute (gpm). However, a notation in Appendix 8 notes that the well was pumping approximately 100 gpm. Why is there a discrepancy of over 100 percent? No data on the drawdown or zone of influence of the pumping well were submitted. Does this zone of influence extend beyond the property's boundaries, and will the well be affected by road runoff? No guarantee that a well site will be deeded to the village is provided if the annexation is approved. Concerning sewage disposal, the FEIS states, "There is no question that the Greenport Village Sewage Plant is nearing its operating capacity unless modifications or improvements are accomplished." Recognizing this, does the applicant intend to fund the improvements needed to accommodate a project of this magnitude, or are the taxpayers expected to? Isn't the applicant looking for a free ride? A letter from a professional appraiser in the FEI$ states that, "...the annexation and development as 1/4 acre residential lot would not have a negative impact on the value of adjacent homes and vacant land in the Fleetwood and Eastern Shores subdivisions." The letter makes no mention of the proposed commercial zone's effect on home values. Nor does it compare the effect of one-quarter-acre zoning to the effects of development under the present two-acre zoning. Certainly, all parties involved realize that surrounding land values would benefit should the property be developed under current zoning as opposed to a mix of one-quarter-acre and commercial lots. Hon. Judith Terry Page 3 July 3, 1985 The best use of the property can be accomplished by retaining the current zoning with a mandated cluster on one-acre lots. If developed in this manner, approximately twenty acres of land would remain undeveloped and could be used as a watershed area for a desperately needed new village well site. Two-acre zoning was enacted by Southold to preserve the town's rural character, quality of life, and to protect the environment. No compelling reason is presented in the FEIS to cause the Town Board to denounce the wisdom of the current zoning. The applicant is a land speculator who purchased the property with the knowledge it was zoned two-acre residential. He is asking the town for a blank check to develop the property as he sees fit to maximize his profit. The FEIS repeatedly makes reference to a "hypothetical" development as if no building were planned for the site. Increasing the allowable density will only result in expensive homes on small lots, not "affordable housing." Speculators and the real estate industry will benefit. The rest of Southold's residents will suffer the consequences. I urge the Town Board to reject this annexation proposal as not in the best interests of Southold. Very truly yours, Martin Trent MT/lst cc Southold Town Board Box 608 Greenport, N.Y. 11941 June 27, 1985 Ms. Judith Terry Southold Town Clerk Box 728 Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: I have just reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement regarding the 48 acres of property at Moores Lane and Route 48 in Greenport. I object to the annexation of this property by the Village of Greenport for the following reasons: This statement does not address the primary subject of the environment, particularly as it regards the commercial usage of this property. Why is this very important aspect not included in this statement? Just how will this subject be determined? e As a taxpayer of the Town of Southold I object to giving away our tax money to the Village of Greenpert. I also feel the Town Board can better control the ultimate use of this property. There are no firm conclusions to many of the proposals -- almost all are hypothetical. Affordable housing seems to be the primary concern. I do not feel this is a subject for discussion with respect to the annexation. Perhaps at a later date when the subject of the environment is resolved it can again be aired. Yours truly, ~Wi~l~~~r WLS 443 Main Street · Greenport, New York 11S44 Telephone: [516] 477-2223 June 27, 1985 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 Dear Members of the Town Board; I am addressing you to reiterate my belief that affordable housing can be achieved to a controlled extent within our town; first by judicious use of zoning~ second by streamlining the regulatory process; and third by modifying unnecessary specifications. The proposed John Costello project could easily lead to affordable housing provided however, that two acre zoning was established for the site and grandfathered for a three year period after annexation. By this means any affected owner would have to improve the land with a dwelling unit within such period or forfeit the benefit of the less restrictive zoning, Zoning, at its best, should be utilized for the benefit of all. This is a classic opportunity to ensure that the use of judicious zoning will create affordable housing. Failure to provide such means would, in my opinion, be detrimental to the public interest. Ve~ truly HRM:vct L PROJECT' DESCR~ON:' An- ~exa~ioh: of ~pproxffnately 48 ~7 ac{'es Of land i~i- the {mln~o~p0- rated portion of the Southold FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ~TATEMENT ' ~ i Date:. 3une.17, i985 -,APPLIcaNT: j&m: Cost~,llo :, (for~nerly E~stEfld A~sociafies) ADDRESS: 20.6 Wiggins Lane .'GreenP0i~ ~ew ~'ork-119!4: PERMi~APpL/ED r0R ~ND ........... :'-: ..... ": i June 20;I985 ' NeW York 11971 (516) 765-1801 ' ITJ20.4928 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ! SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) .~.'I~A T,~.~T~R of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, e Weekly Newspaper, published et Greenport, 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 one weeks successively, commencing on the 2 0 day of June 19 85 Principal Clark Sworn to before me this 2 0 ANN M. ABATE ¢~/.~, June I~CSA~Y PUBLIC State of N~w iff OF COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK SS: Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Watchman once each week for .................... ./. ..... weeks successively, commencing on the .......... .~.f. ........ .... Sworn to before me this ~-d ~ day of ......... .,~.../~.. ........ 19 ..... Notary Public BARBARA FORBES N~a~ry Public, State of New York No. (luaIifie4 ~ Suffolk Co~y ~m~ion E~k~ M~ ~, 19 ~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT Of FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: June 17, 1985 APPLICANT: John Costello (formerly East End Associates) ADDRESS: 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. PROJECT LOCA:'FION: At the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and the eastorly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: SouthO!d Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than July 8, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JUNE 20, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH To TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk's Bulletin~Board Charles T:. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport John Costello Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associal~es, inc. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Date: June 17, 1985: APPLICANT: John Costello (formerly East End Associates) ADDRESS: · 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. PROJECT LOCATION.: At the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48)and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is 'on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental lmp~act Statement may be revieWed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than July 8, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JUNE 20, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE {I) AFFIDAVIT OF: PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALLs MAIN ROAD~ SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Town Clerk!s Bulletin' Board ChariesT. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport John Costello Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associates, Inc. JUDITH T. TERRY TowN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OFTHE TOWN CLERK TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-i801 NOTICE OF RECEIPT OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT .STATEMENT Date: June 17, 1985 APPLICANT: John Costello (formerly East End Associal~es) ADDRESS: 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 PERMIT APPLIED FOR AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport. PROJECT LOCATION: At the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport. SEQR DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Statement has been prepared on this project and is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk. SEQR LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: The Final Environmental Impact Statement may be reviewed at the address listed below. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person indicated below no later than July 8, 1985. CONTACT PERSON: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold, Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York 11971 (516) 765-1801 PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, JUNE 20, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALLs MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Southold Town Planning Board Southoid Town ~3uilding Department Town Clerk's f~u~letin Board Charles~T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport John Costello Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associates, Inc. June 17, 1985 JOHN A. COSTELLO 206 WIGGINS LANE GREENPORT, NEW YORK - 11944 Mrs. Judith T. Terry Southoid Town Clerk P. O. Box 728 Southold, L~ I. New York 11971 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Annexation Petition of November ?, 1984. Dear Mrs. Terry: In response to the To~n Board's Resolution of June 4, 1985, I am pleased to transmit fifteen {15) copies of an Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (D.E.I.S.) regarding the subject petition. As discussed by the SEQRA guidelines, this Addendum, when taken in combination with the D.E.I.S., constitutes the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed action. CC: Sincerely, < A. Costeilo Charles T. Hamilton. DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Nililams, DEC, Albany Southoid Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenpor5 William W. Esseks, Esq. JAC/iw FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Cover Sheet Letter of Transmittal Page i ii 1.0 INTRODUCTION: ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 2. ~ SUMMARY 3 3.0 .1 RESPONSE TO MATTERS OF CONCERN STATED IN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION OF JUNE 4, 1985 Projected Cost of Housing Lots and Covenant Procedures .2 Water Supply From Village of Greenport Municipal System and Guarantees From Village of Availability Regarding Water and Sewer Service Analysis of On-Site Well Development and Its Availability to the Village of Greenport. Potential Adverse Impacts to Well Water Quality From N.Y.S.D.O.T. Drainage Project .......... 14 .4 Special Public Improvement District Alternative 2~ .5 Appraisal Information 23 .6 Other Comments Made at The Public Hearing of May 16, 1985 on the D.E.i.S. and In The Middleton/ Kontokosta Associates, Ltd. Letter of April 11, 1985 - 25 .6i General ..................... 25 .62 Compliance With Master Plans - Town of Southold and Village of Greenport 26 .63 Location and Former Use 27 .64 Water Resources, Geology, and Ground Water 29 .65 Sewage Capacity/Availability .......... 36 .66 Transportation 37 .6? Demographic Factors ............... 37 .68 Cultural Resources 37 .69 Impacts of the Proposed Action/Mitigation Measures 39 .?~ Public Hearing ................. 41 INDEX OF APPENDICES APPENDIX NO. t - SEQR DOCUMENTATION - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - - A-1 APPENDIX NO. 2 - DEIS WRITTEN COMMENT BY MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. APPENDIX NO. 3 - PUBLIC HEARING RECORD A-2 ~A-3 APPENDIX NO. 4 - SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. RECOMMENDATION TO LEAD AGENCY A-4 APPENDIX NO. 5 - TABLE OF PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION ............. APPENDIX NO. 6 - LETTER FROM LONG ISLAND CHAPTER, NYS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION A-5 A-6 APPENDIX NO. ? - SUFFOLK TIMES LETTER TO THE EDITOR FEBRUARY 14, 1985 A-? APPENDIX NO. 8 - TEST WELL DATA APPENDIX NO. 9 - PROPOSED LOT COVENANT PROCEDURES A-9 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE FIGURE 1 - COMPARISONS OF APPROXIMATE COSTS FIGURE 2 - LOCATOR MAP 28 Section INTRODUCTION: ADDENDUM TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT This submittal, amended to an taken together with the original submittal entitled "Draft Environmental Impact Statement", March 1985, constitutes the "Final Environmental Impact Statement". All procedures have been followed by the Applicant and lead agency as prescribed by the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act. This submittal is in response to the Southold Town Board's Resolution of June 4, 1985, wherein the Town Board, in its role as lead agency, determined that the Applicant, John A. Costello, be requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement that would address nine (9) "matters of concern" specifically identified within said Resolution. See Appendix 1. Consistent with the Town Board's request, this submittal contains response to all applicable comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement received either in writing during the comment period of March 14 to April 14, 1985, during the public hearing conducted on May 16, 1985, or as further stated within the Town Board's June 4, 1985, Resolution. The single written comment that was received on the D.E.I.S., that being from Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd., representing Stirling Eastern Shores,'appears as Appendix 2. Appendix 3 is a record of the public hearing testimony received from twenty-six (26) individuals and representatives of the following two (2) organizations: The North Fork Environmental Council and the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce. A representative of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd. also appeared at the public hearing to reiterate the firm's previously submitted written comments. Though not stated for the record, both Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd., and one of the individual speakers, Mr. Howard Pachman, reportedly represented the Stirting Eastern Shores Property Owners Association. Consistent with the advice provided to the lead agency by its Environmental Consultant, Szepatowski Associates, Inc. in the Memorandum identified as Appendix 4, this submittal is not "an exhaustive time consuming reply requiring contemporaneous studies", but is organized as an appropriately direct response to the major points presented in the written and verbal testimony and by the Town Board in its Resolution. These major points have been categorized and appear within this F.E.I.S. in Section Section 2.~ SUMMARY The D.E.I.S. was specifically prepared to address environmental impacts from a proposed change of the municipality of Southold Town to the Village of Greenport, with the resultant change in residential zoning density of two (2) acres to one-quarter (1/4) acre. The various comments and questions relating to specific development of the site, while appreciated, would be more appropriately considered at the time of submittal of the proposed specific development plan, and thereby would receive consideration in the next phase of the SEQRA process. The majority of input during the public hearing was in support of the project as a means to provide affordable housing. While these comments do not specifically address the D.E.I.S., the interest and concern is understandable in light of the fact that the recently prepared Draft Southold Town Master Plan states that "the problem of affordable housing is a pressing one in the Town of $outhold". It is concluded that there is little opposition to the annexation proposal as it relates to change of zoning and residential housing. This is evident from the following quote from the President of Stirling Eastern Shores Property Owners Association in a letter to the editor of the February 14, 1985 Suffolk Times: "Further, our organization is not opposed to the proposed housing but we are definitely opposed to the commercial aspects". Considerable concern was raised as to the availability of water supply as a result of increased housing from the proposed annexation, and frequent reference was made to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, of March 1983. The conclusion from this report is best summed in a quote from this report as follows: "Groundwater supply conditions in Zone 4 (Greenport/Southold) are also critical, although there are some extra available supply (0.9 mgd available versus 0.63 mgd required)" The 0.63 mgd requirements is based on total projected domestic and agricultural consumptive use for year 200~. This report further recommends the development of a municipal water supply system within this area and the adjacent franchise area of the Greenport Village System. This recommendation of expansion of this Municipal System is best summarized by the reports statement, "Adequate supply exists in Zones 3 and 4 to meet Greenport's needs". In all probability, the most compelling reason to consider the proposed annexation is the guarantee and stated availability of water and sewer service by the Village of Greenport to the residences and other business within the Incorporated Village. If this hypothetical development was to take place outside of the Incorporated Village, then the additional utility hook-up costs would be entailed, and ~ even more importance, are those firms, organizations and individuals who are already on the list requesting water and sewer services. As it is the ~policy of the Village of Greenport to service new customers outside the Incorporated Village on a first come first serve basis, this project would be added to the end of the increasingly long list to. utilize a steadily decreasing systems capability. Based on the material developed and reviewed for the Addendum to the D.E.I.S. (Final E.I.S.) it is concluded that the annexation of this parcel to the Village of Greenport and its change of zoning from two (2) acres to one-quarter (1/4) acre with its hypothetical residential development of one hundred and seventy (170) can be accomplished without significant impact or detriment to the environment, surrounding land uses, or adjacent man-made systems. Section RESPONSE TO MATTERS OF CONCERN STATED IN SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD RESOLUTION OF JUNE 4, 1985 The specific responses to the items in this Resolution have been categorized and grouped into the following sub- sections: 3.1 - Projected Cost of Housing Lots and Covenant Procedures. 3.2 - Hater Supply from Village of Greenport Municipal System and Guarantees from Village of Availability Regarding Hater and Sewer Service. 3.3 - Analysis of On-Site Well Development and Its Availability to the Village of Greenport. Potential Adverse Impacts to Well Hater Quality From N.Y.S.D.O.T. Drainage Project. 3.4- Special Public Improvement District Alternative. 3.5 Appraisal Information. 3.6 Responses to Comments and Questions Presented at the Public Hearing of May 16, 1985 on the D.E.I.S. and in the Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd. Letter of April 11, 1985. 3.1 PROJECTED COST OF HOUSING LOTS AND COVENANT PRECEDURES The projected cost of housing lots, taxes, and utility hook- ups are compared in the following table (Figure 1), Again it should be remembered that these costs reflect the one- quarter (1/4) acre size of lots with the total number of units equaling one hundred and seventy (170) of the maximum that this parcel could be divided into. For information purposes, it needs to be mentioned that the developer plans to, in actuality, submit plans for somewhat lesser density to include more open space and potential well development areas. This would reduce the overall density, and would consquently make the individual lots somewhat more expensive, as noted in Figure 1. In a response to Town of Southold's Resolution and the extent of interest expressed in affordable housing, proposed measures have been developed to i_nsure the reasonableness of these lots to low and moderate income people. This proposed methodology is contained in Appendix 9, which also includes the Town of Southampton's moderate income housing agreements. COMPARISONS OF APPROXIMATE COSTS iANNEXATION INTO GREENPORT TOWN TOWN TOWN 1/4 Acre 1/4 Acre 1 Acre 2 Ac~es 170 Units 170 Units 44 Units 22 Units Estimated 1 Lot Costs $ 15,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 43,000.00 $ 60,000.~ Estimated Taxes/Yr. $ 2,043.00 $ 1,657.00 $ 2,566.00 $ 2,657.~ Water & $ -- $ 2,170.00 $ 2,170.00 $ 2,170.~ Sewer $ -- $ 2,575.00 $ 2,575.00: $ 2,575.~ Hook-Ups (Key money 'charges)~ Estimated Water & Sewer Rates/Yr. $ 222.54 $ 296.97 $ 296.97 $ 296.9] Service connection charges are in addition and are the same for inside and outside the Village. NOTE: The actal proposed development will result in seventy-six (76) building lots slightly larger than one-third (1/3) acre in size (including the eleven plus (11+) acres of open space, but excluding roads - in effect clustering). The projeced cost per lot will be approximately $20,000.00~ Taxes - $2,150.00. 1 Lower because of expected Village street specifications. FIGURE 1 3.2 WATER SUPPLY FROM VILLAGE OF GREENPORT MUNICIPAL SYSTEM AND GUARANTEES FROM VILLAGE OF AVAILABILITY REGARDING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE. It is, Greenport's policy that the Village will service all customers with municipal water which are inside the incorporated bounds of the Village. The fee for the hook-up within the Village is at no cost, while outside the Village it is two thousand one hundred and seventy dollars per residential unit. It is also Village policy for applicants outside the Village to be serviced in order of the receipt of the request. Because of the number of requests already received for Village municipal water hook- up, this particular project would be way down the list and a number of years away before hook-up could be considered. This long wait for hook-up would seriously impact the viability of this particular project. In addition to water hook-up charge, there is also a Village charge for hook-up to the public sewer in the amount of two thousand five hundred and seventy-five dollars ($2,575.~0). This means there would be a total cost to an outside resident for hook-up of four thousand seven hundred and forty-five dollars ($4,745.0~)~ 9 In addition to the above~ the sewer and water rates are lower for Incorporated VillaGe residents than those outside. The difference is $222.54 for inside versus $296.9? for outside. Details and verification of the above are covered in the enclosed letter from the VillaGe of Greenport. Of Jt¢¢r.f MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES JEANNE M. COOPER GAlL F. HORTON DAVID E. KAPELL WlLLIAM H. LIEBLEIN SU[q'. OF UTILITIES JAMES 1. MONSELL Vi[[a e of green?od 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 UTILITY OFFICE TEL. (516). 477-1748 POWER PLANT TEL. (516) 477-0172 June 14, 1985 Mr. John Costello Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Proposed Annexation Dear Mr. Costello: In reply to your recent inquiry concerning the Village of Greenport's policy in relation to electric supply, water supply and sanitary sewage service to areas within the Village limits and outside the Village limits. This policy is pertinent to your property on Route 48, near the corner of North Road and Moores Lane, Greenport, N.Y. SEWER POLICY Any structure within the Village must be connected to the public sanitary sewer system. This is a Local Law -Article II, 69-2C . The Village is not obligated to service anyone or to provide facilities to anyone or any project outside the Village. For projects within the Village, the Utility does not charge any upfront key money. For projects outside the Village the Utility has a key money charge of $ 2,575.00 per dwelling unit. The key money is to assure the capability of the plant to be able to Serve the consumer. This charge is reflected in recent contracts with the Village. Il Mr. John Costello 2 June 14, 1985 WATER SUPPLY POLICY It is the policy of the Village that they must serve all applications within the Village boundaries. Ail requests within the Village have top priority for service. Depending upon the capability of the production plant, the Water Utility will serve the requests outside the Village but within the Franchise area on a numbered list basis. For projects within the Village the Utility does not charge any upfront key money. For projects outside the Village the Utility has a key money charge of $ 2,170.00 per dwelling unit. The key money is to assure the capability of the production plant and transmission facilities to be able to serve the consumer. This charge is reflected in recent contracts with the Village. ELECTRIC SERVICE The Village. Electric system must serve all residents and applications within the Village limits. The Village Electric System may serve areas outside the Village but within the Greenport Electric Franchise (Administrative Law Judge Decision - Public Service Commission - April 26,1977). It would be to the advantage of the consumer to be served by the Greenport Municipal Electric System. Out of Pocket Benefits of being within the Village 1.) Village residents pay water user rates 10% lower than outside users. 2.) Village residents pay sewer user rates 33% lower than outside users. 3.) Consumers on the Village electric system pay 40% less than the surrounding area. 4.) Village residents pay no tax money for fire hydrant protection. It is a contribution from the Water Department. 5.) Village residents pay no tax money for Village Street Lighting System. 6.) Village residents pay no tax money for water and sewer service to public buildings. John Costello . 3 June 14, 1985 I hope I have answered your inquiry and if I may be of further service, please call. Very truly yours, James I. Monsell Superintendent of Public Utilities JIM:jg cc: Mayor George Hubbard Village Board of Trustees Village Attorney, John Munzet 3.3 ANALYSIS OF ON-SITE WELL DEVELOPMENT AND ITS AVAILABILITY TO THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT. POTENTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS TO WELL HATER QUALITY FROM N.Y.S.D.O.T. DRAINAGE PROJECT. As mentioned in the D.E.I.S., if annexation takes place and a specific development plan is prepared, it would be proposed to make available in this development plan one or two well sites to be set aside for well development for the specific purpose of augmenting Greenport's municipal water supply. So as to have preliminary well development information available, the applicant has had a test well installed, test pumping accomplished, and water tests taken. These water tests, prepared both by EcoTest Laboratories, Inc. and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services are enclosed as Appendix 8. The test well was installed to a depth of fifty- seven (57) feet. The static water level measured to be eleven (1i) feet from surface. The well was pumped at a rate of two hundred and fifty (250) gallons per minute for a period of six (6) hours on May 9, 1985, before having the water test taken. The test results were surprisingly excellent, with a chloride of 12 mg/L, and a pH of 6.4, nitrates of less than 0.5 mg/L, and no evidence of organic chemicals. The test well location was selected by Peconic Associates, based on previously developed geological and groundwater data, plus an on-site analysis that a well in 14 this location could very possibly be used to take advantage of the ground filtered recharge water collected in Silver Lake. To help preserve this water quality, the recommendations for a sedimentation and separator basin developed by Peconic Associates and Gannett Fleming during the preliminary engineering of the Third Street drainage project should be incorporated into any design of this particular flood correction project. As requested by the lead agency, an inquiry was made as to the design of the flood control project presently being constructed at the intersection of County Road 48 and Route 25 (Route 25, Main Street, Greenport) to ascertain if this project could potentially adversely impact the quality of water at this proposed well site. By direct visit on Monday, June 1~, 1985, to New York State D.O.T. it was learned from discussions and review.of plans that this particular project will provide a direct discharge from the highway and adjacent street collection into the wetlands between State Route 25 and County Road 48, the western most edge of which is one thousand to fifteen hundred feet from one of the proposed well sites. Direct discharge is interpreted that there is no collection basin or diversion methods for sedimentation, oil separation, or other potentially harmful pollutants. As of the above date, both the New York State D.O.T. and D.E.C. indicated that a freshwater wetlands permit for this discharge had not yet been issued. (It was later learned that a permit, ~ 10-85-~177 was issued as of the previous Friday, June ?, 1985.) He were unable to obtain a copy of the permit to include in this E.I.S. We were told, however, that the permit provided replacement of existing twenty-four (24) inch drain lines, and did not include any new or additional drainage area into the wetlands. A site inspection shows that only a twelve (12) inch line exists across the road between two curb inlets and apparently does not extend to the area east of the traffic circle where the new drain inlets are being constructed. The Village of Greenport passed a Resolution on December 2~, 1984 requesting the N.Y.S.D.O.T. provide an environmental impact statement on this project because of concerns of possible pollution to ground water in the Silver Lake area. N.Y.S.D.O.T. performed a ~etlands Analysis Report for chlorides. It is felt that the scope of this F.E.I.S. should not include the environmental assessment of another project, which logically should have had its own SEQRA process. The Town of Southold, however, is urged to take whatever appropriate action is necessary to insure that this State D.O.T. drainage project would not potentially adversely impact the wells of the homes in the area, the proposed 16 O~C~$ MAYOR GEORGE W. HUBBARD TRUSTEES WILLIAM D. ALLEN DAVID E. KAPELL SAMUEL KATZ WILLIAM H. LII~BLEIN 236 THIRD STREET GREENPORT, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK 11944 TELF~HONE (516) 477-2~ CLERK NANCY W. COOK TREASURER JOHN F. COUGHLIN At a meeting of the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees held on December 20, 1984 at the Village Hall, 236 Third Street, Greenport, New York, the following resolution was adopted: A motion was made by Trustee Lieblein, seconded by Trustee Kapell and carried to adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION WHEREAS the State of New York is contemplating a drainage facility under Drainage Plan State of New York PIN 0041.64 Route 25, Greenport, N. Y., and WHEREAS there has been no Environmental Impact Statement filed 'for the proposed project, and WHEREAS there are some private wells in the area for drinking water, and the area has a large cIay shelf underlying the proposed project, there could be a lateral movement of the polluted water in to Silver Lake, a possible future water source for the Village of Greenport Water Distribution system, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village of Greenport requests that the State Department of Transportation provide an Environmental Impact Statement and further that the Village of Greenport have an active role in the production of such statement. STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the official seal of the Village of Greenport o~ the County of Suffolk. / (~'~.~-~/~ ~.. / January 29~ 1984. Seal Nancy W. Coo~, Village Clerk Dated 16-A THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I, Nancy W. Cook, Clerk of the Village of Greenport of the County of Suffolk, have compared the foregoing copy of the resolution adopted by the Village of Greenport Board of Trustees on Dec. 20, 1984; and that the same is a true and correct transcript of said resolution and of the whole thereof. future well sites of this project, and the municipal water supply of the VillaGe of Greenport. The applicant for this proposed action, John A. Costello, has expressed concern in regard to the above New York State D.O.T. project in the enclosed letter to New York State D.E.C. 17 JOHN A. COS?ELLO 296 WIGGINS LANE GREENPORT, NEW YORK - 11944 June 13, 1985 Mr. Robert Green Regional Permit Administrator New York State Department of Environmental Conservation State University of New York Building ~ 49 Stony Brook, L. I, New York - 11794 Dear Mr. Green: I am writing this letter regarding Permit F} 19-85-9177 issued June 7th to the New York State Department of Transportation for the reconstruction of an existing ~ositive drainage system just east of the traffic circle ntersection of County Road 48 and Route 25 in Greenport. It is my understanding from discussions with Dave DeRitter of the N.Y.S.D.E.C. that the project is a reconstruction of existing system discharging into a fresh water wetlands. An investigation of plans at D.O.T, office and a look at the site indicate to me that there is a possibility that the drainage volume could increase considerably and possibly adversely impact existing and proposed potable water supply systems including the Village of Greenport well sites. As a party in interest (I am in the process of developing a 48+ acres parcel approximately 1599 feet West-Southwest of the wetland discharge) can your organization provide positive assurance that this drainage project will not adversely impact the quality of groundwater in this adjacent area? Mr. Robert Green June 13, 1985 Page 2 I would appreciate an immediate response to this concern. CC: Sincerely, · Costello Assemblyman Joseph Sawicki Assemblyman John Behan Southold Town Board Trustees of the Village of Greenport JAC/iw 3.4 SPECIAL PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ALTERNATIVE The Town Board's Resolution requests that the creation of a special public improvement district within the Town of Southold be examined as an alternative to the action proposed. While the establishment of a public improvement district may occur as outlined within the attached June 7, 1985 Memorandum from the Town's Environmental Consultants, Szepatowski Associates, Inc., major obstacles to the development proposed subsequent to annexation would not be resolved by the public improvement district's creation. A contract would still be required within the Town-Outside- Village area for water and sewer service from the Village of Greenport, and the 48-acre tract would remain subject to the residential density requirements provided by the Town's Zoning Ordinance~ density standards which are, in fact, based upon criteria for sound land use planning and development in areas unserviced by municipal water and sewer. Further, the additional economic arguments raised within Section 5.1 of the D.E.I.S. would not be addressed, these being the annexation benefit of an avoidance of estimated hook-up charges of $4,745.00 per lot in the Town- Outside-Village area and the reduction in basic land and 2~ infrastructure per lot Created under the Village of Greenport's 1/4 acre, R-1 zoning, as contrasted to the Town of Southold's current 2 acre zoning of the tract, or even the Master Plan's suggestion that 1 acre zoning perhaps occur at this location. 21 iZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONM£NTAL CONSULTANTS S/II MEMORANDUM TO: Peconic Associates, Inc. FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. RE: Greenport Village Annexation FEIS Date: June 7, 1985 Pursuant to our conversation of June 6 regarding the alternative of the establishment of a public improvement district, the steps involved are re'latively easy in this case since at this time there is only one property owner, Mr. Costello. Basically, it involves the property owners' petition, preparation of a legal description and boundary map of the district, a public hearing, a vote of the property owners in the district and approval by the Town Board. Approval from the State Comptroller is also necessary. .?hatever improvements are to be made in the district are designed .-and constructed in the same manner as any other public improvement district, e.g. road improvement, parking etc. The cost of the improvement then becomes a special tax levy on property owners in the district either on a lot size or frontage basis. The unusual circumstance here is that only one property owner is involved. How a vote would be handled in this case would require a legal opinion. For such legal opinion, I would suggest the Town Attorney be consulted. cc: Supervisor Murphy 22 Z3 Narraganser~ Ave. lames[own. RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 3.5 APPRAISAL INFORMATION Based on the following letter from Larsen Appraisal Services it is concluded that the development of this property into one-quarter (1/4) acre residential lots would not adversely impact the value of adjacent homes and vacant land in the Fleetwood and Eastern Shores sub-divisions. The majority of lots in these sub-divisions are one-quarter (1/4) and one- third (1/3) acre respectively, and are not serviced by municipal sewers. 23 LARS~N APPRAISAL SERVICES Real Estate Valuation and Consultation 54075 Main Road, Suite 2 West Southold. New York 11971 (5t6) 765-1993 June 13, 1985 Mr. Merle Wiggins Peconic Associates Bootleg Alley Front Street Greenport, New York 11944 RE: Costello Property corner of Moores Lane and County Road 48 Legal: District 1000 Section 40 Block 05 Lot 00] Dear Mr. Wiggins, Pursuant to our discussion this letter is to confirm our conversations in March in regards to the affect of 1/4 acre development of the above captioned parcel in reference to surrounding neighborhoods. It is my opinion as a professional appraiser that the annexation and development as 1/4 acre residential lot would not have a negative impact on the value of adjacent homes and vacant land in the Fleetfield and Eastern Shores subdivisions. I hope this letter is satisfactory for your purposes and thank you for the opportunity to have been of service. Respectfully submitted, i~a~rce E. La,sen~,~Pres. LARSEN APPRAISAL SERVICES LEL:smy 24 3.6 OTHER COMMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING OF MAY 16, 1985 ON THE D.E.I.S AND IN THE MIDDLETON/KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. LETTER OF APRIL 11, 1985. 3.61 General The response, both to the hearing and the above referenced letter are being addressed together by subject matter group as listed below. In preparing this response it needs to be emphasized that the D.E.I.S. addressed only the hypothetical environmental impact of the jurisdictional shift of a certain tract of land from Southold Town to the Village of Greenport, which automatically, if accomplished, would change permissible residential density of that tract from one dwelling per two (2) acres to a residential density of one-quarter (1/4) acre per dwelling. This change in itself does not physically impact the site, nor does the change impact any utility usage. Hypothetical environmental impacts discussed are those that could occur if the use of the property went from twenty-four (24) permitted single family residences within the Town of Southold to a maximum of one hundred and seventy (170) residential units within the Village of Greenport. Alternatives to this change, that have been suggested, such as mixed use, larger lots, clustering, and other related considerations, should be addressed in the next phase of the project, if it should occur~ namely the actual planned development of the property. 25 During the public hearing a large number of responses addressed the subject of affordable housing. It was very evident that while this subject was of primary concern to the people in attendance at the public hearing, and while this is understood and appreciated, these comments did not specifically address or review the items in the D.E.I.S. 3.62 Compliance With Master Plans - Town of Southold and Village of Greenport Both the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold have Master Plans in the process of being completed. In the preparation of the D.E.I.S., drafts of both these Master Plans were reviewed. The proposed action is in general compliance with both the Village of Greenport Waterfront Revitalization Plan (Master Plan) and the proposed Town of Southold Master Plan/Zoning Regulations in the following areas: o The Village of Greenport Plan recommended in its initial draft that annexation of this property be considered as being the logical location for middle income housing and increased, non-polluting commercial type activity, because of its proximity to the Incorporated Village and the availability of water, sewer, and electrical service. The Southold Town Zoning Regulations proposal includes a hamlet density (HD) residential district around the major hamlet areas of Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, and the Village of Greenport, to promote the provision of lower cost housing in these hamlet and village areas where utilities exist, or may be provided, and where public facilities and commercial activities are available. See pages IV-t and IV-2 of April 1985 draft of the Town of Southold Proposed Zoning Regulations. The proposed hamlet density stated within the Town Master Plan is four (4) units per acre with public water and sewer. As both of these are potentially available if the site is annexed into the Village of Greenport, this hypothetically proposed use is in direct compliance with the density standard recommended by the proposed $outhold Town Master Plan for sites fully serviced by municipal wa~er and sewer. 3.63 Location and Former Use A locator map of the site is included as Figure 2. According to local knowledge, the land was last used agriculturally in 1964. As part of the Moore estate it had been farmed probably prior to 1900. 2? SITE STIRI~ING SOUTHOLD \ '~ ~ Para&se ' PIPES COVE 28 1965 LOCATOR MAP 65 FIG 2 3.64 Water Resources, Geology, and Ground Water If the site is annexed into the Village of Greenport, the Village is required to provide water to the site. The Village Utilities section has determined that water is available within the limits of present supply and reserve capacity to service this particular site at the density proposed. In making proper determinations and judgements in regard to the availability and potential of public water supply for the Greenport area, reference should be made to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, prepared by ERM Northeast in April of 1983. The executive summary of this report concludes that, based on a year 2000 forecast of 2?00 dwelling units, the Greenport Municipal System should be able to supply this number of residences using available local water resources. The Plan recommended upgrading an existing well system with a reverse osmosis treatment plant and a possible new well system in the Great Pond area. After these are accomplished, it recommends that Greenport actively expand service into the areas adjacent to the existing system. The Plan estimated that the year 20~0 maximum daily demand for the Greenport system is 1,780 g.p.m., which the report states can be supplied from existing wells and improvement to one other well, plus a new well field that would be placed in service along with some additional storage capability, and treatment to remove nitrates. The North Fork Water Supply Plan thoroughly discusses the geology 29 and the glacial deposits of the Pleistocene age, which is the upper glacial deposit that provides the basis of water supply on the North Fork. During the public hearing, specific comments and questions were raised in regard to the order of priority on the requests for water supply now pending before the Village of Greenport. The number of seven hundred and ninety-four (794) dwelling units was used as already on request. This very concern gets to the very root of the basic reasons for anneMation. If the property is annexed into the Village of Greenport, then this property will receive priority over those that are requesting water and sewer service in areas outside of the Village of Greenport. While the hypothetical development evaluated for purposes of environmental review of the proposed annexation with its hypothetical one hundred and seventy (170) residential units does not provide space for a public water supply, the potential for additional wells on this site discussed in the D.E.I.S. will also be considered under the actual specific site planning. 30 During the public hearing, a representative of the Suffolk County Health Department expressed concern about the availability of public water supply for affordable housing on this particular project. It should be realized that any affordable housing project will invariably require public water supply and sewer, due to its increased density. As the Town is presently planning on supporting an increase in the number of affordable housing units within the community, they will, in all probability, require sites which can be served by public water and sewer. During the public hearing, specific reference was also made to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, dated April 1983. So the comments made during the public hearing may not be taken out of context, page 1.3 of this document is contained herein. If this document is going to be used as a reference for available water supply, the basic conclusions stated on this page should be referenced. Ground water supply conditions in Zone 4, Greenport - Southold are critical, but there is some extra supply available (~.9 m.g.d, available vs. 0.63 m.g.d. required by year 200M as depicted in Table 1-1.) For identification purposes, Zones 1 through 5 are depicted in Figure 4-1 from subject report, contained herein. Table 8- 27 of this report makes a comparison of alternatives for the Greenport-Southold demand center. The recommended 31 In order to estimate the total quantity of groundwater that may be withdrawn from larger capacity public supply wells from each water supply zone, water budget areas were delineated. Substantial amounts of groundwater are available outside of the budget areas but, to avoid saltwater intrusion, can only be withdrawn by small, domestic capacity well s. In zones I and 2, the budget areas were defined as those locations where the groundwater level is 5 feet or more above sea level, In zones 3, 4 and 5, the availability of groundwater is more limited, so the bu¢lget area boundary was defined as the 2-foot groundwater con- tour. A total of approximately 41.2 mgd of fresh groundwater is available from the budget areas. An additional 10 to 20 mgd is available for domestic wells outside the budget areas. The results of the water budget analysis, ~y zone, are shown below in Table 1-1, which also includes consumptive use projections for the year 2000. Conclusion. Sufficient fresh groundwater is available to satisfy the needs of"the overall planning area. nowever, critical water supply conditions exist in Zone 5 (Orient) w~ere projected requir(~ents are approximately equal to available supply. Groundwater supply condi- tions in Zone 4 .(Greenport/Southold) are also critical although there is some extra available supply (0.9 mgd available versus 0.63 mgd re- quired). TABLE 1-1 WATER BUDGETS AND CONSUMPTIVE USE PROJECTIONS Permissive Domestic Water Sustained Yield, Consumptive Use, Supply Budget Area Year 2000 Zone (mgd } (mgd) Agricultural Consumptive Use, Year 2000 (mgd) I 29.4 2.25 2 5.6 0.97 3 4.9 1.18 4 0.9 0.59 5 0.4 0.11 TOTALS 41.2 5.10 3.06 3.06 2.80 0.04 0.35 9.31 1-3 - 4 CD CD ,_3 0 F. zJ C~ · ..I · ,,,"n · ,,... mi mm m I I I I I [ | | | ~--- o~o~o~o~.~o~'J~_ .0o~ ~o~o~ LI.J ,-J alternative is Level III, which is a municipal type distribution system. Implementation of the Level III is recommended, with the report stating: " ..... adequate supply exists in Zones 3 and 4 to meet Greenport's needs," It is not the intent of this review to express an opinion or make comment whether the North Fork Water Supply Plan contains adequate recommendations for water supply for the Greenport- Southold area. If, however, it is to be used as a reference as stated in the public hearing, then accurate reporting of the specific items in the report pertaining to this area should be included. If the Town of S~uthold is going to support an increased amount of hamlet density residential areas, as specifically recommended in the proposed Southold Town Master Plan, then this particular site is probably one of the few.in the Town that can meet the requirements for this density without a significant increase in Public services due to its proximity to in-place municipal water and sewer systems. 35 3.65 Sewage Capacity/Availability During the public hearing, questions were raised as to the availability of capacity within the Greenport Village Sewage Treatment Plant to handle the hypothetically proposed project, particularly when other institutions and organizations have asked the Village permission for hook- ups. There is no question that the Greenport Village Sewage Plant is nearing its operating capacity unless modifications or improvements are accomplished. Again, one of the basic reasons for requesting annexation is to place this site within the jurisdictional boundary of the Village of Greenport so the developer does not have to take his place in line for hook-up to available capacity. If the project is within the Village of Greenport, priority will, as a matter of existing policy, be given over those outside of the Village of Greenport. Also, reference needs to be made to the Suffolk County Health Department requirements that cesspools will not be considered on density of one-quarter acre. Therefore, it is mandatory that a project of the type and density hypothetically developed must include hook-up to a public sewer system. 36¸ 3.66 Transportation Peak hour traffic flow is included in Section 3.21 in the D.E.I.S. Middle Road and County Road 48 are identical and the traffic surveys reference Middle Road as the same as County Road 48. 3.67 Demographic Factors As the D.E.I.S. only addressed a hypothetical change from two (2) acre to one-quarter (1/4) acre zoning, distribution density and household size was not considered an appropriate item to include in this D.E.I.S., but should be addressed under the planning process for this specific application in the next stage. A table of present and projected population for Greenport, Southold, and Shelter Island is included as Appendix 5. 3.68 Cultural Resources As the actual jurisdictional transfer of the site from one municipality to another does not cause any site work excavation to take place, the investigation of aboriginal habitation is felt to be more appropriate as part of the development planning process. For information purposes, however, enclosed as Appendix 6 is a letter from the Incorporated Long Island Chapter of the New York State 37 Archaeological Association stating its representative's opinion that there is no record of any Indian occupation of this particular site. The discussion of social factors including community views, and opposition to or support for the project, is adequately covered in the Public Hearing Report which appears as Appendix 3. The opposition to the annexation was apparently spearheaded by the Stirling Eastern Shores Property Owners Association, which was represented by Middleton, Kontokosta Associates and Mr. Howard Pachman, and recorded in M.K.A.'s 'letter of April 11, 1985 which is enclosed as Appendix 2. Curiously, in the letter from the Stirling Eastern Shores Property Owners Association to the Suffolk Times, dated February 14, 1985, the President of the organization, Mr. Emanuel Abate, writes as follows: " ..... our organization is not opposed to the proposed housing, we are definitely opposed to commercial aspects". Again, the annexation action proposed applies only to a change of jurisdiction for the annexed parcel between municipalities and change of permissible lot size from two (2) acre residential to one- quarter (1/4) acre residential. Any further input regarding specific planning for the forty-eight (48) acre parcel should be addressed at the time of the development of a specific plan for the tract, at which time both the public 38 and the planners will have an opportunity to make input on the specific use of the property. The above referenced letter to the Suffolk Times in enclosed as Appendix ?. 3.69 Impacts of the Proposed Action/Mitiqation Measures Once again, it should be pointed out that the annexation does not result in any change to the property itself. Therefore, there are no mitigation measures necessary. However, the D.E.I.S was prepared on the basis of the hypothetical potential of change of zoning from two (2) acre to one-quarter (1/4) acre, and the density change from twenty-four (24) units to one hundred and seventy (170). The annexation to the Village of Greenport assures through existing Village policy that electric service, water service, and sewage disposal will be readily available to fully service development on this particular parcel. The hypothetical change of zoning is not dependent upon the development of wells upon the property, but proposes that it be serviced by water supplied from the existing municipal water system. The reference made within the D.E.I.S. regarding potential availability of wells on this site is only for information purposes. The hypothetically proposed 39 development at this density would not probably permit development of well site(s). If development of the tract take place at a lower density, as would be proposed upon annexation, then some portion of the site could be set aside as a dedicated water supply area to augment the Greenport Village's municipal water system. Test well information, including ground water elevations and water quality tests are enclosed for information purposes and are contained in Appendix 8. Alternative actions, such as lower density, mixed commercial/residential use, etc. will be appropriately discussed and covered in the site-specific plans for this particular site. Until actual site plan approval is obtained and work subsequently commences on development of the site, there are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments. The erroneous reference to the loss of pioneer growth, which does not exist on this property, is yet another example of the inappropriate use of an irreversible, irretrievable commitment characterization made in regard to annexation, which would, were it not erroneous, be properly considered as the site and development-specific planning process is accomplished. Any development of this property, whether within Southold Town or the Village of Greenport, would have impact on the site's flora and fauna. Public Hearinq The main point emphasized at the public hearing was the expressed need for adequate and affordable housing in the Town of Southold. Speakers correctly envisioned the annexation as a means to make possible affordable housing for the working class residents of the Village of Greenport and the Town of Southold. The following businesses and residents expressed their individual concern about the lack of affordable housing and commented in support of the annexation: David Mudd Shirley Crocker George ~etmore ~hitey Skrezek William J, Mills George Penny IV Norma Miller (representing the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce) James Dinizio, Jr. Dennis Coyle Glenn Moeller Arthur Levine (former Village of Greenport Mayor) Chuck Stabile Bob Mills Louis Sacks Bill Mueller Gene Canswick Dan Blaisley Fred Schoenstein Erik Heins Bill Gotder Ruth Oliva (President of the North Fork Environmental Council - with some qualifications.) Those at the public hearing speaking against the annexation included the following: Henry Tasker (who expressed concern about the priority that would be given this project for Village water supply, and expressed an opinion that two houses per acre without water and sewer would be a more acceptable development approach.) Michael McCarthy (representing the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, who read verbatim the major portion of the Middleton, Kontokosta letter of April 11, 1985, which is recorded in Appendix 2.) Martin Trent (whose objection solely concerned the availability of public water supply). 42 APPENDIX NO. 1 SEQR DOCUMENTATION - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK RIgGISTRhR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 7, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 John A. Costelio 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport~ New York 11944 Dear John: Enclosed herewith is a ~'Notice of Significant Effect on the Environment" in respect to your petition for annexation of approx- · imately 48.7 acres of land in'the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southoid into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, which determination was the subject of a Town Board resolution on June 4, 1985, copy enclosed herewith. You are hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact State, for submission by July 1, 1985, addressing those matters of concern as outlined in'the resolution, as well as those issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement public' hearing held on May 16, 1985. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Peconic Associates, lnc.z William W. Esseks, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE .OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Date: June 4, 1985 Pursuant to the provisiOns of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Petition of John A. Costello (formerly East End Associates) for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated p~rtion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (CR 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. Further information may be obtained by COntacting' Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main:Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southoid Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport John A. Costello William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Peconic Associates, inc.~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTR,AR OF VITAL STATISTICS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 4, 1985: WHEREAS, John A. Costello (formerly East End Associates) has heretofore filed a petition with the Town,Clerk for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chpater 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did' file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, John A. Costello did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public 'hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by John A. Costello at the Southold Town hall on May 16, 1985, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold does hereby determine that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, John A. Costello, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environ- mental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, by July 1, 1985, and address the following matters of concern: 1. Address all of those issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment public hearing held on May 16, 1985, that were not sufficiently covered in the DEIS. 2. At the hearing on May 16, 1985 the economic issue was addressed by more people than any other environmental issue. In order to properly evaluate the economic benefit, vs. potential negative environmental impact, an analysis of the cost of housing lots that would result from annexation is requested, as well as the strategy by which these lots will be relayed to low and moderate income people in' need of housing, as opposed to investors seeking to benefit from lots priced below market value. 3. Address DEIS claims made on page 44, F. Water Supply .... "This increase in pumpage will keep total consumption well below the permissive yield in the company service area. The water requirements of the proposed development can be supplied by the company without imPacting existing customers or preventing service to other developments within the franchise area for which service for has been agreed to." 4. Yield of existing well. Affect of road runoff to that well. Will pumpage pull runoff into it? 5. Alternatives: A special public'improvement district (remaining in Southold Town). Page 2 - Resolution - oouthold Town Board - 6/4/85 Re: Request for Final ElS - Costello Annexation Petition 6. Connection to sewer = consumptive use and ocean outfall. What will be the groundwater impact? 7. Guarantee from Greenport Village that water and sewer will be provided if annexation takes place. 8. Guarantee from John A. Costello that on-site well will be made available to Greenport Village. 9. Submission of appraiser's report: Page 38 .... "A professional appraiser has advised that the annexation and calculated development would not impact the value of adjacent homes." Southold Town Clerk APPENDIX NO. 2 DEIS WRITTEN COMMENT BY MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. A - 2 PACHMAN & OSHRIN. P. C. 1 5 /540-2200 April 15, 1985 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold~ NY 11971 Re: Sterling Eastern Shores Annexation of appr. 48.7 Acres in Town of Southotd by Village of Greenport Dear Ms. Terry: We enclose herein eight copies of critique of environ- mental impact statement, dated April 11, 1985, which our clients had prepared by Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd., in response to your notice dated March 11, 1985. We believe that, because of the nature of the controversy and the criticism set forth herein, the Town of Southold, as lead agency, should hold a requisite public hearing under the SEQR rules and regulations. Very truly yours, / H~ard E. Pao a HEP:ss Enclosures ASSOCIATES RECC..IYED 1 5 ~own Clerk Southoid MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA A$$OGIATE$, LTD. DONALD J. MIODLETON E. Mi. KONTOKOSTA, P.E. GARY S. ROGERS, R.A. April 11, 1985 Ms. Judith Terry, Clerk of the Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relatinq to the Annexation of certain lands of John Costello. This evaluation has been conduc'~'~d [n accordance with the intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which allows for the review of such documents for Scope, Content, and Adequacy. All comments pertaining to these parameters are contained in the attached detailed review. In summary we find that the DEIS is deficient in the following areas of'major concern: 1. The project description does not adequately define governmental objectives relating to the parcel or approvals required which would lead to achievement of the project sponsor's goals. 2o The environmental setting requires broader scope and more exact content with regard to groundwater and geology, water resources, transportation, existing land use and zoning, demographic factors and cultural resources. Host significant is the cursory treatment of groundwater resources which is considered to be a key issue. 3. The significant impacts of the project on the resources of the site are not identified There is virtually no acknowledgement that the activity may result [n an adverse A JOIN ]' VENTURE K, ON30F, OSTA ASSOCIATES E~IVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS. ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS 4q~.~.~F,C, TFIF/YFC~tI~TH~TRFFT NFVqYO. RI'<,CITY NELA/YORKIOOlCJ ' 212582-6100 impact. Specifically, site development at the proposed density will inevitably result an groundwater impact and obliteration of the site's flora. 4. Viable alternatives such as reduced density and clustering were not considered. Environmental aspects or aI~ernatives were not compared. Kindly contact me if you should have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Donald J. Middleton President DJM:M enc. cc: Howard E. Pachman, P.C. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS OF JOHN COSTELLO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD~ NEW YORK INTRODUCTION On January 9, 1985 the Town Board of the Town of Southold declared that the proposed annexation of certain lands belonging to John Costello may have a signif[canL impact upon the environment. It was further resolved that the applicant would be required to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be reviewed and made part of the decision making process for consideration by the Southold Town Board and involved agencies. The proposed project involves the annexation of 48.718 acres of property located within 'the Town of Southold. The applicant requests that the property assume a zoning classification under the Village of Greenport R-1 Residence District to achieve a hypothetical 170-lot, i/4 acre single family development. The existing zoning is 2 acre residential under the Town of Southold R.A. district. The subject acreage is located east of and north of the Village of Greenport between Moore's land, Middle Road and Middleton Road. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted in March of 1985 is the subject of this review. The DEIS discusses the following: Proposed Action, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Alternative Actions, Irreversible and Irretrievable Committments, Growth Inducing Aspects and the Effect on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources. It is the reviewers objective to determine if the document is adequate with respect to scope and content to serve as a meaningful decision making tool. The DEIS will be reviewed in accordance with procedures established under 6 NYSRR Part 617 SEQRA under 617.8(b) and the format contained in 617.14. Contained herein is a review of the scope of the document indicating omissions or insufficient detail in areas where additional discussion is required, as well as, a critical review of the document's content. A conclusion is provided as the final section of 'this report. REVIEW OF SCOPE AND CONTENT Summary (1.0) (p.1) The summary of the DEIS is excellent in describing the project, defining the sponsor's objectives and acting in advocation of the proposal. The summary does not describe significant adverse effects, acknowledge public controversy or describe feasible mitigation measures. Appropriate changes should be made to fulfill the intent of Part 617.14(e). Description of the Proposed Action (2.0) (p.5) The proposed action borders on two distinct governmental entities, the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. The action involves a significant deviation from the intended low density use required by Town zoning, to comparitively high density use under Village zoning. The DEIS must discuss the objectives of the Town of Southold for the use of this property under the Master Plan or other 2 pertinent studies. It would also seem prudent to discuss Greenport Village objectives for the nearest adjacent land as specified in Master Plans, local waterfront studies_ or other community development plans. The proposed project description should seek to define the chain of events and required approvals which would ultimately lead to achievement of the project sponsor's objective. This section states what the applicant desires but fails to outline how to accomplish it within the procedures of the two government bodies. A locator map showing the whereabouts of the 48.718 acre tract in the Greenport region would be useful. Also, A discussion of the former use of this property might be presented to better understand the backround and history of the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Geoloqy and Groundwater (3.11) (p.10) The statement "sands and gravels are characterized as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipitation periods" must be quantified. A water budget for the North Fork would put this claim into perspective. Parameters such as: percipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and recharge should be considered. The groundwater elevation data presented is severely outdated (1966). Groundwater elevation is dynamic, therefore, recent data is required for planning consideration. The conclusion that water table elevations lie at 2 to 3 feet above sea level (in the Greenport vicinity), is not -3- evident from the figure provided. The sources, titles and relevancy of Figures 2, 3, and 4 should be stated. A discussion of upper horizon soil types and potential planning and development limitations based on soils is essential and must be included in this section. Are there any geologic formations beneath the Upper Pleistocene deposits? Water Resources (3.13) (p.14) The "in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities" mentioned in this section should be specified and discussed. What are they and are they working? The quality of groundwater in the glacial aquifer beneath the site should be presented. The existing nitrate problems mentioned in Mr. Vil~a's ~ette~ (Appendix No. 4) should be enumerated upon. Direction of groundwater flow and estimated discharge points and down gradient receptors is relevant. The quantity of groundwater, the locations of wells, and present pumpage for various uses must be presented in order to determine impacts of the proposed action on water supply. Transportation (3.21) (p.20) The peak hour traffic flow on roadways servicing the site should be included. The characteristics and usage of Middleton Road should be discussed in that it is near to the subject property and his tap roads which abut the subject. County Road 48, in the vicinity of the subject site, is not adequataly defined. The characteristics and usage should be provided. Any development which is proposed on --4-- the subject will be highly dependent on C.R. 48 for ingress or egress. Existinq Land Use and Zoning (3.22) (p.22) The zoning, or development potential of land lying north of the subject, or across C.R. 48 should be discussed. Water Supply (3.23 E.) (p.27) The projected increase in water supply demand due to increased population density should be evaluated. The total developable acreage within the Greenport Water District is' an important consideration. The potentia~ for contamination of public water supply well fields from pesticides, fertilizers or other sources should be discussed. The Upper Glacial Aquifer being shallow is susceptible to contamination which may render sources unusable. The specific findings and conclusions of the North Fork water supply plan as it relates to the Greenport Water District and development of acreage in Southold Town should be established. The DEIS should acknowledge the need to install and monitor a test well in the Silver Lake area, and agree in concept to this requirement (Appendix No. 3). Demographic Factors (3.24) (p.30) The characteristics of the population of Greenport Village and Southold Town are absent from this discussion. It is important to understand parameters such as distribution, density and household size and composition in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts of annexation and significant land use changes. Census data includes population figures from 1970 and 1980, however, no future growth potential or population projections are considered. Cultural Resources (3.25) (p.32) The sensitivity of the subject property with respect to aboriginal inhabitation as determined by the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA) should be investigated. A report and maps including generalized patterns of aboriginal settlement was released by the SCAA in 1967. The Stony Brook University Department of Anthropology in conjunction with the Long Island Archeological Project have conducted research on the east end of Suffolk County. Their findings and professional assessment of the cultural sensitivity of the 48.718 acre subject property should be required. The historic sensitivity of 'the subject has not been adequately determined. A brief consultation of available historic maps would ascertain the historic composition of the site with respect to location of former dwellings. The visual resources of the site and surrounding community have not been explored. The value of the property and surrounding area for open space and/or natural area should be documented° The physical character of the community is important to understand. The make-up of the densely population Village as opposed to the more rural Town setting should be described in order to evaluate the alternative used for the transitional subject site. A discussion of social factors including community views (opposition and support) and issues of controversy is an important component of cultural resources. --6-- Impacts of the Proposed Action/Mitigation Measures (4.0) (p.33) If it is indeed true that R-1 Village zoning is coincidental upon the act on annexation, then this chain of events is best discussed under the "Description of the Proposed Action" as required approvals. This also applies to the statement that, "The annexation will also ensure that electric service, water supply and domestic sewage disposal will be available to the parcel from the Village of Greenport without need for any special negotiations or contract arrangements" These items are part of the proposed action and are paramount to the success of the project. All of the aforementioned amendments to the DEIS recommended in the Environmental Setting section should be weighed against the proposed action to determine additional impacts which may occur as a result of the proposal. Appropriate mitigation measures if available, should then be discussed. The specific impacts in need of more detailed discussion are summarized herein for the convenience of the responding party. Geology and Groundwater (4.11) (po34) Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional low production wells on the subject. Is the project water supply dependent on development of these wells? The impact of this installation on groundwate~ requires explanation. What mitigation is proposed if high iron concentrations are encountered? A general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required. --7-- The impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Water Resources (4.13) (p. 34) Appendix NO. 3 mentions the development of additional low production wells on the subject. Is the project water supply dependent on development of these wells? The impact of this installation on groundwater requires explanation. What mitigation is proposed if high iron concentrations are encountered? A general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required. The impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Water Resources (4.13) (p.35) The water resources associated with this site (groundwater) will inevitably be adversely impacted by site development. Anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to: nitrate and herbicide contamination as a result of lawn and turf care practices on 170 residential lawns, stormwater recharge containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons in areas of high groundwater and potential for oil tank leakage and/or discharge of household chemicals in a 170 lot development. If groundwater contamination were to occur, what surface waters, wetlands or public water supply wells might be impacted down gradient of the site or at locations of aquifer discharge? Mitigation measures (i.e. site development constraints, covenants, etc.) should be proposed. -8- Terrestrial Ecoloqy (4.15) (p.36) How will adequate buffer areas and open space be maintained and still achieve the desired yield? It is anticipated that roads, structures, drainage, and grading requirements of 170 units on 10,000 square foot lots will obliterate natural site vegetation and permanentely disrupt site occupation by natural fauna. A discussion of impacts and mitigation is called for. Transportation (4.21) (p.37) Additional impacts should be determined as appropriate in consideration of additional comments previously mentioned. The proposal calls for a limitation of access points on Moore's Lane and County Road 48. What is the Impact of the additional traffic burden on Middleton Road and tap streets in the residential neighborhood. Land Use (4.22) (p.38) How is high density residential development consistent with the Village's substantial landholdings within Moore's Woods? The conclusion that annexation and calculated development would not impact the value of residential homes must be documented, supported and referenced as to source. Water Supply (4.23 F.) (p.44) Water supply impacts should be discussed in terms of projected demand and related to the North Fork Water Supply Plan. 1979 groundwafer elevations were recorded at an all time record high. Estimated water supply potential based on these contours is likely to be misleading. --9-- Please be advised that the water table contour map in Appendix No. 3 is labeled with the wrong year. ~gwage Treatment (4.23F.) (p.45) Suffolk County Department of Health Services sewage design flow estimates are based on a single family equivalent of 30.0 gallons per day. Demographic Factors (4.24) (p.48) How will the proposed action contribute to the stabilization of the Village's population? Demographic impacts should be further discussed as related to Drevious comments. Cultural Resources (4.25) (p.48) The conclusion that no significant impact will occur to cultural resources is unsupported. Additional discussion of potential impacts is impossible until the comments relating to the environmental setting are discussed. Alternative Actions (5.0) (p.49) The section dealing with project alternatives is based entirely on the developer's objectives, perceived community needs, and economics to the exclusion of discussing relative environmental impacts of various proposals. Actual environmental impacts have been identified which may indeed be minimized under alternative actions. A discussion of relative environmental considerations is essential. Varying levels of density are the most obvious alternatives which demand investigation. Doubling the lot size to ZU,0uU squara feet (1/2 acre) would undeniably lessen environmental impacts while still providing comparatively high density housing. Such a scenerio would -10- still provide an affordable housing alternative to most real estate opportunities on the North Fork. Another logical density deserving of consideration is one acre zoning. - ~ The potential for developing an alternate site i9 accordance with existing zoning should be included. The use of clustering to minimize potential impacts and still achieve the desired objectives is worth consideration.- Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments (6.0) (p.54) Additional commitment of resources depends upon additional information which should be amended into the DEIS as per this review. Additional commitment of resources may include the following: A substational adverse change in water quality underlying the site, as a result of high density residential development and the nitrate loading from lawn care practices known to occur. The loss of up to 48.718 acres o~ pioneer growth vegetation. The permanent foreclosure of open space. The potential' for impairment of cultural resources. Growth Inducinq Aspects (7.0) (p.56) If approved, this action will give rise to the potential that similiar actions will be proposed. CONCLUSION A detailed review of the DEIS for annexation of certain lands of John Costello has been completed by the writer. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that an abundance of additional information must be presented and -ll- evaluated in connection with this proposal before a well informed decision can be reached by the Lead Agency. An Environmental Impact Statement is the primary decision making tool and is the heart of the SEQRA process as intended by the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. A project of the magnitude and importance of the one considered herein requires a thorough understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues to be incorporated into planning and decision making. This review details items excluded from consideration, areas which require additional information and content which needs correction or clarification. -12- APPENDIX NO. 3 PUBLIC HEARING RECORD MAY 16, 1985 PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD MAY 16, 1985 7:30 P.M. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS OF JOHN COSTELLO (FORMERLY OF EAST END ASSOCIATES) LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BY ADJOINING INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GREENPORT. Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Good evening everyone, i'd like to welcome you to Southold Town Hall. Tonight we have a public hearing on a Draft Enviornmental Impact Statement. The application of John A. Costello. The official notice will be read by Councilwoman Jean Cochran. COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN: "Legal Notice. Notice of Hearing. Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on tl~e Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by John A. Costello in connection with his petition (formerly East End Associates) for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. SEQR lead agency is 'the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: April 23, 1985. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." I have an affidavit showing that this public notice was printed in The Suffolk Times. I also have an affidavit swearing that the public notice was printed in '[he Long Island Traveler-Watchman, and I also have verification from the Town Clerk that it has appeared on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jean. Okay, you've heard the official reading of the notice. At this time I would like to open up this public hearing by askincj for those who would like to speak in favor of this Draft Environmental Impact State and the first person I'd like to recognize is the attorney for Mr. Costello, Bill Esseks. Page 2 - Draft ElS - £'- tello ,· "' _,~' WILLIAM ESSEKS, ESQ.: As I understand the procedure, Mr. Supervisor, the Board--the two Boards elected a lead agency and a lead agency in a positive declaration, which required my client, former East End Associates, now Mr. Costello who~s taken title to the property, to prepare through his experts, a draft environ- ,~ental impact statement. That was submitted, circulated according to law, in'March of 1985 and it has lead, as far as I know, in circulation, to one written response and that is a report from Middleton and Kontokosta Associates under date of April 1~1, 1985, and I believe that both the draft environmental impact statement and written responses thus far have been available to the public. I further understand that pursuant the SEQR rules and the regulations drafted pursuant thereto, this hearing has been called to give the public an opportunity to state to the lead agency, this Board, to comments the public have with regard to whether the draft environ- mental impact statement is sufficient and that whether or not it has adequately ~:overed the environmental consequences of the proposal. The proposal, as I understand it, as I submit, is the annexation of a portion of property now within the Town, to be within the political and political confines of the Village of Greenport, and that is the sole question before this Board tonight with the question of hearing. I submit, on behalf of my client, all of the written information thus far submitted, and we are prepared, through the experts that we have, to respond to questions that might, arise as a result of comments ensuing from the public, but I do not propose, other than to rely on the draft environmental impact statement, to submit any other written information tonight. If it turns out that this Board feels that in order to adequately .-eveal the environmental concerns, that other written information may be necessary, I will then want to address that question and have that disposed of at the end of the hearing. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Bill. John, do you have any other people you would like to present before I open up? .JOHN A. COSTELLO: No, I don't at this stage. What we are addressing is just the annexation of the property and the limitations, I'm sure, that the Town Board has told us, limited to land use and going from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. lit is not proposing any development and the worst development on that property in the changing from Southold Town to Greenport, is two acre zoning to quarter acre zoning, and the worst is a maximum of approximately 170 houses. These are all hypothetical. That is all we're supposed to address, I believe, and we'll have to wait for whatever questions we could assist you with. Thank you. '.SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, I would like to remind everybody that this is what we're talking about, is this proposed annexation of Town property 'to the Incorporated Village of Greenport, which again, we have two acre zoning on -that property. ~/ith the Village of Greenport it would revert to quarter acre zoning. So at this time I would like to ask anybody over here on the left who would like to ~speak in favor of this draft environmental impact statement. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I am the attorney representing the opposition to the annexation, the formal opposition I should say. I respectfully request that the Board maybe--well, maybe I shouldn't use that term. It is my understanding of the SEQR process that though the applicant can rely on the written document which was submitted, the aspect of the public hearing is to allow those people who are present to hear what the draft environmental impact statement is all about. There may be very few of us, besides myself and several others, who have read it, so most of the people here tonight are not familiar with what the draft environmental impact statement says and those who are here who are interested and concerned about it cannot make comment on it. So therefore to rely on the written documen~ in of itself I think would be inadequate and I respectfully request that the Board Page 3 - Draft ElS - ~ ~tello do not accept that as the basis for which the presentation under the SEQR ,requirements are met. In any event, until the Board makes that decision, or the Boards, I would have to reserve my further comments. I would further respectfully request that the purpose of the hearing for the environmental impact :statement is the annexation of the 48 some odd acres from the Town of Southold 'Lo the Village of Greenport. The problem that we have is 'that Mr. Costello as the present owner, has made some submissions to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board has reviewed a proposed subdivision map, presumably under the existing--although it does not meet the zoning regulations of the Town of Southold, it would appear to be a proposal for both the Village and the Town to consider 'with reference to the ultimate use ot~ this property which is the reason that we ,are holding the hearing whether an annexation is permissible or should be considered for the public good and the public benefit. The SEQR process obviously looks at it from the environmental impact aspect of the change from one to the other as it affects 'water, air, land, traffic, the ecology. It must also talk about the negative impacts, the alternatives. He presented a plan to the Planning Board. If the media is ,correct in its reporting of what took place at the meeting at the Planning Board a 'week ago last Monday, it was welcomed with open arms by the Planning Department ,as a wonderful plan. I don't know who else was invited to that meeting, since it 'was an informal meeting. The environmental impact statement did not address it. It is not part of the environmental impact statement. The recent report by the professionals that you hired for your Master Plan are not taken into account in' 'the environmental impact statement. The fact that it is recommended for one acre zoning is not addressed in the environmental impact statement. There are many · things that have not been discussed and I think it is incumbent--the burden of proof, the burden of going forward is upon the applicant to present it,' and then 'we, those who want to comment, and those who are in opposition, could then make our comments at this time. Thereafter when the hearing is closed those who want · Lo submit written comments are available to do that for the final impact statement 'when it is drafted. Thank you. :SUPERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to say again that this hearing is on the draft environmental impact statement. It is not on any proposed plan that is not officially before any Planning BOard of Southold Town or the Village of Greenport. i would again like to address the environmental impact statement which is going from two ~acre zoning in the Town of Southold to quarter acre zoning in the Village of Greenport. ,Again I would like to say is there anyone on the left who would like to speak in favor .of this draft environmental impact statement? Anyone on the left? Sir. iDAVID MUDD: ISm a resident out here and also in business and i'm very much in' favor of going from two acre to the quarter acre zoning in order to get house for our people who must live in this community and work in this community. I've spoken on this issue before at a couple of other meetings and I feel very strongly about because I am fearful that what has taken place in the past is that we are ,addressing a certain group out here and eliminating the young people and the people that are working in our community. If we don't address the issue in this fashion we're going to wind up importing all of our help from the Bronx, or Brooklyn or someplace else on a bus every day and bringing them back and forth. I think this is one area that we have all been guilty of not addressing. We keep shoving it aside and acting like somebody else is going to take care of it and I think it's high time that we looked at it as part of our people, our school children, our community, our taxpayers and address the issue and get it down to where we can have affordable housing for these people to live. My business requires that if we don't have this kind of a thing going on at the present time we will be out of Page 4 - Draft ElS - C~stello business shortly also. So I think it's an issue that we're all vitally interested in and should be concerned with. I thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY; Thank you sir. SHIRLEY CROCKER, Greenport: I'm also delighted that someone has finally given some consideration to the needs of the young working people in this community who after all are the very people Who render the services that we so badly need in this community. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the left? Yes. GEORGE WETMORE: I'm native born. I think it's a beautiful proposal for a lot of us that were native born and who can no longer afford to own our own homes in this community and i wish you God speed, John, to get it accomplished. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else on the left? Sir. WHITEY SKREZEC: I think John's proposal is something that we really need in this community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the left? In the center here? Mr. Levine? ARTHUR LEVINE: Resident of Greenport. When it comes to environmental impact, if we didn't have an operatin9 entity, the Village of Greenport, which in three ,,Fears will be celebrating its 150th anniversary, I'd say, well, we should be concerned, Greenport has been operating as a viable comi~unity and catering to the needs of the residents, and as most of the Town and East Long Island and the United States in general, there's been a constant response to the needs of people, businesses, homes, development, that was never, we'll say, done for, we'll say, decades under the guidance of professional planners, yet most of it turned out very good and we :seem to offer attractions to people who want to come visiting, which at one time I couldn't~understand until I had the happy opportunity to visit one of the summer :resort areas during the height of the season when I saw how grubby the landscape ,was up there and got back home I really had an eye-opener. It's odd that when Greenport was first incorporated in 1838 the boundaries were from Moores Lane to Sterlin9 Creek, from the Bay to the Sound. Along about 1868, I think it was, they reincorporated the village and I don't know what caused the conservative attitude, perhaps they couldn't think of pullin9 a fire engine by manpower all that distance. The pulled the boundaries in, but looking at it, we'll say, Greenport is set up with sewer, with water. If we didn't have, we'll say, sewer facilities available I'd say this could be a horrible jar on the environment. Greenport has been taking care of that and there are a lot of, we'll say, some of the close environs of Greenport who wish they could have that service. Water likewise. The lot size, there is a ,development close by, Fleetfield, and the lots in this proposed 48 acres are 9oin9 to be larger than the lots in Fleetfield. And then looking at the affordability of homes, the fact that we hear a lament--young people, first of all they can't find jobs. We need some good economics here and we need a home. if a person has a job here, a home to live in that he can afford in which he can raise his family, and even perhaps, here and there, have the happy opportunity of not even having to get on the road with a car and further polluting the environment, but being able to walk to work. As far as I'm concerned, I think this 'is one of the finest things that could happen to the area. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here? Anyone else in the middle would like to address the Board? Sir? Page 5 - Draft ElS - C,,~tello WILLIAM J. MILLS: i've read the environmental impact statement and contrary to what Mr. Pachman says, I think it's incumbent upon the individuals who are concerned with this project to come up to Southold or the Village of Greenport and get a copy and read it. It's been available for quite some time now. ! think it's a good project. The lots that Mr. Costello is proposing, which are not necessarily germane to the hearing at hand tonight, yes, they're quarter acre and a little bit larger, but if you look to the north, you're talking about third acre, lots right across the street to the north. There's three lots per acre there. There's three and a half lots per acre to the east, so when you look at this property in terms of four lots per acre available within the Village of Greenport, as compared to two acre zoning, yes, you're talking about quite a big difference, but when you start comparing it to land usage within the immediate area there's not a big difference. I think it's a good project. il think it's an important project to the area, and I think its sorely needed. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir; In the back, George? GEORGE L. PENNY IV: I employ approximately 36 people or families in Southold 'Town. It used to be pretty easy out here a few years ago when the land values were down around--oh, I can remember land at $3,000 a lot back in the early 70's and it would always amaze me that when the people that I employed would come along and they had land, they had grabbed a piece of land right out of high school and they built a house. Well, now the whole situation is changed. I have about a half a dozen people that are working for me that are paying over $500 a month rent. Now, if they could put that kind of equity or put that rental, which ils not a big tax advantage to them, if they could put that into an equity situation, :they would be saving and they would be building something. Right now they're ]paying rents between $500 and $600 a month and they're going no where. They don't have great amount of money to go in with, they don't have a big down-payment to start with and if we could come up with a housing, or through John a project like John's, to come up with housing between $50,000 and $60,000 a house, it would work for these people, but right now they're going no where and we're having a big !problem finding young people to work and hopefully projects like this will help us ,along. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else in the middle Ihere? NORMA MILLER, Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce: The Board of Directors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce would like to reiterate and reaffirm their earlier position supporting the concept of the above described project. We feel it is part of the way to solve the affordable housing crisis in Southold Town. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else here in the ;middle? Sir? JAMES D[NIZIO, JR.: i live in Greenport about three or four hundred feet away from where this project will take place and I have been in the market for land. ! ,own a house, but I've been Iooking--I built my house and I've been looking for land for the past four or five months and quite honestly I can't find a lot for under $35,000 and probably if I asked right now for real estate I wouldn't find one for $35,000, more like $40,000, so maybe quarter acre lots isn't such a bad idea and I don't know if I would benefit from it, what restrictions there would be from it, Page 6- Draft ElS -~stello but gee, I'd like to see it, but I came here tonight for information on the environmental impact statement. What I'm hearing is a lot of information on affordable housing, which I could attend another meeting for that. I need to know--I'm a working person. I work probably 10 to 12 hours a day in Riverhead and I do liYe in Greenport and I have to work in Riverhead. If this project generates jobs, maybe I could get a job in Greenport too, but the thing is is I don't have the time to come up here and get this thing, i have children to take care of and other things that I have to do and I kind of thought that this meeting was to inform me of the environmental impact of this project, because I do have questions on the commercial aspect of it and i also have questions on whether I would feel right about the Village taking this much land from Southold--this much taxable land from Southold Town. It seems like an awful lot and it seems like Southold Town could do something to compromise, to make out a compromise with them for the sewer. God, it's only across the street, i'm sure something could be worked out with this project. Perhaps not. I know going to the Village would be the easiest thing and I think Mr. Costelio has a wonderful idea, but I do have questions about it and I would like to have those questions answered. One is the commercial aspect. I wouldn't want to see some noisy thing go in there, and two, in ~ight of the Village and the tax and the way that they feel they can tax people or give abatements for firemen and the Mill's project on two points. I feel that maybe they're just a little bit too much towards the abatement, tax abatement part of it. They lean too much--they depend too much on that to encourage businesses, to encourage jobs~, perhaps, maybe not, but I'd like to see those questions aris:wet or at least addressed and mostly I would like to hear from this Board, from this meeting--I would like to hear the environmental impact statement. I would like to hear what that says. If it's good--if it's a good thing, then it will benefit every- body here. If it has some bad things in it, then let's hear them and let's make a decision on that. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. I'd like to say again that this is on the draft environmental impact statement, which is just the zoning change going from Southold to Greenport, if it went. If it goes to Greenport it's Greenport Planning Board that will discuss the plan that is going to be proposed for the use of that land. If it stays in Southold then it will be decided by Southold Town Planning Board to subdivide that land and perhaps maybe Mr. Costello, after all the comments, would want to further answer some of these questions, but let's get the comments from the people first. Anyone else here in the middle? Sir. DENNIS COYLE: I'm in favor of this because I've been shopping for a house and anybody knows, if they're looking, the cheapest I can find is at least $100,000. With the money I make I can't afford $100,000--$100,000 home. And for another thing for quarter acres I think that is really good, because for two acres I don't know what I would do with two acres. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mow a lot of grass. Anyone else here in the middle? Over here on the right? Sir. MR. GLENN MOELLER: I work in the North Fork and live in Greenport. I'd just like to add my name to those that say that affordable housing is needed. I've been looking for a home for three years out here and possibly I've scored through Sonny Mae. I'll know in a few weeks, but it's not easy and it's very hard to find affordable home and without the state subsidized mortgage I couldn't afford a home out here and I have a business that employs three people in the area. I'd like to address a few things that haven't been addressed. I'd like to give some support to Mr. DiniziO's comment that we should have a little voicing at the end from the Board itself on how they interpret the impact statement as it is so far. The people who live near it Page 7 - Draft ElS - ~_~tello ' have a right to have some idea of the impact on their lives, and the new thing i'd like to add is that I don't want to hear the talk about separating all of the steps' of annexation apart from each other, as if we could approach them all separately. Certainly if the residents of Greenport are talking about annexing an area, it's going to be for all of the reasons that everyone is supporting here tonight and in theory Mr. Costello's plan sounds wonderful to me and from what I understand about him in this small town, it is a wonderful plan, but ! don't know the plan or Mr. Costello and I would like to see, as a citizen, much more detailed guarantee that the housing will be affordable housing, and exactly what that means and i would not like to hear just proposals and approximations in that area, because if the housing is not truly affordable, if the plan isn't what it sounds like it is, then I would fight against it being part of Greenport or even being developed period. We don't need quarter acre, expensive second homes, which is what it could just as easily become. I want to hear some of the hard talk about how you're going to guarantee that £his is affordable housing, if that kind of talk was being put about I'd be willing to help organize support for the project in Greenport, because I think it's a wonderful project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. I wish you luck in your application and again to address that fact. We're talking about just going from two~ acre to quarter acre and this will be addressed by whatever Planning Board makes this decision on the property and if there's going to be any agreements on property or anything, it will be done by either of the two boards at that time and that's when the public' would have participation in exactly what you were asking. Okay, anyone else on the right? (No response.) Okay, I'd like to ask if there's anyone would like to speak in opposition to this proposed draft environmental impact statement? Over here on the left? MR. PACHMAN: Could we reserve our comments for a second, Mr. Murphy? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Sure. MR. PACHMAN: Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone on the left? Martin? MARTIN TRENT, Orient: I would like to address a few of the environmental concerns with the project. Not affordable per se or how they could be guaranteed or not guaranteed. The 1983 North Fork Water Supply Plan called the water quantity sutiation east of Arshamomaque Pond in Southold mcritical". It strictly warned against any rezoning in this area that would result in greater water usage. As proposed-- all right, we're not supposed to talk about the proposed plan, but it's been publicized and it's before the Planning Board. Officially or unofficially they are considering it. As proposed the 76 housing units plus the commercial lots will require approx- imately four times the water needed under the current two acre zoning. If the annexation takes place and the development is connected to the Greenport Sewer Plan, all the water usage would be consumptive and lost out Greenport's outfall pipe. Under two acre zoning most of the water would be recharged to the aquifer via on-lot cesspools. If there exists some amount of good quantity water on the site, as preliminary test well data seems to show, the logical thing to do is retain the current two acre zoning to protect the water quality and quantity by minimizing the effects of development. Under two acre zoning, homes could be cluster one one acre lots, leaving 24 acres open for use as a pristine water shed. Greenport Water District could then acquire a portion of this site for use as a well field and a protected watershed, thus supplementing their supply with good quality water. I believe Jim Monsell would agree that it is virtually impossible to find a source of uncontaminated water for a public supply well in Southold. With so little potable Page 8 - Draft ElS - Co Iio water available, it makes emminent good sense to give those areas the utmost protection possible and not cover the site with commercial buildings and high density housing. As Town officials you must look at all aspects of the annexation and see the overall picture, not just what the applicant wants you to see or con- sider as presented in his ElS. You must consider what is the collective effect of all the development proposed for the area. Our previous Town Board left us with a I[egacy of 350 condominium units at Brecknock Hail, which we're going to have to deal with. is this Town Board going to add another 76 housing units and a new commercial zone to further despoil the area and strangle it with traffic? If the Town Board wants to have high density housing in the eastern portion of the Township, it should also be prepared to extend the four lanes of Route 48 to these developments and you'd better call the Suffolk County Water Authority back and beg them to start laying a pipeline because we're going to need it. The road net- work and water supply of this narrow peninsula cannot support ,high density housing. i,f the Town Board approves the annexation it will be evident to me, and I think otlner people, that the real estate interests are more important than the interests of $outhold Town residents. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else here on the left would like to speak in opposition to? Anyone in the center? Someone over here raise their hand? Rt~th? RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: I would not sa~a3/ t_hj_%is.in ~l~o?sition to the p. roje. ct, because today to be againSt~a{tordaDle hou~in~'is"being tike against motherhood. We are certainly ..f. pj' Lt and we hope that both the Village and the Town can find suitable ]o(~a[i0n'~"?~r 'Affordable housing. I do have a couple of questions on the draft environmental impact statement. Number one, I do not feel that it addresses the issue of why it is beneficial to Southold for this piece of property to be annexed to Greenport. In the draft environmental impact statement it says that there possibly could be an adequate supply of water found underneath this site. is it potable? Would there have to be any treatment put to Jr? Sewage--and, also, with the water--if it is going into the Greenport Water System and the affordable housing is needed now, how long wi!! ~. C~o~.stel[_o have to wait for Greenport to give him the water? There;s three cor~d0mm~um~ TM ~'"' ~TAt-h-~treet condom~-ni-umL;,- Brecknock Ha[[, Lakeside Apartments, and I believe one or two others that have priority over this system. What will be the price of the lots then? The sewerage disposal. I believe the capacity of the plant is pretty near full, plus 5outhold is going to be entering into that waste stream. As Mi'. Trent said, it will not be put back into the ground. It is a consumptive use. Will this 9o over the limit then for the Greenport Sewage System? What expansion will be needed? How much is that going to cost and who is going to pay for that? I think all these questions should be answered before the project can go forward, but as far as the project itself, if it is a mixed use we certainly would have no objection to that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else here in the middle would like to address this? 5ir, in the rear? HFNRY TASKER: Mr. Supervisor, members of the Board. My name is Henry Tasker. I'm a resident of Creenport and I'm here again on my own behalf, just like I was back in December. There has been nothing happened since the environ- mental impact statement has been filed which leads me to any different conclusion than that which I expressed before. I am not going to address myself to go over my remarks, but I am going to address myself now to the accuracy of the environ- mental impact statement itself, because that is what I believe now we are ali interest.ed Page 9 - Draft ElS - ~ ,stello in. We are going to ask the Board to determine whether or not, on the basis of the existing environmental statement, it is desirable to effect a change in the zoning to produce 76 dwelling units where only 24 could have been created under the existing zoning separate and apart from that portion of the area which has been designated for commercial use. Now I should tell you that I believe that there should be afford- able housing and nobody yet tonight has defined it and I'm not going to attempt to define it, but I'm going to say this, as far as the environmental impact statement is concerned it is wholly incomplete and I will point out to you now at least two instances where it is so. All I get to know is what I read in the papers and the papers have been full of a great many things about our East End and our East End water and one of the things that has been expressed tonight is the effect that this will have on our 'water supply. Greenport is the source, or is the contemplated source for all of the 'water that we have. In last weeks newspaper, The Suffolk Times, and if we accept it as accurate, and i do, there are before Mr. Costello's project ten other projects all involving additional water. I took the numbers and I'm only going to. read two or three of them because .there's an awful lot of them here. One is the Breakers at Brecknock - 350 condominium units. The next one is August Acres at Arshamomaclue Pond - 36 units. The next one is San Simeon, a retirement community with 150 dwelling units. (Interruption from the audience.) May I continue without interruption. Nobody else has interruped anybody else. The next is Long Pond Estates - 24 build~ iing lots on 31 acres. Russell Mann - 4 lots. Now I'm going down the line and give ,you the total. 794 dwelling units are on the boards before the Village Board, before C, ostello with his 76 acres gets into the picture and I say to you now that before you can determine whether Costello's application should be granted, and i commend him for his thoughts, but before his application can be granted, you have got to determine what will happen to the Village water supply when they hook in these 794 people. Now I'm going to add one more thing. Up at Young's Boatyard they refer to an expansion of an existing marina operation. Now, those of us who have been here perhaps as long as I have, are aware that Young's Boatyard used to be Sage's Brick- yard and that property has been sold recently and I am sure that owners of that property, who paid a very sub~ta~tial price for it, have no intention of letting it lie idle and that the next application for water service or sewer service is going to come from there, so you could run your total way up beyond 794 units, and that is why I say to you that this environmental impact statement is wholly incorrected because it has failed to take into consideration these contemplated uses. If any of you have read today's paper, you will see that there even friction with the Board as to what they want to do and how they want to run it, but I must go back to one more thing, to the environmental statement. That statement, if you read between the lines, purports to be a completely and absolutely unbiased statement designed to give this Board and the Village Board a true picture of what is going on and I ask you to remember that on December 4th of 1984 one of the advocates for the annexation stood here at this very microphone and addressed this Board and the Village Board as an advocate for ti~e change, and he is one of the persons who prepared the environmental statement. His name is on there and I say to you now that you cannot expect a fair and an honest and an impartial statement from somebody who advocates tl~e plan, so it is not only inaccurate, but it is suspect in many other ways. Now I believe that it lies within the Town Board's powers to eliminate the question of annexation. It lies within the Town Board's powers to grant to these people who are interested in affordable housing, an opportunity for that, and it's very, very simple and I think I've mentioned this last December when I spoke, that all this Town has to do to protect its people and to protect the water, what the Village of Greenport needs and the entire Town needs is to say, here we're goi?g to take and rezone this D.roper/y and drop., it fro,]~ two acres at least to one acre and if you adhere to the hamlet density program wn~c~, will alluw t,~o units p.(~r acre Page 10 - Draft ElS - ~stello without water and sewe~', you have solved the problem and all of these young people' wt~o nee~ a ~lace to build their house can have it without endangering everything else that we have standing in the way. Now, as far as one other thing, I really run on on this and I'm sorry--the commercial aspect of this plan of John Costello's, the commercial aspect of that interests me too, because I discussed this a little bit in December and I'm not going to belabor that point of it any more. If there is a need for industrial zoning or industrial areas, the need does not exist on Moore~ Lane, on the east side of Moores Lane adjacent to a 76 unit development, because within one mile or less of Moores Lane there is an area designated by this Board in 1972 as a business area, it extends from Fleets /.umber Yard as far west as Pipes Neck Road. It is substantially one mile of Ir)usiness zoned property. If this Board follows its Master Plan, which has been recommended, that Master Plan recommends a change from business to licJht industry or office use and you have one solid mile of road frontage in an area where nobody's going to be hurt, available for your industry and business, and that is another reason--or something else rather that has never been discussed in this environmental statement and I say to you that on those two points alone, and I haven't scrambled through this whole thing, on these two points alone, this Board should reject the statement as wt~olly inaccurate and go on to some other business. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Okay, is there anyone else here in the middle would like to speak in opposition to this statement? On the right here is' tlhere anyone would like to speak in opposition to? Anyone further in the whole audience would like to make any comments at all? ARTHUR LEVINE: I think if the facts were to be known, the Breakers development, Brecknock Hall, that's a 200 c_jdllon a minute well? (Yes.) 200, that's what, 280,000 gallons a day? Something like that. Which has been prospected, has been approved and the developers are also going to dedicate another well, if necessary, but that one well will supply all of the Breakers and in addition feed potable water, I think some of the best that has been discovered around here in quite a while, no Temik- pollution because that land ha~n't been farmed for a number of years, and the 48 acres, I don't know whether a well has been prospected yet, but I~m very sure that one will shortly be driven and tested. That is another possible source, a piece of land that hasn't been farmed I think for something like 15 or 20 years, and then looking at the annexation question. If this were something where you had to reach out some sort of tentacle, it is adjacent to the Village. It originally was part of what was the incorporation of the Village, and by containing a commercial development into a piece of acreage, we, I think, are contributing much more to environmental control than if we were to allow and encourage development of one mile along the highway--that's just another piece of urban sprall. That's what we encounter almost from Miami to Boston or up to Portland, Maine. Any highway, other than the inter- states, are lined with one commercial development after another and I think it's about time we put these in a place, screened them, and we're not talking of heavy industry w;ith polluting by-products and so on, we're talking of commercial, of light industry, dry products and above all it may not in the nature of rainfall or water supply, but economically the economic environment is also important. We can't live in a vacuum and say everything is beautiful, we must have economics. People have got to afford a house to live in and hopefully be able to have gainful employment where they live. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. is there anyone else? Mr. Tasker. HENRY TASKER: May I make one comment? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes, sir. Page 11 - Draft ElS - ~stello HENRY TASKER: I would like to read a paragraph on page 13 of this weeks '.Suffolk Times. i have vouched for it's accuracy a few minutes ago, so maybe you'll listen. "The Utility Committee estimate Brecknock's peak day at 252,000 gallons, leaving a surplus of 36,000 gallons, translated into the terms of 200 gallons per minute. The Village would receive only 25 gallons per minute during peak day use." So there is Brecknock Hall. ?,UPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else would like to make any c~mments at ail? Mr. Pachman, are you prepared now? HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I am somewhat unfamiliar with the process that you are employing here, but I'm not willing to hid behind a document .that was submitted as the draft environmental impact statement. We, right up front, submitted a critique of that environmental impact statement as soon as we got ahold of it and we read it and we had it analyzed by professionals. If Mr. Esseks and Mr. Costello do not 1Feel that they want to put their case on the table, I'm willing to do it. We have a summary of the critique which will be pleased to be read to you by someone from Midcileton and Kontokosta and we'll hand up a copy. MICHAEL McCARTHY: I'm here as an associate representing the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, (MKA). MKA specializes in Environmental Planning and Engineering and recently conducted a review and critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to the Greenport Village annexation of certain property owned by John Costello. The critique of the DEIS was carried out in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), which allows for the review of an Impact Statement regarding scope, content and adequacy. In summary, the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates finds that the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is deficient in four areas: 1. The project description does not adequately define governmental objectives relating to the parcel or those approvals required which would lead to achievement of the project sponsor's goal. The proposed action borders on two entities, the Town of Southoid and the Village of Greenport. The action involves a significant deviation from the intended Iow density use required by Town zoning, to comparatively high density use under Village zoning. The DEIS must discuss the objectives of the ~l-own of Southold for the use of this property under the Master Plan or other pertinent studies and it should also discuss the Village of Greenport's objectives for the ~djacent land as specified in the Village Master Plan, local waterfront studies, or other community development plans. To facilitate this, a discussion of the former use of this property might be presented. This would give insight into the background and history of the project site. A Iocator map showing exactly where the 48.7 acre tract is situated would also be helpful. In addition, the proposed project description should define the chain of events and required approvals which would ultimately lead to achievement of the project sponsor's objective. The DEIS states what the applicant desires but fails to outline how to accomplish it within the procedures of the two governmental bodies. 2. The environmental setting requires broader scope and more exact content with regard to groundwater and geology, water resources, transportation, existing i~and use and zoning, demographic factors and cultural resources. In the Geology and Groundwater section the report states that "sands and gravels are characterized as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipitation periods." There is nothing, however, to indicate the numeric value of a "little runoff." This must be quantified. A water budget for the North Fork would put this claim into perspective. The water budget should include parameters such as: precipitation, runoff, evapo- transpiration and recharge. In addition, a discussion of the upper horizon soil Page 12 - Draft ElS - ~tello types and the potential planning and development limitations based on these soils is essential and must be included. Finally, the groundwater elevation data presented are outdated. Groundwater elevation is a dynamic process which requires current information in order to draw accurate conclusions. The data presented in this report are nearly two decades old and the conclusions drawn from them cannot be made with certainty. Given these constraints, the DEIS still makes conclusions that are unsub- ,~tantiated. From the figures provided it is uncertain that, in ,Greenport, water table elevations lie at 2 to 3 feet above seal level, as is stated. Fi§utes 2, 3 and 4 are not clear and should be re-drawn to include: sources, titles and relevancy. In the water resources section, the quantity of the groundwater, the locations of wells, and [)resent pumpage for various uses are not presented and must be in order to determine the impacts of the proposed action on water supply. Likewise, the quality of ground- water in the glacial aquifer beneath the site should also be presented. Although, existing nitrate problems are mentioned in Mr. Villa's letter (Appendix No. 4), they are not enumerated on in the body of the report. The shallow Upper Glacial Aquifer is susceptible to nitrates and other contaminants which may render it unusable. The potential for contanination of public water supply well fields from pesticides, fertilizers or other sources should be discussed but are not. There is, however, mention of "in-place planning criteria and monitoring activites" for the water supply but they are not specified or discussed. The report does not indicate what they are or if they are working. The DEIS should acknowledge the need to install and monitor a test well in the Silver Lake area, and agree in concept to this require- ment (Appendix No. 3). Also neglected is the projected increase in water supply demand due to increased population density. Water supply demand will be greatly affected by the total developable acreage within the Greenport Water District. To accurately gauge this, the specific findings and conclusions of the North Fork Water supply plan as it relates to the Greenport Water Oistrict and development of acreage in Southold Town should be established and examined. In dealing with transportation issues, the peak hour traffic flow on roadways servicing the site should be included as well as the characteristics and usage of Middleton Road. Furthermore, County Road 48, in the vicinity of the subject site, is not adequately defined nor are its characteristics and usage. Any development which is proposed on the subject land will be.highly dependent on C.R. 48 for ingress and egress, therefore, the capacity of this road should be further examined. Current zoning regulations and the development potential of lands lying north of the subject or across C.R. 48 will also affect the transportation infrastructure and should also be discussed. Demographic factors surring the project site must also be examined. The characteristis of the population of Greenport Village and Southold Town are absent from this discussion. It is important to understand parameters such as distribution, density and household size and composition in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts of annexation and significant land use changes. Although census data is include 'that contains population figures 1970 and 1980, no future growth potential or population projections are considered. In the section dealing with cultural resources, the historic sensitivity of the subject has not been adequately determined. A brief consultation of the appropriate maps wou~d ascertain the historic composition of the site with respect to the location of former dwellings. Consultants with members of Stony Brook University's Depart- ment of Anthropology, the Long Island Archeological Project and the Suffolk Cou~ Archeological Association (SCAA) would be helpful. The SCAA has issued a rep, with maps that describe the generalized patterns of aboriginal settlement in the Greenport area. 3. Significant impacts of the project on the resources of the site are identified. There is virtually no acknowledgement that the activity may re an adverse impact. Specifically, site development at the proposed densit, inevitably result in groundwater impact and obliteration of the site's flo~ recommended that proposed actions must be weighted to determine add~ JPage 13- Draft ElS - · ~tello which may occur and appropriate mitigation measures should be discussed. With respect to §eology and groundwater, Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional Iow production wells on the subject site but does not s.ay if the project water supply is dependent on the development of these wells. The impact of this installation on groundwater requires an explanation. Mitigation measures for high iron concentrations should be explained. The general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required and the impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Similarly, the water supply associated with this site will inevitably be adversely impacted by site development. Anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to: nitrate and herbicide onctamination as a result of law and turf care practices on 170 residential lawns, stormwater recharge containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons in areas of high groundwater and a potential for oil tank leakage and/or discharge of household clnemicals in a 170 lot development. If groundwater contamination were to occur, the report does not state what surface waters, wetlands or public water supply wells might be impacted down gradient of the site or at locations of aquifer discharge or what mitigating measures can be taken. In addition, this report did not discuss mitigation measures for: the loss of open space and the obliteration of natural site vegetation; the increased traffic burden on County Road 48, Moore's Lane, Middleton Road and associates tap streets; the impact on the value of existing residential homes; and the demographic disruption of the town. 4. Viable alternative such as reduced density and clustering were not considered. Environmental aspects or alternatives were not compared. The section dealing ,with project alternatives is based entirely on the developer's objectives, perceived community needs, and economics to the exclusion of discussing relative environmental impacts of various proposals. Actual environmental impacts have been identified which may indeed be minimized under alternative actions. A discussion of relative environmental consider- ations is essential. Varying levels of density are the most obvious alternatives which demand investigation. Doubling the lot size to 20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) would undeniably lessen environmental impacts while still providing comparatively high density housing. Such a scenerio would still provide an affordable housing alternative to most real estate opportunities on the North Fork. Other logical densities deserving consideration are one acre zoning, cluster zoning and the development of an alternate site in accordance with existing zoning. A project of the magnitude and importance of this one requires a thorough understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues according to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and the SEQR process. The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement associated with this project fails in this matter. An abundance ot~ additional information must be presented and evaluated in connection with this proposal before a well informed decision can be reached by the Lead Agency. in conclusion, the DEIS is deficient in that it: 1. The DEIS does not adequately define government objectives for the site and the various approvals required to develop the project. 2. The DEIS does not properly describe the broader potential impacts with regard to groundwater, transportation, existing land use, demography and cultural resources. 3. The DEIS does not fully assess potentially adverse impacts. 4. ']'he DEIS does not analyze viable alternatives such as varying levels of density. -I thank you for your consideration and attention. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here would like to make any statement? CHUCK STABILE: I'm glad I moved here before he got ou.t of school, i probably never would have b~en able to buy. I live in the unincorporated Gree~nport. I also Page 14- Draft ElS - ~. ~tello '' have some property in the Village of Greenport and I know this hearing address strictly the environmental aspects of this and I really have nothing to add to that particular aspect of it, except that that gentleman from the engineering firm could probably apply everything he said to existing communities existing in $outhold Town allready and probably say exactly the same things that he has already said. It's a form of procrastination. I think that the Town Board should decide on this matter. Il: it doesn't, it is procrastinating and frankly a decision not to decide is just a form o~f procrastination. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. ARTHUR LEVINE: Was such a complicated survey furnished for every one of the high density areas that has been developed? I don't understand it. Suddenly--- I think about the best thing about that report that was read is that it's biodegradable. BOB MILLS, Greenport: The questions that I had--I thought the purpose of getting this property annexed into the Village was to let the property gain access to the Village water supply. I believe if I'm not mistaken that once the property is in the Village of Greenport it has priority over projects outside of the Village, such as Brecknock Hall, Long Creek Estates that Judge Tasker pointed out. Affordable housing is desperately needed in this community. Everybody knows it and the longer it takes the more people are going to move out. It's time the Town Board and the Village Board and ,anybody does something for the young people in this communitY. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. LOUIS SACKS, First Street, Greenport: I came as an observe and I didn't learn tao much, but when I hear about all these impact statements I got to go back to June 4th, 1983. At that time I believe Mr. Pell sat in your chair and he declared it Lena Klipp Gardiner Day. tt was her 100th birthday. She lived in a house on a lot that was 50 by 80 and on that lot was a septic tank and a pump. When she got sick she wanted water from that pump. All these impact statements and every- thing is defuted, because I had the proof, I know she made 100 because ! got from the Board the certificate. Mayor Hubbard gave me the certificate, so these impact statements are only a delaying action in my mind. Let's get the ball rolling. SIJPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. FRANCES DEEGAN: I just have one question. How do you get more water by drilling more wells? I mean, it's like putting a spiggot in a tank. You can empty the tank in two hours with one spiggot and you'll empty it twice as fast with more spiggots. That's all. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir. BILL MUELLER, Middleton Road, Greenport: I've lived there for thirty-two years. I've been in the area for thirty-six and as explained to me, this project is really what we need in this area. I know, I'm in business in the area and I find--and we find--that we cannot entice young people to stay here because they can't find affordable housing. Here's a project that looks really like Middleton Road did forty years ago and Middleton Road, which was then known as Fleetfield, was built up with smal~ houses on small lots and I defy anybody to tell me today that in the area Middleton Road isn't really kept up nicely. All these small houses were added Page 15 - Draft ElS - on to as time went by, when the owners could afford to do so and it's a delightful community and area to live in and I think that what's being proposed here for the 48 acres is almost what Middleton Road was like forty years ago and it really is a deserving thing and it should be inculcated. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. (:ENE CANSWICK: I work at Greenport Yacht. I'm a little nervous now, but--this is my little son. We've been in Greenport for the last seven years. I just had to take him out because I had to discipline him a little bit because he just can't sit still. Within the last seven years I've moved four times and it's just something, you know, that takes its toll--I mean for him, he's four years old, so he's moved three times he's already shifted around, so right now he doesn't know how to sit down, and I work at Greenport Yacht and I have three men underneath me and it's tough. I mean, I'm about ready to lose two of these guys. I'm a welder and Greenport Yacht is like, you know, it's looking to expand, it's looking to do something for the Town, for the people. I'm renting right now and I'd love to have something of my own and I'm ready to lose two good guys. It's really tough to get somebody thal~'s good to work, but to be able to stay and live in this town of Greenport, because of a chance to find some place to live. I'm telling you the rents are up there now. i mean, just where i'm living now from when I first came to ~what I am now, the prices are just kind of like just nuts and this is just rentals and if people that live in the Town know this, I mean the people that are renting know this and the rents are going to go and it's hurting, it's hurting me because I need help like as far as workingwise, you know you got to have help to do a job and like if ! can't get the help then I'm hurting physically and I don't know all this about this environmental impact, you know, water and this, I mean, but I can understand everybody's worrying about water, but you have all these condominiums coming in here and these people are going to be using more water watering their lawns then they are drinking it. I mean, it's a little ridiculous. I mean, you getting all these people, you're getting from all out of town. They probably got plentyof money. They're probably going to live here and now you're going to work in this area, but definitely their lawns are going to be one of the most beautiful lawns in the whole, you know, world, but here's all your water. There it goes. Who's going to stop them from watering their lawns? And now everybody's worried about water for drinking. Hey, that's great. I'm for tlnat too, but here is how you got people who want to work and live here and, you know, I know you're worried about the water, but Jesus Christ, give us the water too. We don't want to water our lawns, we just want it to drink, and we want to work here and that's it. Thanks. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? In the rear? DAN BLAISLEY; I work in Greenport and I just moved out this way a few months ago and I haven't been able to find a place to live yet. I'm living at my in-laws I~ecause my wife's from the area and I can find a place to live but I just can't afford ~700 a month rent and living with the in-laws puts a tax on us too. I~ve never seen an area quite like this, you know. It's beautiful, but for the average working man it's ridiculous. I think you should take it and really consider it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. And we won't tell your mother-in-law. Anyone else like to make any comments? Bill. WILLIAM ESSEKS, Attorney for the Applicant: The only way that you can do this and that we can present it is to follow the SEQR regulations for better or for worse. According to SEQR regulations, this is the hearing and the hearing you can either Page 16 - Draft ElS - C,,~tello close or you can continue. The purpose of the hearing is to ascertain whether the environmental impact statement, as submitted and as supplemented by criticisms, is sufficient to give you a hard look--that's the test--concerning the proposal before you, and the proposal before you is one and that is whether this piece of land is t.0 be annexed from the Town to the Village, and as a resultant effect in that the zoning is changed automatically. As far as i know those are the only two things you are supposed to look at and that's what we addressed our impact statement to and to a certain extent that's what the opposition has responded to. Now, they've said there are four things that we didn't address. If you think that you don't have enough information for the requisite hard look, then you should say to us that you clon't. You can say to us that you want more information and if you decide that you want more information about any of those four issued that they brought up, or any of the issues that they haven't brought up or we haven't brought up that you tihink you need, you tell us and we'll present it. And the way that's done, as far as I know, is for you to adjourn the hearing for an hour or a day or a week or a month and reconvene it and say to me and my people that work with us, you got any more stuff? Because in the interim we will try to respond to those questions. We think we've done it, but the last thing I want to do is to have you close the hearing and not be satisfied that we've come forth. Not to convince you that it's a good idea. INIot to convince you that it's a bad idea, but to bring forth information whereby you can make an intelligent decision. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? JOHN RAYNOR, Engineer for John Cosello: I've been working with him on the project since late last year. I make my living by going to meetings like this and ! listen quite frequently to the comments on draft environmental impact statements and what I usually hear is the type of a presentation that came from the gentleman from Middleton and Kontokosta Associates. It's usually a littany of the things that they would like to see added to the impact statement in the hope that when you're finished you'll have a better impact statement or perhaps a better picture of what the impact will be. Invariably that doesn't lead to better information, it's just a battle between the proponents and the opponents of the project. It's refreshing to sit here tonight and listen to the kind of testimony that's been given, because I think that the things that people have said are better indication of what the impact olF this project will be on your community, because the impacts are on the environment-- I should say the environment that is being impacted is composed of ali of the things that we've discussed. It isn't just water supply or questions of flora and fauna. It has to do with the people who live in the town and I think you should take that into consideration before deciding you needs mounds of additional information. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, is there anyone else would like to make a comment? Sir? RICHARD KOPEK: I live in the East-West Fire District and I want to point out that people have made light of impact studies, but before I bought property out here on Long Island me and my wife looked at some property around Artist Lake in Brookhav~n~ wihich is a beautiful place with condominiums around this pristine lake where you go fishing and swimming and boating. Well, because they built around this area and the runoff of fertilizer and everything, the lake slowly died. They couldn't go fishing, they couldn't go swimming and now these beautiful people and beautiful houses are around a swamp and I tell you I'm quite sure these people regret that an impact study wasn't made when they built this around Artist Lake. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to make any comments? ]Page 17 - Draft ElS - , ~tello HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: Just one last statement. When this impact statement is concluded or revised or commented on, I think for the first time the definition of this code word "affordable housing", with some real numbers so we know what these people are talking about so that theytre not conned into thinking that the housing that they should have and need to live in will be satisfied in this transaction, and also this term "sweat equity". Let's define what that is so these people will understand what this means and what this will mean if this is a change. I think those things are very important and they've been bantyed about and they've nice and no one's against affordable house. Everyone wants to be able to live in a proper home, at the cost they can afford. But it's never been defined and it's never been stated and I think it should. Thank you. -~UPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to make any comments? John? JIOHN COSTELLO: Well, I'd like to address the easiest question first, and Mr. Pachman just handed it to me, "sweat equity". Him being an attorney, I'm sure he's not aware of what it amounts to. I built my house and most people here have done it. You do what you have to do. You work. You get out there and if you have to mow your own lawn, you mow your own lawn, because you can't afford to have somebody else do it. You paint it when you have to do it. That's "sweat equity". If you have to build your own foundation, put your own fence in, and if it takes you twenty years not hiring all contractors but doing it yourself, you have to do it. You'll sweat, and if he's done it and most people have done it, you'll know what "sweat equity" is and I'm sure everybody here remembers, except maybe possibly Mr. Pachman. Well, I'd like to answer a couple of the questions. I'm sure we're cjetting away from the meeting--you said at the end. There are some legitimate questions and I'd like to try to answer some of it. Ruth Oliva asked w-hat the benefit to Southold is? I feel that the benefit to Southold is--the same expression of most of these people here, and they're young kids and they're the working force in Southold. I don't care where the land is, if you provide for them that is the biggest benefit for Southold. She also asked about the water and the sewer. If it's into Greenport we are not going to put sewerage into the ground. Mr. Trent recommended that we put sewerage into the ground and recharge. Personally i've talked to many experts on it, including several with the County Health Department and they would recommend where there is sewage treatment plants, put it in the plants. That's why we have them. We will also use public water that Greenport has available. If this land goes into Greenport, I believe that we will be allowed a hookup without the application. Outside in Southold '['own there will have to be an application and Greenport, as you read in the paper, will probably have to supply the water in time. Delay tactics is going to ruin the afford- ability of this project per se. It's unique that it lies 50 feet from hookup to the sewer system. The water system is also right in the Main Road there. It's surrounded by water hookup, it's unique, There are 50 acres in several other spots. They don't have the sewage capability. They don't have the availability to hook up. They don't have the water. I think this project and this piece of land is unique to the needs of Southold Town for right now. Mr. Trent also mentioned one time that he recommends and the North Fork Water Study recommends no development east of Ashamomaque Pond. That's not the fact. 'it's not going to happen. We're all realists here. What we're going to do is control it and meet the needs of the Town. The indians probably didn't want us here but they got us. All right, and Mr. McCarthy from Middleton and Kontokosta Associates made the comment, and i believe ninety percent of those comments do not address annexation of a parcel of land. They address planning and the development of the parcel. It will be planned, it will be developed. There will be hearings on both but we won't be talking about hypothetical numbers at that Page 18 - Draft ElS - ~ ~tello time, but specific numbers. did ask for a Iocator map. you. Most of those objections apply at that time, but he i'm sorry we didn't do it, we'll do it next time. Thank SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, is there anyone else would like to address the Town Board? Okay, if not I would just like to make one comment on the need of a draft environmental impact statement. At times it might seem very time consuming and wasteful and all of that, but as several people pointed out it certainly has its advantages. We cannot really afford not to have this done any more. The Town Board will review as soon as the Town Clerk can get these minutes trans- cribed, will review the proceeding and we will make a determination in the earliest possible chance that we can. So if no one on the Town Board has an objection, I'd like to ask for a motion to adjourn. COUNCILMAN COCHRAN: So moved. COUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: I'd like to discuss it first. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Want to take a recess? (Board agreed.) Just a short recess to talk to the Town Attorney before we make a determination. I don't believe there will be any more input tonight unless someone wants to do it right now, so I would like to--- SHIRLEY CROCKER: Doesn't the Board have anything to say on this? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, we're not. We're taking input on this. That's what the hearing is for, to let us hear what you have to say.---Sir? FRED SCHOENSTEIN: I work in Greenport and I live in Greenport and I'd like to say that the younger people in this community also need a place to stay and I think it's' a great project and I'm all for it and I'd like to see it go through. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? ERICK HEINS: I came to speak for all the young people of Southold Town. I've grown up here all my life. I was lucky enough to be able to buy a piece of property four years ago for around $14,000. The property right next to mine just three weeks ago sold for $45,000. With the money that I'm making and the young people i know, the salaries they?re making, I don't believe there, s any way that they can afford to be able to never mind buy a piece of property but yet build a house on it. I~m working two jobs now and it's tough just for me and my family, i think somebody better do something for the young people or they'll be no young people in Southold Town. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? BILL COLDER: I wasn't going to say anything, but I gotta. They don't call me "big mouth" for nothing. Now, I was born out here, brought up out here and aJlways came out here and as of today ! enjoyed the fishing here. ! enjoyed every- thing here, but I've seen things go very bad and in my opinion because the only people who have come out here are people with no ties to the community. I'm talking of the older people and as a retired person i'm talking against my own kind maybe. I'm for the kids. What happens, you get people out here in retirement. They come out here. They have no connections to the community. They are not interested in the community per se. What they are interested in is what can we find fault with] What can we knock down? We can knock down the schools because we have no Page 19 - Draft ElS - COstello grandchildren, no children, no reason to worry about it. What we want is our own little piece of land with a pink ribbon about and nothing for nobody, no how, never. That's the attitucte. There may exceptions, but I find them few and far between. Now, when these people come o4 ,ere if they knew nobody was going to rob their place, let"s get rid of the Police L~epartment and we don't have to pay taxes on that. And if they knew there was going to be no fires, we don't need the Fire Department. Get rid of them too. The only thing they can really criticize is the schools is because we have no bonds and so forth. Are they interested? Are they helping the community? They are the retired people who can really afford these big places and by circumventing things they can buy a little house and then by leaving part of it, I understand, they can build a lot bigger part around it and make a mansion. There's always a getting around it if you get back to it if you have money, but for the kids who come out here you can see in the newspapers right now all the advertisements there are for people to work, but you have to have people who want to want. You have to have young people. This is a wonderful place to raise kids. Thank God my kids were raised here, but then what can they do outside of that. Three of mine--one's in California, one's up in Massachusetts, one, thank God, is here and he can find a job because he has his own place, electronics, but he can't find people to work for him either, because he cannot get them to come out here because there is no afford- able housing. So I shot my mouth off, I just had to say it. I wasn't going to say a word. Thank you very kindly. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Bill. Okay, is there anyone else would like to address the Board? If not, Councilman Townsend would like us to take a five minute recess to talk to the Town Attorney and then we'll make a decision either to close the hearing or to recess it to the future. There will be no more testimony then. Recess for five minutes. 9:00 P.M. I~learing reconvened. 9:05 P.M. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Town Board has decided to close the hearing right now and this will be the end of the input on the draft environmental impact statement. Thank you for coming ou~. 'Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk APPENDIX NO. 4 SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES, INC. RECOMMENDATION TO LEAD AGENCY A - 4 SZEPATOwSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S II MEMORANDUM TO: Supervisor Murphy FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. David Emilita, Principal Planner RE: DEIS for Annexation to Greenport DATE: May 31, 1985 At your request, I have reviewed the comments delivered at the public hearing on May 16, 1985 on the Annexation. I have also reviewed Part 617 SEQR Regulations which require the lead agency to prepare or cause to be prepared a final EIS'within 45 days of the close of the hearing,meaning by July 1, 1985 in this case. Based on the public hearing comments, which include by reference a report by Middleton, Kontokosta (M/f) Associates dated April 11, 1985, a final EIS is believed to be necessary. Part 617.8 (e) (1) allows a determination of no significance to be made at this point without a final EIS. However, in view of potential litigation should this course of action be taken without fully addressing the public comments and the Mt4 report, a conservative approach would require a final EIS to reduce legal exposure. With timely input from Peconic Assoicates Inc. and Planners East Inc., preparers of the draft EIS, the Town can prepare the final EIS within the required time frame. I would advise a meeting as soon as possible with the applicant and preparer to advise them of this course of action. The July 1 deadline can be extended for reasons contained in Part 617.8 (e) (2) (i). by Town Board resolution at its June 18th meeting if the preparer of the draft EIS cannot supply further information by that date. An exhaustive time consuminq reply requiring contemporaneous studies is not necessary. Messrs. Wiggin and Brod should be able to reply to the major points in the MK report in a few days to a week which should be sufficient time to prepare a final EIS. I will be attending a groundwater conference the week of June 17-22 at Cornelt which is the reason for an extension if the preparers cannot respond before then. Please advise if you wish us to assist the Town in the final EIS preparation. 23 Narrasansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 APPENDIX NO. 5 TABLE OF PRESENT AND PROJECTED POPULATION A - 5 ,'-4 ::3 u3 u3 ""~ 0 0 O'~ 0 0 0 0 APPENDIX NO. 6 LETTER FROM LONG ISLAND CHAPTER, NYS ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION A 6 THE INCORPORATED LONG ISLAND CHAPTER N ~/ YOP. K STATF. ARCHAEOLOG1C.,AI. ASSOCIATION APPENDIX NO. 7 SUFFOLK TIMES LETTER TO THE EDITOR, FEBRUARY 14, 1985 A - 7 lk Times ';~ ...... February 14, 1985 Letters to the Editor 'We D°n't Want It' ~ut~ogue Sir: _ / Aft~reading YOur Jan. 3)/editorial, and two~etters recently2(ublished in your Feb.~ edition, it ~(pears that re- sidents of O~ient/Eas~l(~arion feel poSi. tivelY in £sv~ of a~cal airport. ~Y°ur editorial statod'~t "airports can make good neighbors~then perhaps Orient is the right ~atio~xfor this farce! PerhapS,~ou can ~ your personal medium/]~he Suffolk ~nes, to influ- ence tM Airport Adviso~x~Committee and ~ve t~hem c. oncen_trat~t~ efforts on )~n Orient airport location, ~ause w~ do notwant it in Cutch~gu~e~ ~,~,~ John Baglivi the Dec. 6 meeting as to who supported and who opposed the proposed anhexa- tion. How did you arrive at a figure of two to one in favor of annexation? Further, our organization is not op- posed to the proposed housing but we are definitely opposed to the commer- cial aspects. Yours truly, Emanuel Abate, President Stirling Eastern Shores Property Owners Assoc. (EDITOR'S NOTE: The two to one figure was arrived at by adding up the number of speakers at the Dec. 7public hearing at town hall on the East End Associates project.) Listen New Suffolk Ratio Ouestioned De~.wSi~tffotk residente have beenl Greenpert tientl~waiting for the second sh~ to Dear Troy: drop ev~ since developer Rich~ Can' Twice d~n*ing the Past month The Suf- announce~his intention of ]~fying the folk Times rel~rted the people ofSouth- North Forl~Shipyard a~V'turning it old favored the proposed annexation of into a. ritz_' y~arina- _fl~.b. First we 48 acres fl~om Southold town into the learned ath ot u/~w,~civic association Village of Greenport by a two to one had given its ap, l~Val of the project ratio. ' ~~ ub,,li, c _m_~ee_ting~ o~f At the Dec. 6 meeting, attorney How- any kind. M~t of us db~'t have any hut ard Pachman Presented the Eastern the most~gue idea of~e dimensions Shores AsE~ciation case and requested of the ~o'ject, and reques/~/for more in- that no more than two or three other- forn~ti?n from the asseci~ion or Mr. residents speak. He also presented the ~~ tives~n, variab,ly joint boards with a petition containing /~~n, "Oh, yes, w~'re wo_rk- 350 signatures opposed to the annexa-/ ingonthatfor astatementte~.member tion. I do not recall a vote being teken at (continued on next page) APPENDIX NO. 8 TEST HELL DATA A - 8 ?ABLETrI - 1 NE~ ¥OR~ S?&T~ DRINI~]~NG ~&'I~R STANDARDS Or~el~t~ Chemicals Maximum Continent Level (ppbl Chloroform ) ~ t~ ~ncen~atlofl ~1 Br~o~ ) ~t exc~ 100 ~b B~chloroM~ne ) wster containing more taus 20 ppm o£ sodium s~ould not bo used for drinkinq by those on severely restricted sodium sodiu~ diet. KREIGER WELL & PUMP CORP. Wells - Pumps - Repairs Box 101 - Main Rood Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 (516) 727-2124 -- (516) 298-4141 S-78964T ........................................... ~ Total depth 57 ' Well size .................................................... Static water level 11 ft. Capacity of well ...................... __2_~g .......... gal. p. m. Remarks Kreiger Well & Pump Corp. License No. 10 KREIGER WELL & PUMP CORP. WELL DRILLING - WATER SYSTEMS BOX 101 - MAIN ROAD - MA~rlTUCK, NY 11952 - PHONE 298-4141 · 727-2124 June 13,1985 John Cost ello Box AK Greenport, NY 11944 Re: 5" test well S-78964T C/O Rte 48 & Moor es Lane Greenpor t, NY To whom it may Concern; This is to certify that we drilled a test well at the above mentioned location, to a depth of 57 feet. Static water is 11 feet~ with 10 feet of stainless steel screen. The well was pumped at a rate of 250 gallons per minute for a period of 6 hours, on May 9,1985. At 21'- Hardpan, from 31-57'- sand and rocks. Enclosed are the results of the water tests taken after the test pumping. Sinc er ely, Kre~ge~ Well & Pump Corp Robert Go Lauriguet ~co~TEE~T LABORATORIESi INC. EN VIRONMENTA L TESTING 377 SHEFFIELD AVE. · N. BABYLON, N.Y. 11703 · (516) 422-5777 John W. Hallman Ltd. P.O. Box 423 Shelter Island Heights, NY 11965 June 3, 1985 SOLIRCE OF SAMPLE: Costello, Moores La., Greenport, NY ODLr.RC~ED: 5/9/85 BY: JWH/EcoTest RECEIVED: 5/10/85 LAB~C8510 75/4 INCRGANIC Os~ICAL ANALYSES Chloride as C1, mg/L 12 Iron as Fe, mg/L <0.05 Nitrate as N, rag/L <0.5 pH, units 6.4 Synthetic Detergents as M~AS, mg/L <0.1 Manganese as Mn, mg/L <0.02 Rt.I~qRKS: Ail values are within _NY State and Federal limits for potable water. 853331 LAB No~ FIELD No ~t_ TIME: ~ '- , COL. BY: SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY Date Receiv~:l in 'LAB, PUBLIC WATER PR IVATE WATER SWIMMING POOL BEACH SEWAGE OWNER or DISTRICT LOCATION WATER SUPPLY SAMPLE DATA pO,.T OF COLLECT'O.= 0~-"'' ~ TAP FLAMED: YES V ~ SEWAGE PLANT SAMPLE DATA Point of ColleCtion HolCling time Oefore aechlo¢ination Chlo¢ing ~e$iaual Rate of Flow (MGD) REMARKS: SWIMMING POOL SAMPLE DATA BEACH or STREAM SAMPLE DATA WEATI~IE R (Circle) FAIR CLOUDY RAIN LAB USE ONLY STANDARD PLATE COUNT/mi (24 HRS. 35'C} MOST PROBABLE NUMBER/100 mi MEMBRANE FILTER Total Coliform: Fecal Coliform: Total Coliform/100mi Fecal Coliform/100ml Fecal Strep/100ml DIRECTOR:. PHL- 2 Rev. 3/80 - za-s33.. Lab No. Date: ~" 1 A Time: ~ ~ Col. BY: ~ (NamP not Date Received in Lab Public Water Private Water Other Date Completed Examined By MAY 0 7 ~ uHLiv,~L;~L EXAMtNA-I ION OF WATER Point of Collection Remarks: ?C., ~' Partial ~ Complete [] Resample [] Free Amnxmia (mg/I N) / .~ I~ .~ T.Hardness (mg~ CaCO3) C.O.D. (rog/I} Nitrites + Nitrates {mg/I N) ~ L~ T. Alkalinity (rng/I CaCO3 T. Solids (mg/I) - 180° C MBAS (m~l) Ca Hardness (mg/I CaCO3] D. Solids (mg/I) - 180° C ~/'t / ~,~r~ H.~a~_~<.,~,~ c~co.O s. So~i,~ (,~¢n - ~.*n~ o pH uhiorides (mB/I Ct) j ~ Turbidity (Units) Sulfates (mg/I SO4) L~ 0 Color (Units) Iron (mg/I Fa) [),/ 3 ~dmium (mg~ ~) ~n~. (mC Mn) ~ ~, 0, ~ Silver (mg~ Ag) ~p~ (ml¢ CU) ~ ~ 0 ) 0 Lead (mC ~} ~nc (~ Zn) ~ ~ ~ Hexavalen, " ~romium (mC) Nitrita (mC N) Fluoride (mg~ F) / r I~" 1' '~' Rec'~ it Lab Public Water Private Water Date Co=pieCed Examined By .llY DEPARTb~.Ewm ~ TRACE ORGANIC ANALYSIS OF WATER Point ,of Collection Remarks: Compound ~pb 306 vinyl chloride ........ 305 methylene chloride .... 290 bromoch!oromethane .... ---- 323 1,1 dichloroethane .... 309 trans dichloroethylene. 300 chloroform .......... 524 1~2 dichloroethane ~2! 1,1,t trichloroeth~ 304 carbon tetrachlor!~ 294 1 bromo 2 chtoroer' '~05 310 303 293 420 301 311 3O8 320 292 307 302 4O6 407 4O8 322 1,2 dichloropropane . .. 1,1,2 trichloroethylene chlorodibromomethane .. 1,2 dibromoethane ..... 2 bromo 1 ch!oropropane bromoform ........ . .... tetrachloroethylene ... cis dich!oroethylene .. freon 113 ............. dibromomethane ........ 1~,1 dichloroethylene .. bromodichloromethane .. 2~,3 dichloropropene ... cis dlchloropropene ... trans dichloropropene 1,1,2 trichloroethane <£ <2 Compound 250 benzene ................ 251 toluene ................ 258 chlorobenzene ........... 259 ethylbenzene ...... ...... 254 o-xylene ............... 757. . ~ m-xylene ............... ~ ~ p' xylene ............... t,~l xylenes .......... 2~7 m--ch!oro~oluene ........ 268 p-chlorotoluene ........ 265 total chlorotoluene .... 419 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene 418 1,2,4 trime~hy!benzene 415 m,p-dich!orobenzene .... 4!2 o-dichlorobenzene ...... 432 p-diethylbenzene ....... 435 1,2,4,5 tetramethylbenz' 437 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene 438 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene 409 1,1,!~2 tetrachl'oethane 430 1,2,2,3 tetrach!'propane 295 s-tetrachloroethane ...~ 431 1,1,1,2 tetrachl'propane 433 1,2,3 ~richloropropane . ppb_ -%ec .., in Lab Public Wa=er Date Completed ~ SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES DIVISION OF MEDICAL LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS 6 FORENSIC SCIENCES PUHLIC HEALTH LABORATOR~ PESTICIDE ANALYSIS OF WATER (S) Community'S_ ~~.~ / Mailing Ad~ress (20) , Pub Ncom ?< P:iv / (15) Distance to Farm 2..o~¢~Dft. / (30) Map Coordinates . / /... / (3~) Well Oept~ ~ ~ ~t. / (57) Resample? Yes Key ~ ~ / Sampling Poin~ (14) Dis=tic= (13) Section (16) Block (17) Lot Remarks Owner ./ MG/L. · / (425) Aldicarb Sulfoxide ... ~--\ / (426) A!dlcarb S~ifone ..... / (224) Carbo£uran ..... , ..... / ~ / (427) 3-H.v~rox~carbofuran .. F-- ~ / (428) Oxamyl 0,0, ........... W.- \ / (429) Carbar~l ....... o.,... ~ \ / (554) 1-Naph:hol ..... , ..... / \ / (430) Methomy! ............. ~ % / (431) Metham .......... .. (78) Nitrate ..... . ..... ,..-- APPENDIX NO. 9 PROPOSED LOT COVENANT PROCEDURES A - 9 JOHN A. COSTELLO 296 WIGGINS LANE GREENPORT, NEW YORK - 11944 To address the comments made by Councilman Townsend at the work session on June 4th, and again on the Resolution adopted at the regular meeting June 4, 1985 asking: "The strategy by which these lots will be relayed to low and moderate income people in need of housing, as opposed to investors seeking to benefit from lots priced below marked value." It is my intention to have deed restrictions and covenants incorporated into the lots sales agreement to preclude speculation and artificially increasing lot costs to moderate income families. These convenants and restrictions may be patented after the Town of Southampton's Moderate Income Housing Agreement, attached. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 13, 1985 A. Costello TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Town Board, Paul Council, David Emilita, Planning Board Fred W. Thiele, Jr. Town Attorney. December 9, 1983 MODERATE INCOME HOUSING Attached, is a revised proposed model agreement for moderate income housing. This agreement would form the cornerstone for administration of any moderate income housing created under the new Master Plan. Your com_ments are appreciated. FWT:pk Attachment MODERATE INCOME HOUSING AGREEMENT This agreement is made by and between the Town of Southampton, (hereafter "Town,") a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of New York with offices at 116 Hampton Road, Southampton, New York and , hereinafter "Developer," residing at · as of the day of 198 WHEREAS, the developer is the owner of subject premises , more particularly described in Exhibit A and incorporated here by reference (hereinafter "sub- ject premises," and WHEREAS, the Town has stated through its Master Plan that it is its policy to provide its share of the region's housing needs, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southampton allows for the construction of a variety of housing types to meet the housina needs of the region, and WHEREAS, despite the existence of a balanced plan and zoning ordinance which permlss construction of a variety of housing types to meet regional needs, market conditions may not be favorable for affordable housing for all segments of the community, and WHEREAS, the Town has taken affirmative steps to minimize adverse market conditions by providing housing incentives to encourage construction of housing for low and moderate income families through density bonuses and reduced minimum floor area requirements for dwellings, and WHEREAS, the developer has requested the use of these housing incentives to develop the subject premises, and the sub- ject premises meet the applicable rules and regulations within the Town Code, and WHEREAS, the developer has agreed to provide low and moderate income housing in connection with these housing incentives, and WHEREAS, the Town finds that the developer's proposal would promote the goals and policies of the Town Master Plan and would be in the best interests of the Town, and Page Two WHEREAS, in connnection with the provision of low and moderate income housing by the developer, the Town agrees to provide the housing incentives, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the provision of low and moderate income housing incentives, the Towh and Developer agree as follows: 1. Definitions: (a). '"Moderate Income Family" shall mean a family~whose aggregate income, including the total of all current annual income of all family members from any source whatsoever at the time of application, but excluding the earnings of working minors (under the age of 21) attending school full time, does not exceed the following multiple of $26,500.00 (which base amount shall be revised annually every January 31 to conform to the previous year's change in the Consumer Price Index, New York Metropolitan Area.) Number of Persons 1 0.7 2 0.9 3 1.0 4 1.1 5 1.2 6 1.3 7 1.4 8+ 1.5 (b) o "Unit for Moderate Income Family" shall mean a dwelling unit for which the maximum monthly rent does not exceed 1.75 percent (excluding utilities) or the maximum initial sales price does not exceed 200 percent of maximum aggregate annual family income for a moderate income family, as defined herein, based upon family size and dwelling unit size as set forth below. Dwellinq Unit Size Family Size Efficieny 1 1 Bedroom 2 2 Bedroom 4 3 Bedroom 6 4 Bedroom 8 Page Three The table above shall he'utilized solely to determine maximum monthly rent or initial maximum sales price and shall not be construed as a limitation on occupancy. This definition shall also include unimproved lots reserved for sale to moderate income families. The maximum sales price for said lots shall not exceed the following multiple of $15,000 (which base amount shall be revised every January 31 to conform to changes in the Consumer Price Index for the New York Metropolitan Area.) Less than 20,000 square feet 20,000 40,000 square feet more than 40,000 square feet 0.7 1.0 1.3 Resale and continued eligibility of said units and lots shall be regulated pursuant to Chapter 7, Housing, of this code and this agreement. (c). "Dwelling Unit" shall have the same meaning as provided in ~69-5 of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton and shall include single family dwelling, multi-family dwelling, two family dwellings and apartments. (d). "Permanent Fixed Improvement" shall mean an improvement to a lot or unit for a low and moderate income family which cannot be removed without substantial damage to the subject premise or total loss of value of said improvements. No adjustment shall be made except for improvements made by the selling owner. No improvement shall be deemed a permanent fixed improvement unless the actual initial cost of the improvement to the owner exceeds one (1) percent of the purchase price paid by the owner. No adjustment shall be made unless valid written documentation of the cost of said improvements is presented to the Director. (e) "Consumer Price Index" shall be the Consumer Price Index as published by The United States Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics for the New York Metropolitan area. Page Four (f). "Director,' shall mean the director of the Community Development office for the Town of Southampton. (g). "Lot" shall have the same meaning as provided in ~69-5 of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton 2. Provision of Moderate Income Housing (a) The developer hereby agrees to provide income families. units for moderate (1). units shall be in the form of apartments or attached units. (2). units shall be in the form of single family detached dwellings. (3). units shall be in the form of unimproved lots. The units for moderate income families shall be provided on (b) that portion of premises more particularly described in Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Provision of Housing Incentives The Town hereby agrees to provide the following housing incentives: (a) An increase in residential density of units pursuant to 569-6D of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton. (b) An increase in residential density of units pursuant to §69-6.2 of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton. (c) A reduction in minimum floor area for units for.moderate income families as provided by ~69-18B(6) of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton. 4. Maximum Initial Sales Price For Dwelling Units and Unimproved Lots (a) The maximum initial sales price for all dwelling units for moderate income families shall be as follows: 2.0 X Maximum Aggregate Family Income for a Unit for a Moderate Income Family Page Five (b) The maximum initial sales price for an unimproved lot for moderate income families shall not exceed the following multiple of $15,000.00 (which base amount shall be revised annually on January 31 to conform to the previous year's change in the Consumer Price Index): (i) less than 20,000 square feet - 0.7 (ii) 20,000 - 40,000 square feet - 1.0 (iii) over 40,000 square feet - 1.3 (c) In no case shall the maximum initial sales price for dwelling units and unimproved lots excced fair market value. 5. Resale Price of Dwelling Units and Unimproved Lots (a) Dwelling Units may be offered for resale to eligible familes, provided the maximum resale price shall not exceed ths greater of the following: (i) Purchase Price + Cost of Permanent Fixed Improvements X Consumer Price Index + Reasonable & Necessary Resale Expenses, or (ii) 2.0 X Maximum Aggregate Family Income for Moderate Income Family at the time of resale (b) Unimproved lots for moderate income familie~ Which remain unimproved may be offered for resale provided the maximum resale price does not exceed the purchase price of the lot multiplied by the Consumer Price Indcx. (c) Where'an unimproved lot for moderate income families is improved with a dwelling unit and is subsequently offered for resale, the maximum resale price shall be determined in the same manner as paragraph 5(a) of this agreement. (d) In no case shall the maximum resale price exceed fair market value. 6. Rental of Dwellinq Units (a) The maximum monthly rental (excluding'utilities) shall not exceed 1.75 percent of the maximum aggregate income of a moderate income family. Page Six (b) Where the unit for a moderate income family is to be rented, the lease for said unit shall not exceed two (2) years° As long as an occupant remains eligible and has complied with the terms of the lease, the occupant shall be offered a two (2) year renewal of the lease. If an occupants annual income shall exceed the eligible income level by more than twenty (20) percent, and there is an eligible applicant for the unit, the occupant may complete the current lease term and shall be'offered, if available, a unit which is not a "moderate income" family unit in th~ development. If no such dwelling unit is available, the occupant maybe allowed to sign one additional one (1) year lease for the moderate income dwelling unit, but no further renewal shall be permitted. 7. .Eligibility (a) Only moderate income families may occupy units for moderate income families and said units may only be sold or resold to or rented by moderate income families. (b) Initial and continued eligibility priority for sale or occupancy of any such units shall be on the following basis: (i) Persons employed in the Town of Southampton (ii) Residents of the Town of Southampton, in order of length of residence in the Town, and (iii) All others (c) However, the foregoing eligibility priorities for any such special units shall apply only among persons who offer the same gross purchase price or monthly rent to the seller or lessor of such unit. 8. Administration (a) Upon receipt of an application for the issuance..~of a certifi- cate of occupancy for a dwelling unit for moderate income families or earlier if requested by the developer, but not prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Building Inspector shall send a copy of the application to the Director, who shall inform the owner within thirty (30) days of the maximum monthly rental or intial maximum sales price for the dwelling unit and the maximum family income for eligibility for occupancy of said unit. Page Seven (b) No certificate of occupancy may be issued by the building inspector until the Director has provided the rental, sales and income eligibility information. (c) The Director shall certify the eligibility of all appli- cants for rental or sale of low or moderate income housing and shall annually re-examine or cause to be re-examined each occupant family's eligibility. An owner shall lease or sell low and moderate income housing only to a person who has received a certificate of eligibility issued by the Director.. Violations of this Provision shall constitute grounds for revocation of a certificate of occupancy. (d) On or before March 31st of each year, thereafter, the Director shall notify the owner or manager of low or moderate income housing units as to the rent, sales and income eligibility requirements for such units based upon figures derived from the preCeding year. : (e) The developer shall certify to the director ~on or before May 3tst of each year that all low and moderate income housing sales and rentals comply with the provisions of this Chapter and Chapter 69 of this Code. 9. Miscellaneous (a) The occupancy of dwelling units for moderate income families Shall be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 69 (Zoning) of the Town Code of the Town of Southampton. (b) Where fair market value or value of fixed improvements shall be at issue, the Town shall cause an appraisal to be pre- pared to establish fair market value. (c) The covenants and conditions herein contained shall apply to and bind heirs, successors and assigns of all parties, hereto and shall be covenants running with the land. Acceptance of any deed to property constitutes acceptance of the covenants contained herein. (d) Moderate Income housing shall be physically integrated into the design of the develop~nent in a manner satisfactory to the Page Eight Planning Board and shall be distributed among efficiency, one two, three or four-bedroom dwelling units in the same proportion as all other dwelling units in the development, unless a different proportion is approved by the Planning Board as being better related to the housing needs, current or'projected, of the Town. (e) The encumbrance of the moderate income housing shall be taken into consideration by the Town Assessor in determining the assessments on such units. (f) All certificates of occupancy issued for dwelling units which have been designated as housing for moderate income families housing shall be endorsed with a notation that occupancy of such units is conditioned upon continued compliance with the provisions of this chapter, Chapter 69 and all regulations issued thereunder. (g) The developer shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 7 of the Town Code and shall cooperate with the Director of the Co~,unity Development office with the continued administra- tion of this program. (h) The prevailing party in any action arising out of this agreement may recover its reasonable costs and attorney's fees expended in connection with such an action with another party. (i) This agreement may only be modified or terminated upon a majority vote of the Town Board of the Town of Southampton after a public hearing° (j) This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and no modifications hereof shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. TOWN DEVELOPER PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P. C. ATTORNEYS 866 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIOI-IxArAY P.O. BOX 27~ COMMACK, NEW YoRK 11725 June 11, 1985 Town Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Gentlemen: Receipt is herein acknowledged of the Notice of Significant Effect on the Environment, dated June 4th, 1985, with reference to John Costello's petition for the annexation of a portion of Southold's property to the Incorporated Village of Greenport. Upon our recent view of the file, in the Town Clerk's Office, we came across a letter, dated June 4, 1985, from Peconic Associates, Inc.~ who prepared the initial draft environmental impact statement. Without taking issue with the statements contained in Peconic Associates' letter, I respectfully draw your attention to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Section 8-0101 et seq/commonly known as SEQR, which has been implemented by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, under Title 6, part 617, which in Section 617.8 (a) states in the last senience "The applicant or the agency, at the applicant's option, shall prepare the DEIS. If the applicant does not exercise the option to prepare the DEIS, the lead agency shall prepare it, cause it to be prepared, or terminate it's review of the action." Since the DEIS was prepared by the applicant, John Costello, the final environmental impact statement must be prepared by him. Also, Section 617.8 (a) permits the lead agency to have it prepared and this gives the Town the option to have the applicant prepare it. Again, in Environmental Conservation Law Section 8-0103 (7) it states as follows: "It is the intent of the legislature that the protection and enhancement of the environment, human and community resources shall be given appropriate weight with social and economic considerations in public policy. Social, economic and environmental factors shall be considered together in reach- ing decisions on proposed activities." PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P. C. AT TO I~N-E Y S -page 2- Town Board, Town of Southold Attention: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk June 11, 1985 This statutory language is further incorporated into Section 617.1 (d). As attorney for the Objectants, we will continue to monitor the preparation and filing of the final environmental impact statement and will expect that it comply with all the appropriate provisions of part 617 of the Department of Environ- mental Conservation's regulations. Pailure to mee~ all appropriate criteria, will s~Dject the environmental impact statement to an Article 78 proceeding in court. Lastly, regulation 617.17 (a) provides that the lead agency may charge the applicant for any fees necessary t0 prepare and review an environmental impact statement. The Town Board's attention is directed to this for their further information, if the applicant or Peconic Associates does not adequately prepare the statement pursuant to the SEQR regulations. We await receipt of copy of the final environmental impact statement so that appropriate comments may be made. Thank you for your continued cooperation.  ry truly yours, HEP:mt ~w~ cc: Sterling Eastern Shores Robert W. Tasker TOWN OF $OUTHOLD JUL 291985 July 26,i985 $outhold ~o~. Board M~in Road Southold, !~I i!97i We would l~e those Board members who voted against the Gostello annexation to reconsider their vote, We feel 'that the reasons given for the negative vote were inadequate. ~fe would also l~e to remind the Bos~d that we are Southold Towm residents, even though we live in, the Village of Greenport, 0,~r ai~ should be t[he same--a better Southold Town for al~ ' ~mnoere~y ~ M~. & ~2{rs, Robert TM ~'~ ~05 Pifth Avenue Greenpost~ Bl 11944. JUL 91985 2800 Sound Drive Greenport, N.Y. 11944 July 29, 1985 Mr. Frank Murphy, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear. Mr. Murphy and Members of the Town Board: We do not feel annexation really answers the problem of housing and Jobs in Greenport. Net one single house or factory is actually proposed. What is being asked, is that we allow a developer who purchased land for $10,000 an acre to subdivide it into 1/4 acre lots that are to be resold at an estimated $20,000 per lot or the equivilant of $80,000 per acre. At this enormous profit shouldn't we expect more from the developer? Should we expect him to be involved in some kind of actu~l building of really affordable houses, The profit is there to do it. The developer is not selling any kind of housing to the young people of our community but, he Will be offering them the opportunity to buy land for 8.times the price that he just paid for it. How is this helping our young people? We think the Board can come up with a better answer to our housing needs than this. We~therefore urge you.re cast anegati~e voteL~n the proposed~ annexation of 48 acres of land on Moores L~ne and Rte 48. Very truly yours, Mr~ & Mr , Rtchar ~op~ SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS S/Il MEMORANDUM TO: Peconic Associates, Inc. FROM: Szepatowski Associates, Inc. RE: Greenport Village Annexation FEIS Date: June 7, 1985 Pursuant to our conversation of June 6 regarding the alternative of the establishment of a public improvement district, the steps involved are relatively easy in this case since at this time there is only one property owner, Mr. Costetlo. Basically, it involves the property owners' petition, preparation of a legal description.and boundary map of the district, a public hearing, a vote of the property owners in the district and approval by the Town Board. Approval from the' State Comptroller is also necessary. Whatever improvements are to be made in the district are designed and constructed in the same manner as any other public improvement district, e.g. road improvement, parking etc. The cost of the improvement then becomes a special tax levy on property owners in the district either on a lot size or frontage basis. The unusual circumstance here is that only one property owner is involved. How a vote would be handled in this case would require a legal opinion. For such legal opinion, I would suggest the Town Attorney be consulted. cc: Supervisor Murphy Z3 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423-0430 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD June 7, 1985 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold. New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 John A. Costelio 206. Wiggins Lane G.-eenport, New. York 11944 Dear John:, Enclosed herewith is a ?Notice of Significant Effect on the EnvirOnment" in respect to your petition for annexation of approx- 'imately 48.Tacres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, which determination was the 'subject of a Town Board resolution on June 4, 1985~ copy enclosed herewith. You are hereby requested to prepare a Final Environmental Impact State, for submission by July 1, 1985, addressing those matters of concern as outlined in the resolution, as well as those issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement public hearing held on May 16, 1985. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Peconic Associates, Inc. William W. Esseks, Esq. PECONIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering, Marine & Energy Consultants Environmental Planning JUN June 4, 1985 C9P¥ FOR YOUR One Bootleg Alley P.O. Box 672 Greenport, New York 11944 (516) 477-0030 Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, L. I. New York - 11971 Gentlemen: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Relating to the Annexation of Certain Lands of John Costello (Formerly of East End Associates) Located Within the Town of SoUthold, Suffolk County, New York, by the Adjoining incorporated Village of Oreenport. Reference is made to Paragraph 617.8, Sub-Paragraph (e) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act: " ..... the lead agency shall prepare or cause to be prepared a final E.I.S. within forty-five (45) calendar days after close of any hearing or within sixty (60) calendar days after the filing of the Draft E.I.S. whichever last occurs." This is to confirm our understanding that, at the Town Board Meeting on 4 June i985, we (John A. Costelio and Merlon E. ~iggin of Peconic Associates) were directed to prepare the Final E.I.S. It is also our understanding that we will prepare the Final Environmental Impact Statement in accordance with Section 617.14 (h) of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and in accordance with the SEQR Handbook General Guidelines (a), (b), and (c), as quoted below: "a. The Final E.I.S. is prepared by the lead agency. Responsibility for its quality and adequacy rests with the lead agency, not with an applicant. Southold Town Board June 4, 1985 Page 2 "b. To simplify the Final E.I.S., the lead agency may wish to make all necessary changes to the Draft E.I.S. together with responses to substantive comments in the form of an addendum to the Draft E.i.S. )! C . To reduce printing costs, it ~Guld be appropriate to distribute only the addendum mentioned in item (b) above to those who received the Draft E.I.S. Taken together with the Draft E.I.S., these components constitute a Final E.I.S." Answers to questions and comments Given us in today's Board Meeting, as well as answers to other written questions to be provided by Friday, 8 June 1985, will be included in the Final E.I.S. Every attempt will be made to have the Final E.I.S. completed by June 17, 1985. Sincerely, PECONIC ASSOCIATESj INC. President John A. Costello William ~. Esseks, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 NOTICE OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT Date: June 4, 1985 Pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board, as lead agency, upon receipt of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and public hearing on same, does hereby determine that the action described below is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment and has requested the filing of a Final Environmental Impact Statement. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION PetitiOn of John A. Costello (formerly East End Associates) for the annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, said property being located at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (CR 48) and the easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. Further information may be obtained by contacting Mrs. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Copies to: Charles T. Hamilton, DEC, Stony Brook Commissioner Williams, DEC, Albany Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services Village of Greenport John A. Costello William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman. Esq. Peconic Associal~es, Inc. JUDITH T. TERRY "['OWN CLERK REGISTRAI~! OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD. TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 4, 1985: WHEREAS, John A. Costello {formerly East End AssoCiates) has heretofore filed a petition with the Town Clerk for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village .of Greenport, and 'WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chpater 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Town Board, as lead agency, determined that the action proposed is a Type I action and is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk did file and circulate such determination as required by 'the aforementioned law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, John A. Costello did, upon request of the Town Board, cause to be prepared and filed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, and WHEREAS, the Town Board of the Town of Southold held a public hearing on the Draft En~,ironmental Impact Statement submi,tted bY John A. Costello at the Southold Town hall on May 16, 1'985, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to speak, now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the.Town of Southold does hereby determine that the action proposed is likely to have a significant effect on the environment, and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, John A. Costello, of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Final Environ- mental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code, by July 1, 1985, and address the following matters of concern: 1. Address all of those issues raised at the Draft Environmental Impact State- ment public hearing held on May 16, 1985,, that were not sufficiently covered in the [)ELS. 2. At the hearing on May 16, 1985 the economic issue was addressed by more people than any other environmental issue. In order to properly evaluate the economic benefit, vs. potential negative environmental impact, an analysis of the cost of housing lots that would result from annexation is requested, as well as the strategy by which these lots will'be relayed to Iow and moderate income people in need of housing, as opposed to investors seeking to benefit from lots priced below market value. 3. Address DEIS, claims made on page 44, F. Water Supply .... "This increase in pumpage will keep total consumption well below the permissive yield in the company service area. The water requirements of the proposed development can be supplied by. the company without impacting existing customers.or preventing service to other developments within the franchise area for which service for has been agreed to." 4. Yield of existing well. Affect of road runoff to that well. Will pumpage pull runoff into it.* 5. Alternatives: A special public ' improvement district (remaining in Southold Town). Page 2 - Resolution - So~.,~old Town Board - 6/4/85 Re: Request for Final ElS - Costeiio Annexation Petition 6. Connection to sewer = consumptive use and ocean outfall. What will be the groundwater impact? 7, Cuarantee from Greenport Village that water and sewer will be provided if annexation takes place. 8. Guarantee from John A. Costello that on-site well will be made available to Greenport Village, 9. Submission of appraiser's report: Page 38 .... "A professional appraiser has advised that the annexation and calculated development would not impact the value of adjacent homes." Judith T~ Terr~'~ Southold Town Clerk SZEPATOWSKI ASSOCIATES INC. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS TO: FROM:' RE: MEMORANDUM Supervisor Murphy Szepatowski Associates, Inc. David Emilita, Principal Planner DEIS for Annexation to Greenport DATE: May 31, 1985 At your request, I have reviewed the comments delivered at the public hearing on May 16, 1985 on the Annexation. I have also reviewed Part 617 SEQR Regulations which require the lead agency to prepare or cause to be prepared a final EIS within 45 days of the close of the hearing,meaning by July 1, 1985 in this case. Based on the public hearing comments, which include by reference a report by Middleton, Kontokosta (M_K) Associates dated April 11, 1985, a final'EIS is believed to be necessary. Part 617.8 (e) (1) allows a determination of no significance to be made at this point without a final EIS. However, in view of potential litigation should this course of action be taken without fully addressing the public comments and the MK report, a conservative approach would require a final EIS to reduce legal exposure. With timely input from Peconic Assoicates Inc. and Planners East Inc., preparers of the draft EIS, the Town can prepare the. final EIS within the required time frame. I would advise a meeting as soon as possible with the applicant and preparer to advise them of this course of action. The July 1 deadline can be extended for reasons contained in Part 617.8 (e) (2) (i). by Town Board resolution at its June 18th meeting if the preparer of the draft EIS cannot supply further information by that date. An exhaustive time consuming reply requiring contemporaneous studies is not necessary. Messrs. Wiggin and Brod should be able to reply to the major points in the MK report in a few days to a week which should be sufficient time to prepare a final EIS. I will be attending a groundwater conference the week of June 17-22 at Cornell which is the reason for an extension if the preparers cannot respond before then. Please advise if you wish us to assist the Town in the final EIS preparation. 23 Narragansett Ave. Jamestown, RI 02835 (401) 423~0430 May 28, 1985 Supervisor and Members of the Town Board of Southotd Town Southold Town Hall Rou~e 25 Southold, New York 11971 Mayor and Trustees of the Village of Greenport 236 Third Street Greenport, N.Y. 11944 Re: Proposed Annexation of 48 Acres Application of John Costello Dear Supervisor, Mayor and Town Board Members and Village Trustees: It was my impression from the remarks made at the conclusion of the hearing on the DEIS report on May 16, 1985, that the Town Board, and presumably, the Village Board, would welcome further written commen5 from interested persons on the matters addressed by those persons who spoke at the hearing. To the best of my recollection the subjects with which most, if not all of the speakers were concerned, were the ever present water problem of both the Village and the Town, and the subject of affordable housing. Since I am an interested person, for the reasons expressed at th~ initial hearing on December 6, 1984 and again on May 16, 1985, I wish to extend my remarks, briefly on the subject of water, and somewhat more extensively on the subject of affordable housing and on other aspects of the annexation prqblem to which little or nothing was addressed. I will discuss them in that order. The water problem, both as to availability, quantity and quality, and it's environmental effect, was recognized by everyone present. It's solution was not considered by either the speakers or the DEIS report, except in a vague statement as to the possibility of there being sufficient water, on an 'if' basis. A careful reading of the DEIS report's vague references to the water problem should permit the inference that water is not available in sufficient supply and of good quality to provide for the needs of pr__esen_t__ca~suar~rs ~dL_tho%e an~_atedfLg_4_xmom~u~D_~s presently_~ line for service, let alone the potential 7~onsumers who ma~ be ~-gibl~ service ahead of those in line, if annexation is granted. Town and Village Boards -2- May 28, 1985 By way of specific example I refer to the letter of the Village Superinnendant of Public Utilities of March 8, 1985. It is found in the DEIS report at Appendix 3. Supporting documents are attached to it. The Superintendant says in the third paragraph of his letter that a pumping plant located on the 48 acre parcel wouId yield 216,000 gallons per day, and in the next paragraph that the water reservoir would pull "from the Silver Lake area". The Superintendant has neglected ~o state that on page 16 of the DEIS report the water in Silver Lake has been classified as Class D wa~er suitable only for secondary recreation, but not for the propagation of fish. The classification ms that of the Department of Environmental Control, a disinterested agency..Nowhere is it stated that Class D Silver Lake wa~er is fit for human consumption. The Superintendant has also failed to state just how and at what cost Silver Lake water can be rendered sui3z~ble for human use. The obvious answer is, of course, a treatment or filtration plant. If that is the remedy, before an intelti'gent decision can be made by either Board to protect it's consumers, something must be shown by way of disinterested and competent water supply engineers concerning the cost of such a project and a feasibility study conducted after such report is received. Failure to do so would leave someone, either the Town, Village, the applicant or his purchasers with a cost which would have a direct bearing on housing costs. Neither the taxpayers of the Town or Village should be expected to assume such an onerous burden. As a second "for example' one must read the allusion to the pumping station across Moore's Lane from the subject property. It is found in the second paragraph of the Superintendant's letter. It would appear, on first reading, that there is water available at that pumping station to mSet the anticipated daily minimum requirements of the subject property of 56,100 gallons and the peak requirements of 140,250 gallons However the supporting documents to that letter indicate that the total pumpage from that well in 1984 was but 8,925,000 gallons, which divided by 365 days equals a daily pumpage of 24,452 gallons. It is to be noted that the pumpage figures for that well show minimal figures,except for June and July. One may ask whether or not the minimum pumpage is because of the danger of salt water intrusion or the well's proximaty to Silver Lake Class D water or both. No disinterested studies are available. The County Health Department's tetterof February 14,1985, Appendix 4 states at page 2 that the Moore's Lane Well is not a major source of water. Town and Village Boards -3- May 28, 1985 Without belaboring the point further, ample reason exists f6~ tNe denial of the application in the best interests of the citizens and taxpayers of both the Village and the Town. ~dressing the subject of affordable housing, although not a proper subject for consideration in a DEIS report, one is impressed by the vagueness with which the pro annexation forces dealt with it. No one has taken the trouble to define just what affordable housing is in dollars and cents. No proof has been offered by way of a projection of the land cost to the ultimate purchaser per lot, or of the cost of construction, building materials, streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, lighting, and sewer and water lines, whether paid by the applicant or the ultimate purchaser, or at Village taxpayers expense. If one reads between the lines of the application, it can be inferred from the application and the statements at the December and May hearing that the applicant proposes to supply bare lots only, with the rest left to the purchaser to cope with. There is a veritable flood of other matters not considered or inadequately considered at the December and May hearings. Some of them relate to the total lack or inadequacy of existing Village Codes to cope with the magnitude of the proposed development and its effect on the surrounding areas in order to insure an orderly development of the subject premises, the apparent division among Village Board members on the subject and manner of annexation, water services, sewer services and the like. The subject of industrial Use~ of the lands along Moore's Lane merits some consideration. I remind the Boards that there is immediately available for industrial development, under Town Zoning, of frontage on Route 25 of more than one mile, without the necessity of creating a further industrial area on Moore's Lane. The Town Board is respectfully reminded that a denial of the application does not mean that the applicant is left without some relief. There is nothing to prevent an application for a change of zone, which under presently contemplated changes in the Master Plan, would permit a Hamlet Density use as defined in that Plan. Mindful of the editorial in the Suffolk Times of May 23, the Boards must be cautious of any attempted usurpation or transfer of their respective powers and duties contrary to applicable laws. HT/s cc: To all Board Members,and counsel who have appeared. Yours very truly~. Henry Tasker Orient %%%.%%~TTTt~Ll~ CHAMBER OF %%%%%~P.O. BOX 66 GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 East Marion Greenport Southold Peconic- May 16, 1985 Re: Costello Annexation- PLblic Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Statement Southold Town Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: The Board of Direcnors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce hereby wishes to reiterate and reaffirm their earlier oosition supporting the concept of the above described project. Copy of previous letter is attached hereto. We feel that it is part of the way to solve the affordable housing crisis in Southold Town. Very truly yours, Bernard Oem~ On Behalf of the Board of Directors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce iIIMK DONALD J. MIDDLETON E. M. KONTOKOSTA, P.E. GARY S. ROGERS, R.A. MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. SUMMARY OF CRITIQUE OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATR~4W. NT REGARDING PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF 48.7 ACRES TO THE VILLAGE OF GRRRNPORT JOINT MEETING OF THE BOARDS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE VILLAGE OF GREENPORT PREPARED FOR: PACHMAN AND OHSRIN, P.C. REPRESENTING: STERLING EASTERN SHORES DELIVERED BY: MICHAEL E. MC CARTHY- ASSOCIATE MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. MAY 16, 1985 EI~IVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS, ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS /'~ ~ ~ ~ .... ,~...bl ~'. ',(F~% C'T~-4~'TF~-~:~, ~,E:%'~J"tQR~CI-~'":' N~V'~' YORK10019 - 21'2582-6100 Members of the Boards of the Town of Southold and Village of Greenport: Good evening. My name is Michael Mc Carthy and I am here as an associate representing the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates (MI{A). MKA specializes in Environmental Planning and Engineering and recently conducted a review and critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to the Greenport Village annexation of certain property owned by John Costello. The critique of the DEIS was carried out in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), which allows for the review of an Impact Statement regarding scope, content and adequacy. In summary, the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates finds that the Draft Environmental Impact St~tment is deficient in four areas: 1. The project description does not adequately define governmental objectives relating to the parcel or those approvals required which would lead to achievement of the project sponsor's goals. The proposed action borders on entities, the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. The action involves a significant deviation from the intended low density use required by Town zoning, to comparatively high density use under Village zoning. The DEIS must discuss the objectives of the Town of Southold~for the use of this property under the Master Plan or other pertinent studies and it should also discuss the Village of Greenport's objectives for the adjacent land as specified in the Village Master Plan, local waterfront studies or othe~ community development plans. To facilitate this, a discussion of the former use of this property might be presented. This would give insight into the backround and history of the project site. A locator map showing exactly where the 48.718 acre tract is situated would also be useful. In addition, the proposed project description should define the chain of events and required approvals which would ultimately lead to achievement of the project sponsor's objective. The DEIS states what the applicant desires but fails to outline how to accomplish it within the procedures of the two government bodies. 2. The environmental setting requires broader scope and more exact content with regard to groundwater and geology~ water resources, transportation, existing land use and zoning, demographic factors and cultural resources. In the Geology and Groundwater section the report states that "sands an~ gravels are characterized as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipitation periods." There is nothing, however, to indicate the numeric value of a "little runoff." This must be quantified. A water budget for the North Fork would put this claim into perspective. The water budget should include parameters such as: precipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and recharge. In addition, a discussion of the upper horizon soil types and the potential planning and development limitations based on these soils is essential and must be included. Finally, the groundwater elevation data presented are outdated. Groundwater elevation is a dynamic process which requires current information in order to draw accurate conclusions. The data presented in this report are nearly two decades old and the conclusions drawn from them cannot be made with certainty. Given these constraints, the DEIS still makes conclusions that are unsubstantiated. From the figures provided it is uncertain that, in Greenport, water table elevations lie at 2 to 3 feet above sea level, as is stated. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are not clear and should be re-drawn to include: sources, titles and relevancy. In the water resources section, the quantity of groundwater, the locations of wells, and present pumpage for various uses are not presented and must be in order to determine the impacts of the proposed action on water s~pplyu Likewise, the quality of groundwater in the glacial aquifer beneath the site should also be presented. Although, existing nitrate problems are mentioned in Mr. Villa's letter (Appendix No. 4) they are not enumerated in the body of the report. The shallow Upper Glacial Aquifer is susceptible to nitrates and other contaminants which may render it unusable. The potential for contamination of public water supply well fields from pesticides, fertilizers or other sources should be discussed but are not. There is, however, mention of "in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities" for the water supply but they are not specified or discussed. The report does not indicate what they are or if they are working. The DEIS should acknowledge the need to install and monitor a test well in the Silver Lake area, and agree in concept to this requirement (Appendix No. 3). Also neglected is the projected increase in water ' supply de~and due to increased population density~ Water supply demand will be greatly affected by the total developable acreage within the Greenport Water District. To accurately gauge this, the specific findings and conclusions of the North Fork water supply plan as it relates to the Greenport Water District and development of acreage in Southold Town should be established and examined. In dealing with transportation issues, the peak hour traffic flow on roadways servicing the site should be included as well as the characteristics and usage of Middleton Road. Furthermore, County Road 48, in the vicinity of the subject site, is not adequately defined nor are its characteristics and usage. Any development which is proposed on the subject land will be highly dependent on C.R. 48 for ingress and egress, therefore, the capacity of this road should be further examined. Current zoning regulations and the development potential of lands lying nort~ of the subject or across C.R. 48 will also affect the transportation infrastructure and should also be discussed. Demographic factors surrounding the project site must also be examined. The characteristics of the population of Greenport Village and Southold Town are absent from this discussion. It is important to understand parameters such as distribution, density and household size and composition in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts of annexation and significant land use changes. Although census data is included that contains population figures from 1970 and 1980, no future growth potential or population projections are considered. In the section dealing with cultural resources, the historic sensitivity of the subject has not been adequately determined. A brief consultation of the appropriate maps would ascertain the historic composition of the Site with respect to the location of former dwellings. Consultations with members of Stony Brook University's Department of Anthropology, the Long Island Archeological Project and the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA) would be helpful.. The SCAA has issued a report with maps that describe the generalized patterns of aboriginal settlement in the Greenport area. 3. Significant impacts of the project on the resources of the site are not identified. There is virtually no acknowledgement that the activity may result in an adverse impact. Specifically, site development at the proposed density will inevitably result in groundwater impact and obliteration of the site's flora. It is recommended that proposed actions must be weighed to determine additional impacts which may occur~and appropriate mitigation measures should be discussed. With respect to geology and groundwater, Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional low production wells on the subject site but does not say if the project water supply is dependent on the development of these wells. The impact of this installation on groundwater requires explanation. Mitigation measures for high iron concentrations should be explained. A general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required and the impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Similarly, the water supply associated with this site will inevitably be adversely impacted by site development. Anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to: nitrate and herbicide contamination as a result of lawn and turf care practices on 170 residential lawns, stormwater recharge containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons in areas of high groundwater and a potential for oil tank leakage and/or discharge of household chemicals in a 170 lot development. If groundwater contamination were to occur, the report does not skate what surface waters, wetlands or public water supply wells might be impacted down gradient of the site or at locations of aquifer discharge or what mitigating measures can be taken. In addition, this report did not discuss mitigation measures for; the loss of open space and the obliteration of natural site vegetation; the increased traffic burden on County Road 48, Moore's Lane, Middleton Road and associated tap streets; the impact on the value of existing residential homes; and the demographic disruption of the town. 4. Viable alternatives such as reduced density and clustering were not considered. Environmental aspects or alternatives were not compared. The section dealing with project alternatives is based entirely on the developer's objectives, perceived community needs, and economics to the exclusion of discussing relative environmental impacts of various proposals. Actual environmental impacts have been identified which may indeed be minimized under alternative actions. A discussion of relative environmental considerations is essential. Varying levels of density are the most obvious alternatives which demand investigation. Doubling the lot size to 20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) would undeniably lessen environmental impacts while still providing comparatively high density housing. Such a scenerio would still provide an affordable housing alternative to most real estate opportunities on the North Fork. Other logical densities deserving consideration are one acre zoning, cluster zoning and the development of an alternate site in accordance with existing zoning. A project of the magnitude and importance of this one requires a thorough understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues according to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and the SEQR process. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement associated with this project fails in this matter. An abundance of additional information must be presented and evaluated in connection with this proposal before a well informed decision can be reached by the Lead Agency. In conclusion, the DEIS is deficient in that it: 1o The DEIS does not adequately define government objectives for the site and the various approvals required to develop the project. 2. The DEIS does not properly describe the broader potential impacts with regard to groundwater, transportation, existing land use, demography and cultural resources. 3. The DEIS does not fully assess potentially adverse J.mpacts. 4. The.DEIS does not analyze viable alternatives such as varying levels of density. I thank you for your consideration and attention. ~3~'2-~-a,~--~tt4 fl,6O,,'dS~cC a)Ou~ ~-F~£~' '7~,~&7- ~ ~'_~ .FOPP~_~ O,~' -7-t.1~4 AJ,,~,Y-.O~J -i~,,/v SU~.A PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD MAY 16, 1985 7:30 P.M. DRAFT I~NVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS OF JOHN COSTELLO (FORMERLY OF .EAST END ASSOCIATES) LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, BY ADJOINING INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF GREENPORTo Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy Councilman Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman Paul Stoutenburgh Councilman James A. Schondebare Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Robert W. Tasker SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Good evening everyone. I'd like to welcome you to ~Southold Town Hall. Tonight we have a public hearing on a Draft Enviornmental Impact Statement. The application of John A. Costello. The official notice will be read by Councilwoman Jean Cochran. COUNCILWOMAN COCHRAN: "Legal Notice. Notice of Hearing. Notice is hereby !given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by .John A. Costello in connection with his petition (formerly East End Associates) · for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in unincorporated portion of 1Lhe Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48) and easterly side of MOOres Lane, Greenport, New York. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on IFile~ in the office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: April 23, 1985. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." ! have an affidavit Showing that this public notice was printed in The Suffolk Times. I also have an affidavit swearing that the public notice was print~cl in ~l~e I_ong Island Traveler-Watchman, and I also have verification from the Town Clerk that it has appeared on the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Jean. Okay, you've heard the official reading of the notice. At this time i would |ike to open up this public hearing by asking for those who would like to speak in favor of this Draft Environmental Impact State and the first person I'd like to recognize' is the attorney for Mr. Costelior Bil~ Esseks, Page 2 - I~raft ElS - Co_~ello WILLIAM ESSEKS, ESQ.: As ! understand the procedure, Mr. Supervisor, the Board--the two Boards elected a lead agency and a lead agency in a positive declaration, which required my client, former East End Associates, now Mr. Costello who's taken title to the property, to prepare through his experts, a draft environ- mental impact statement. That was submitted, circulated according to law, in March of 1985 and it has lead, as far as I know, in'circulation, to one written response and that is a report from Middleton and Kontokosta Associates under date of April 11, 1985, and i believe that ~both the draft environmental impact statement and written responses thus far have been available to the public. I further understand that pursuant the SEQR rules and the regulations drafted pursuant thereto, this hearing has been called to give the public an opportunity to state to the lead agency, this Board, to comments the public have with regard to whether the draft environ- mental impact statement is sufficient and that whether or not it has adequately ~overed the environmental consequences of the proposal. The proposal, as I understand it, as I submit, is the annexation of a portion of property now within~the Town, to be within the political and political confines of the Village of Greenport, and that is the sole question before this Board tonight with the question of hearing. I submit, on behalf of my client, ali of the written information thus far submitted, and we are iorepared, through the experts that we have, to respond to questions that might' arise as a result of comments ensuin§~ from the public, but I do not propose, other than to rely on the draft environmenta~ impact statement~ to submit any other written iinformation tonight, if it turns out that this Board feels that in order to adequately reveal the environmental concerns, that other written information may be necessary, II will then want to address that question and have that disposed of at the end of the hearing~ Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, Bill. John, do you have any other people you would like to present before I open up? JOHN A. COSTELLO: No, I don't at this ' stage. What we are addressing is just the annexation of the property and the limitations, I'm sure, that the Town Board has told us, limited to land use and going from one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. It is not proposing any development and the worst development on that property in the changing from Southold Town to Greenport, is two acre zoning to quarter acre zoning, and the worst is a maximum of approximately ;170 houses. These are all hypothetical. That is 'all we're supposed to address, I believe, and we'll have to wait for whatever questions we could assist you with. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, ! Would like to remind everybody that this is what we're talking about, is this proposed annexation of Town property to the Incorporated Village of Greenport. which again~ we have two acre zoning on that property. With the Village of GreenporLit would revert to quarter acre zoning. So at this time i would like to ask anybody over here on the left who would Ilke to speak in ~avor of this draft environmental impact statement. HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.; I am the attorney representing the opposition to the annexation, the formal opposition I should say. I respectfully request that the Board maybe--well, mayl~e~ I Shouldn't use that term. It is my understanding of the SEQR process that though the applicant can rely on the written document which was submitted, the aspect of the public hearing is to allow those people who are present to hear what the draft environmental impact statement is all about. There may be very few of us, besides myself and several others, who have read it, so most of the people here tonight are not familiar with what the draft environmental impact statement says and those who are here who are interested and concerned about it cannot make comment on it. So therefore to rely on the written document in of itself I think would be inadequate and I respectfully request that the Board Page 3 - Draft ElS - C~_~ello do not accept that as the basis for which the presentation under the SEQR requirements are met. In any event, until the Board makes that decision, or the Boards, I Would have to reserve my further comments. I would further respectfully request that the purpose of the hearing for the environmental impact statement is the annexation of the 48 some odd acres from the Town of Southold to the Village of Greenport. The problem that we have is that Mr. Costello as the present owner, has made some submissions to the Planning Board, and the Planning Board has reviewed a proposed subdivision map, presumably under the existing--although it does not meet the zoning regulations of the Town of Southold, it would appear to be a proposal for both the Village and the Town to consider with reference to the ultimate use of this property which is the reason that we are holding the hearing .whether an annexation is permissible or should be considered for the public good and the public benefit. The SEQR process, obviously looks at it from the environmental impact aspect of the change from one to the other as it affects water, air, land, traffic, the ecology. It must also talk about the negative impacts, the altern,atives. He presented a plan to the Planning Board. If'the media is correct in its reporting of what took place at the meeting at the Planning Board a 'week ago last Monday, it was welcomed with open arms by the Planning Department as a wonderful plan. i don't know who else was invited to that meeting, since it 'was an informal meeting. The environmental impact statement did not address it. It is not part of the environmental impact statement. The recent report by the p.~ofessionals that you hired for your Master Plan are not taken into account in 'the environmental impact statement. The fact that it is recommended for one acre zoning is not addressed in' the environmental impact statement. There are many lthings that have not been discussed and I think it is incumbent--the burden of proof, the burden of going forward is upon the applicant to present it, and then we, those who want to comment, and those who are in opposition, could then make our comments~.at this time. Thereafterl,when the hearing is closed those who want 1:o submit written comments are available to do that for the final impact statement when it is 'drafted. Thank you. SU.PERVISOR MURPHY: I would like to say again that this hearing is on the draft environmental impact statement. It is not on any proposed plan that is not officially before any Planning Board. of Southold Town or the Village of Greenport. I would again like to address the environmental impact statement which is going from two acre zoning in the Town of.Southold to quarter acre zoning in the Village of Greenport. Again I would like to say is there anyone on the left who would like to speak in favor of this draft environmental impact statement? Anyone on the left? Sir. DAVID MUDD: I'm a resident out here and also in business and I'm very much in favor of going ~rom two acre to the quarter ,acre zoning in order to get house for our people who must live in this community and work in this community. I've spoken on this issue before at a couple of other' meetings and I feel: very strongly about because I am fearful that what has taken place in the past is that we are addressing a certain group out here and eliminating the young people and the peeple that are working in our community. If we don't address the issue in this fashion we're going to wind up importing all of our help from the Bronx, or Brooklyn or someplace else on a bus .every day and bringing them back and forth. I think this is one area that we have all been guilty of not addressing. We keep shoving it aside and acting like somebody else is going to take care of it and I think it's high time that we looked at it as part of our people, our ,school children, our community, our taxpayers and address the issue and get it down to where we can have affordable housing for these people to live. My business requires that if we don't have this kind of a thing going on at the present time we will be out of Page 4 - Draft ElS - C~ello business shortly also. So I think it's an issue that we're all vitally interested in and should be concerned with. I thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you sir. SHIRLEY CROCKER, Greenport: I'm also delighted that someone has finally given some consideration to the needs of the young working people in this community who after all are the very people who render the services that we so badly need in this commUnity. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the left? Yes. GEORGE WETMORE: I'm native born. I think it's a beautiful proposal for a lot of us that were native born and who can no longer afford to own our own homes in this community and I wish you God speed, John, to. get it accomplished. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Anyone else on the left? Sir~ WHITEY SKREZEC: I think John's proposal is something that we really need in this community. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else on the left? In the center here? Mr. Levine? ARTHUR~ LE~/INE: Resident of Greenport, . When it comes to environmental impact, if we didn't have' an operating entity, the. Vi~ll~ge of Greenport, which in three years will be celebrating its 150th anniversary, I'd say~ well, we should be concerned,' Greenport has been operating as a viable comi~unity and catering to the needs of the residents, and as most of the Town and East Long Island and the United States in general, there's been a constant response to the needs of people, businesses, homes, development, that was never, we'll say, done for, we'll say, decades under the guidance of professional planners, yet most of it turned out very good and we seem to o'~:fer attractions to people who want to come visiting, which at one time I couldn't understand until I had the happy opportunity to visit one of the summer resort areas during the height of the season when i saw how grubby the landscape was up there and got bacl~ home I really had an eye-opener. It's odd that when Greenport was first incorporated in 1838 the boundaries were from Moores Lane to Sterling Creek, from the Bay to the Sound. Along about 1868, I think it was, they reincorporated the village and I don't know what caused the conservative attitude, perhaps they couldn't think Of pulling a fire engine by manpower all that distance. The pulled the boundaries in, but looking at it~ we'll say, Greenport is set up with sewer~ wil~h water. If we didn't have, we'll say, sewer facilities available I'd say this could be a horrible jar on the environment. Greenport has been taking care of that and there are a lot of, we'll say, some of the close environs of Greenport who wish they could have that service. Water likewise. The lot size', there is a development close by, Fleetfield, and the lots in this proposed 48 acres are going to be larger than the lots in Fleetfield. And then looking at the affordability of homes~ the fact that we hear a lament--young people, first of all they can't find jobs~ We need some good economics here and we need a home. If a person has a job here, a home to live in that he can afford in which he can raise his family, and even perhaps, here and there, have the happy opportunity of not even having to get on the road with a car and further polluting the environment, but being able to walk to work. As far as I'm concerned, I think this is one of the finest things that could happen to the area. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here? Anyone else in the middle would like to address the l~oard? Sir? Page 5 - Draft ElS - C~_~ello WILLIAM J. MILLS: I've read the environmental impact statement and contrary to what Mr. Pachman says, I think itJs incumbent upon the individuals who are concerned with this project to come.up to Southold or the Village of Greenport and get a copy and read it. It's been available for quite some time now. I think it's a good project. The lots that Mr. Costello is proposing, which are not necessarily germane to the hearing at hand tonight, yes, they're quarter acre and a little bit larger, but if you look to the north, you're talking about ,third acre, lots right across the street to the north. There's three lots per acre there. There's three and a half lots per acre to the east, so when you look at this property in terms of four lots per acre available within the Village of Greenport, as compared to two acre zoning, yes, you're talking al3out quite a big difference, but when you start comparing it to land usage within the immediate area there's not a big difference. I think it's a good project. I think it's an important project to the area, and I think its sorely needed. Thank 'you. ISUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. In the back, George? GEORGE L. PENNY IV: I employ approximately 36 people or families in Southold 'Town. It used to be pretty easy out here a few-years ago when the land values were down around--oh, I can remember land at $3,000 a lot back in the early 70'S and it would always amaze me that when the people that I employed would 'come along and they had land, they had grabbed a piece of land right out of high school and they ,built a house. Well, now the 'whole situation is changed. I have about a half a dozen people that are working for me that are paying over $500 a month rent. Now, if they could put that kind of equity or put that rental, which is not a big tax advantage to them, if they could put that into an equity situation, they would be saving and they would be building something. Right now they're paying rents between $'5'00 and 5600 a month and they're going no where.. They don't have great amount of money to go in with, they don't have a big down-payme'nt to start with and if we could come up with a housing, or through John a project like ,Iohn's~, to come up with housing between' $50,000 and $60,000 a house, it would work for these people, but right now they're going no where and we're having a big problem finding young people to work and hopefully projects like this will help us ~.long. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else in the middle here? NORMA MILLER, Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce: The Board of Directors of the Greenport-Southold Chamber of Commerce would .like to reiterate and reaffirm their earlier position supporting the concept of the above described project. We feel it is part of the way to solve the affordable housing crisis in Southold Town. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone else here in the middle? Sir? JAMES DINIZIO, JR.: I live in Greenport about three or four hundred feet away from where this project will take place and I have been in the market for land. I own a house, but I~ve .been Iooking--~l built my house and I've been looking for land for the past four or five months and quite honestly I can't find a lot for under $35,000 and probably if i asked right now for real estate I Wouldn't find one for $35,000, more like $40,000, so maybe quarter acre lots isn't such a bad idea and I don't know if I would benefit from it, what restrictions there would be from it, ~ge 6 - Draft ElS - C~ello but gee, I'd like to see it, but I came here tonight for information on the environmental impact statement. What I'm hearing is a lot of information on affordable housing, which I could attend another meeting for that. I need to know--~'m a working person. I'work probably 10 to~ 12 hours a day in Riverhead and I do live in Greenport and I have to work in Riverhead. If this project generates jobs, maybe ! could get a job in Greenport toot but the thing is is I don't have the time to come up here and get this thing. I have children to take care of and other things that I have to do and I kind of thought that this meeting was to inform me of the environmental impact of this project, because I do have questions on the commercial aspect of it and I also have questions on whether I would feel right about the Village taking this much land from Southold--this much taxable land from Southold Town. It seems I,ike an awful lot and it seems like Southold Town could do something to compromise, to make out a compromise with them for the sewer. God, it's only across the street. Pm sure something could be worked out with this project. Perhaps not. I know going to the Village would be the easiest thing and I think Mr. Costello has a wonderful idea, but I do have questions aboUt it and I Would like to have those questions answered. One is the commercial' aspect. I wouldn't want to see some noisy thing go in there, and two, in light of the Village and the tax and the way that they feel they can tax people or give abatements for f~remen and the MilPs project on two points. I feel that maybe they,'re ~ust a little bit too much towards the abatement, tax abatement part of it. They lean too much--they depend too much on that to encourage businesses, to encourage jobs, perhaps, maybe not~ but I'd like to see those questions answer or at least addressed and mostly I would like to hear from this Board, from this meeting--I Would like to hear the environmental impact statement. I would like to near what that says. If it's good--if it's a good thing, then it will benefit every- body here. If it has some bad things in it, then let,s hear ~hem and let's make a decision on that. Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. I'd like to say again that this is on the draft environmental impact statement, which is just the zoning change going from Southold So Greenport, if it went. If it goes to Greenport it's Greenport Planning Board that will'discuss the plan that is going to be proposed for the use of that ~and. If it stays in Southold then it will be decided by $outhold Town Planning Board to subdivide that land and perhaps maybe Mr. Costello, after all the comments, would want to further answer some of these questions, but let's get the comments from the people first. Anyone else here in the middle? $ir~ DENNIS COYLE: I'm in favor of this because I've been shopping for a house and anybody knows, if they're looking, the cheapest I can find is at least $100,000. ~ith the money I make i can't afford s100,000--$100,000 home. And for another thing for quarter acres I think that is really good, because for two acres I don't know what I Would do with two acres. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Mow a lot of grass. Anyone else here in the middle? Over here on the right? Sir~ MR. GLENN MOELLER: I work in the North Fork and live in Greenport. Pd iust liike to add my name to those that say that affordable housing is needed. I~ve been looking l~or a home for three years out here and possibly I've scored through Sonny Mae. I~ll know in a few weeks, but it's not easy and it'~ very hard to find affordable home and without the state subsidized mortgage I couldn't afford a home out here and i have a business that employs th~ree people in the area. I'd like to address a few things that haven't.been addressed. .I'd like to gi~e some support to Mr. Dinizio's comment t~at we should have a little voicing at the end from the Board itself on how they interpret the impact statement as it is so far. The people who live near it Page 7 - Draft ElS - C~cello have a right to have some idea of the impact on their lives~ and the new thing like to add is that I don't want to hear the talk about separating all of the steps of annexation apart from each other, as if we could approach them all separately. Certainly if the residents of Greenport are talking about annexing an area, it's going to be for all of the reasons that everyone is 'supporting here tonight and in theory Mr. Costello's plan sounds wonderfu~ to me and from what I understand about I~im in this small town, it is a wonderful plan, but I don't know the plan or Mr. Costello and I would like to see, as a citizen, much more detailed guarantee that the housing will' be affordable housing, and exactly what that means and I would not like to hear just proposals and approximations in that area~ because if the housing is not truly affordable, if the plan isn't ~what it sounds like it is, then I would 1Fight against it being part of Greenport or even being developed period. We don't need quarter acre, expensive second homes, which is what it could just as easily become. I want to hear some of the hard talk about how you're going to guarantee that this is affordable housing. If that kind of talk was being put about I'd be willing to help organize support for the project in Greenport~ because I think it's a wonderful project. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. I wish you luck in your application and again to address that fact. We'r~ talking about just going from two .acre to quarter acre and this will be addressed by whatever Planning Board makes this decision on the property and if there's going to be any agreements on property or anything, it will be done by either of the two boards at that time and that's when the public would have participation in'exactly what you were asking. Okay, anyone else on the right? (No response.) Okay, I~d like to ask if there's anyone would like to speak in opposition to this proposed draft environmental impact statement? Over here on the left? MR. PACHMAN: Could we reserve our, comments for a second, Mr. Murphy? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Sure. MR. PACHMAN: ~rh-ank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Anyone on the left? Martin? MARTIN ~RENT, Orient: I would like to address a few of the environmental concerns with the project? Not affordable per se or how they could be guaranteed or not guaranteed. The 1983 North Fork Water 'Supply Plan cal~ed the water quantity sutiation east of Arshamomaque Pond in Southold ~criti~al". It strictly warned against any rezoning in this area that would result in greater water usage. As proposed-~ all right, we're not supposed to talk about the proposed plan, but it's been publicized and it's before ~he Planning Board. Officially or unofficially they are considering it~ As proposed the 76 housing units plus the commercial lots will require approx- imately four times the water needed under the current two acre zoning. If the annexation takes place and the development is, connected to the Greenport Sewer Plan, al~ the water usage would be consumptive and lost out Greenport's outfall pipe. Under two acre zoning most of the water Would be recharged to the aquifer via on-lot cesspools, if there exists some amount of good quantity water on the site, as preliminary test well data seems to show, the logical thing to do is retain the current two acre zoning to protect the water quality and quantity by minimizing the effects of development. Under two acre zoning, homes could be cluster one one acre lots, leaving 24 acres open for use as a pristine water shed. Greenport Water District could then acquire a portion of this site for use as a well field and a protected watershed, thus supplementing their supply with good quality water. I believe Jim Monsell would agree that it is virtually impossible to find a source of uncontaminated water for a public supply wel~ in Southold. With so little potable Page 8 - Draft ElS - C~ello water available, it makes emminent good sense to give those areas the utmost protection possible and not cover the site with commercial buildings and high density housing. As Town officials you must look at all aspects of the annexation and see the overall picture, not just what the applicant wants you to see or con- sider as presented in his ElS. You must consider what is the collective effect of all the development proposed for the area. Our previous Town Board left us with a legacy of 350 condominium units at Brecknock Hall, which we're going to have to deal with. Is this Town Board going to add another 76 housing units and a new commercial zone to further despoil the area and strangle it with traffic? If the Town Board wants to have high density housing in the eastern portion of the Township, it should also be prepared to extend the four lanes of Route 48 to these developments and you'd better call the Suffolk County Water Authority back and beg them to start laying a pipeline because we're going to need it. The road net- work ano water supply of this narrow peninsula, cannot, support ihigh density housing. If the Town Board approves the annexation it will be evident to me, and I think other people, that the real estate interests are more important than the interests of Southold Town residents. I sincerely hope this is not the case. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else here on the left would like to speak in opposition to? Anyone in the center? Someone over here raise their hand? Ruth? RUTH OLIVA, North Fork Environmental Council: I would not say this is in opposition to the project, because today to be against affordable housing is being like against motherhood. We are certainly for it and we hope that both the Village and the Town can find suitable locations for affordable housing. I do have a couple of questions on the draft environmental impact statement. Number one, I do not feel that it addresses the issue of why it is beneficial to Southold for this piece of property to be annexed to Greenport. In the draft environmental 'impact statement it says that there possibly could be an adequate supply of water found underneath this site. Is it potable? Would there have to be any treatment put to it? Sewage--and, also, with the water--if it is going into the Greenport Water System and the affordable housing is needed now, how long will'Mr. Costello have to wait for Greenport to give him the water? There's three, condominiums, the Sixth Street condominiums, Brecknock Hall, Lakeside Apartments, and I believe .one or two others that have priority over this system. What will be the price of the lots then? The sewerage disPosal. I believe the capacity of the plant is pretty near full, plus SouthOId is going to be entering into that waste stream. As Mr. Trent said, it will not be put back into the ground. It is a consumptive use. Will this go over the limit then for the Greenport Sewage System? What expansion will be needed? How much is that going to cost and who is going to pay for that? I think all these questions should be answered before the project can go forward, but as far as the project itself, if it is a mixed use we certainly would have no objection to that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else here in the middle would Ilke 1:o address this? Sir, in the rear? HENRY TASKER: Mr. Supervisor, members of the Board. My name is Henry Tasker. I'm a resident of Greenport and I~m here again on my own behalf, just like I was back in December. There has been nothing happened since the environ- mental impact statement has been filed which leads me to any different conclusion than that which i expressed before. I am not going to address myself to go over my remarks, but I am going to address myself now to the accuracy of the environ- mental impact statement itself, because that is what I believe now we are all interested Page 9 - Draft ElS - COstello in. We are going to ask the Board to determine whether or not, on the basis of the existing environmental statement, it is desirable to effect a change in the zoning to produce '76 dwelling units where only 24 could have been created under the existing zoning separate and apart from that portion of the area which has been designated for~ commercial use. Now I should tell you that I believe that there should be afford- able housing and nobody yet tonight has defined it and I'm not going to attempt to define it, but i'm going to Say this, as far as the environmental impact statement is concerned it is wholly incomplete and I will point out to you now at least two instances where it is so. All I get to know is what I read in the papers and the papers have been full of a great many things about our East End and our East End water and one of the things that has been expressed tonight is the effect that this will have on our water supply. Greenport is the source, or is the contemplated source for all of the water that we have. In last weeks newspaper, The Suft~olk Times, and if we accept it as accurater and I do, there are before Mr. Costello's project ten other projects all involving additional water. I took the numbers and I'm only going to read two or three of 'them because there's an awful lot of them here. One is the Breakers at Brecknoc~k - 350 condominium units. The next one is August Acres at Arshamomaque Pond - 36 units. The next one is San Simeon, a retirement community with 150 dwelling units. (Interruption from the audience.) May I continue without interruption. Nobody else has interruped anybody else. The next is Long Pond Estates - 24 build- ing lots on 31 acres. Russell Mann - 4 lots. Now I'm going down the line and give you the total. 794 dwelling units are on the boards before the Village Board, before Coste~lo with his 76 acres gets into the picture and I say to you now that before you can determine whether Costeilo's applicat~on'sh~uld be granted, and I commend him for his thoughts, but before his application can be granted, you have got to determine what wil! happen to the Village water supply when they hook in these 794 people. Now I'm going to add one more thing. Up at Young's Boatyard they refer to an expansion of an existing marina operation. Now, those of us who have been here perhaps as long as I have, are aware that ¥oung's Boatyard used to be Sage's Brick- yard and that property has been sold recently and I am sure that owners of that property, who paid a ~ery substantial price for it,i have no intention of letting it lie idle and that the next apPlication for water service or sewer service is going to come from there, so you could run your £otal way up beyond 794 units, and that is why I say to you.that this environmental impact statement is wholly incorrected because it has faile~ to take into consideration these contemplated uses. If any of you have read today's paper, you will see that there even friction with the Board as to wha~ they want to do and how they want to run it, but I must go back to one more thing, to the environmental statement. That statement, if you read between ~he lines, purports to be a completely and absolutely unbiased statement designed to give this Board and the Village Board a true picture of what is going on and I ask you to remember that on December 4th of 1984 one of the advocates for the annexation stood here at this very microphone and addressed this Board and the Village Board as an advocate for the change, and he is one of the persons who prepared the environmental statement. His name is on there and I say to you now that you cannot expect a fair and an honest and an impartial statement from somebody who advocates the plan, so it is not only inaccurate, but it is suspect in many other ways. Now I believe that it lies within the Town Board's powers to eliminat~ the question of annexation. It lies within the Town Board's powers to grant to these people who are interested in affordable housing, an opportunity for that, and it's very, very simple and I think I've mentioned this last December when I spoke, that a~l this Town has to do to protect its people and to protect the water, what the Village of Greenport needs and the entire Town needs is to say, here we're going to take and rezone this property and drop it from two acres at least to one acre and if you adhere to the hamlet density program which will allow two units per acre Page 10 - Draft ElS - ~stello without water and sewer, you have solved the problem and all of these young people who need a place to build their house, can have it without endangering everything else that we have standing in the way. Now, as far as one other thing, I really run on on this and I'm sorry--the commercial aspect of this plan of John Costello's, the commercial aspect of that interests me too, because I discussed this a little bit in December and i'm not going to belabor that point of it any more. If there is a need for industrial zoning or industrial areas, the need does not exist on Moores Lane, on the east side of Moores Lane adjacent to a 76 unit development, because within one mile or less of Moores Lane there is an area designated by this Board in 1972 as a business area, it extends from Fleets Lumber Yard as far west as Pipes Neck Road. It is substantially one mile of business zoned property. If this Board follows its ~laster Plan, which has been recommended, that Master Plan recommends a change from business to light industry or office use and you have one solid mile of road frontage in an area where nobody's going to be hurt, available for your industry and business, and that is another reason--or something else rather that has never been discussed in this .environmental statement and I say to you that on those two points alone, and I haven't scrambled through this whole thing, on these two points alone, this Board should reject the statement as wholly inaccurate and go on to some other business° Thank you very much. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Okay, is there anyone else here in the middle would like to speak in opposition to this statement? On the right here is there anyone would like to speak in opposition to? Anyone further in the whole audience would like to make any comments at all? ARTHUR LEVINE: I think if the facts were to be known, the Breakers development, lE~recknock Hallr that's a 200 gallon a minute well? (Yes.) 200~ that's what, 280,000 !gallons a day? Something like that. Which has been prospected, has been approved and the developers are also going to dedicate another well, if necessary, but that one well will supply all of the Breakers and in addition feed potable water, I think some of tl~e best that has been discovered around here in quite a while, no Temik' pollution because that land hasn't been farmed for a number of years~ and the 48 acres, I don't know whether a well has been prospected yet, but I'm very sure that one will shortly be driven and tested. That is another possible source, a piece of land that hasn't been farmed I think for something like 15 or 20 years, and then looking at the annexation question. If this were something where you had to reach out some sort of tentacle, it is adjacent to the Village. It originally was part of what was the incorporation of the Village, and by containing a commercial development into a piece of acreage, we~ I think, are contributing much more to environmental control ~han if we were to allow and encourage development of one mile along the highway--that's just another piece of urban spraH~ That's what we encounter almost from Miami to Boston or up to Portland~ Maine. Any highway, other than the inter- states~ are ~ined with one commercial' development after another and I think it's about time we put these in a place, screened them, and we're not talking of heavy industry with polluting by-products and so on, we're ta~king of commercial, of light industry, dry products and above all it may not in the nature of rainfall or water supply, but economically the economic environment is also important. We can't live in a vacuum and say everything is beautiful r we must have economics. People have got to afford a house to live in and hopefully be able to have gainful employment where they live. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else? Mr. Tasker. HENRY TASKER: May I make one comment? ~UPERV~SOR MURPHY: Yes, sir. Page 11 - Draft EIS - (~tello HENRY TASKER: I would like to read a paragraph on page 13 of this weeks Suffolk Times. I have vouched for it's accuracy a few minutes ago, so maybe you'll listen. "The Utility Committee estimate Brecknock's peak day at 252,000 gallons, leaving a surplus of 36,000 gallons, translated into the terms of 200 gallons per minute. The Village would receive only 25 gallons per minUte during peak day use." So there is Brecknock Hall. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Is there anyone else would like to make any comments at all? Mr. Pachman, are you prepared now? HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: I am somewhat unfamiliar with the process that you are employing here, but I'm not willing to hid behind a document that was submitted as the draft environmental impact statement. We, right up front, submitted a critique of that environmental impact statement as soon as we got ahold of it and we read it and we had it analyzed by professionals. If Mr. Esseks and Mr. Costello do not feel that they want to put their case on the table, I'm willing to do it. We have a summary of the critique which will be pleased to be read to you by someone from Middleton and Kontokosta and we'll hand up a copy. MICHAEL McCARTHY: I'm here as an associate representing the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, (MKA). MKA specializes in Environmental Planning and Engineering and recently conducted a review and, critique of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to the Greenport Village annexation of certain property owned by John Costello. The critique of the DEIS was carried out in ,accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), which allows for the review of an Impact Statement regarding scope, content and adequacy. In summary, the firm of Middleton, Kontokosta Associates finds that the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement is deficient in four areas: 1. The project description does not adequately define governmental objectives relating to the parcel or those approvals required which would lead to achievement of the project sponsor's goal. The proposed action borders on ~two entities, the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. The action involves a significant deviation from the intended Iow density use required by Town zoning, to comparatively high density use under Village zoning. The DEIS must discuss the objectives of the Town of Southold for the use of this property under the Master Plan or other pertinent studies and it should also di~scuss the Village of Greenport's objectives tFor the adjacent land as specified in the Village Master Plan, local waterfront studies, or other community development plans. To facilitate this, a discussion of the former use of this property might be presented. This :would give insight into the background and history of the project site. A Iocator map showing exactly where the 48.7 acre tract is situated would also be helpful. In addition, the proposed project description should define the chain of events and required approvals which would ultimately lead to achievement of the project sponsor's objective. The DEIS states what the applicant desires but fails to outline how to ,accomplish it within the procedures of the two governmental bodies. 2. The environmental setting requires broader scope and more exact content with regard to groundwater and geology, water resources, transportation, existing land use End zoning, demographic factors and cultural resources. In the Geology and Groundwater section the report states that "sands and gravels are characterize~l as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipitation periods." There is nothing, I~owever, to indicate the numeric value of a "little runoff." This must be quantified. A water budget for the North Fork would put this claim into perspective. ~?he water budget should include parameters such as: precipitation, runoff, evapo- transpiration and recharge. In addition, a discussion of the upper horizon soil Page 12 - Draft ElS - ~tello types and the potential planning and development limitations based on these soils is essential and must be included. Finally, the groundwater elevation data presented are outdated. Groundwater elevation is a dynamic process which requires current information in order to draw accurate conclusions. The data presented in this report are nearly two decades old and the conclusions drawn from them cannot be made with certainty. Given these constraints, the DEIS still makes conclusions that are unsub- stantiated. From the figures provided it is unce~tain that~ in Greenport, water table elevations lie at 2 to 3 feet above seal level, as is stated. Figures 2, 3 and 4 are not clear and should be re-drawn to include: sources, titles and relevancy. In the water resources section, the quantity of the groundwater, the locations of wells, and present pumpage for various uses are not presented and must be in order to determine the impacts of the proposed action on water supply. Likewise, the quality of ground- water in the glacial aquifer beneath the site sl~ould also be presented. Although, existing nitrate problems are mentioned in Mr. Villa's letter (Appendix No. 4), they are not enumerated on in the body of the report. The shallow Upper Glacial Aquifer is susceptible to nitrates and other contaminants which may render it ~nusable. The potential for contanination of public water supply well fields from pesticides, fertilizers or other sources should be discussed but are not. There is, however, mention of "in-place planning criteria and monitoring activites" for the water supply but they are not specified or discussed. The report does not indicate what they are or if they are working.. The DEIS should acknowledge the need to install and monitor a test well in the Silver Lake area, and agree in concept to this require- ment (Apoendix No. 3). Also neglected is the projected increase in water supply demand due to increased population density. Water supply demand will be greatly affected by the total developable acreage within the Greenport Water District. To accurately, gauge this, the specific findings and, conclusions of the North Fork Water supply plan as it relates to the Greenport Water District and development of acreage in Southo~d Town should be established and examined. In dealing with transportation issues, the peak hour traffic flow on roadways servicing the site should be included as well as the characteristics and usage of Middleton Road. Furthermore, County Road 48, in the vicinity of the subject site, is not adequately defined nor are its characteristics and usage. Any development which is proposed on the subject land will be highly dependent on C.R. 48 for ingress and egress, therefore~ the capacity of this road should be further examined. Current zoning regulations and the development potential of lands lying north of the subject or across C.R. 48 will also affect the transportation infrastructure and should also be discussed. Demographic factors surring the pro~ect site must also be e~amined. The characteristis of the population of Greenport Village and Southold Town are absent from this discussion. It is important to understand parameters such as distribution, density and household size and composition in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts of annexation and significant land use changes. Although census data ~s include that contains population figures 1970 and 1980, no future growth potential or population projections are considered. In the section dealing with cultural resources, the historic sensitivity of the subject has not been adequately determined. A brief consultation of the appropriate maps wou~d ascertain the his1~oric composition of the site with respect to the location of former dwellings. Consultants with members of Stony Brook University's Depart- ment of Anthropology, the Long Island Archeological Project and the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA) Would be helpful. The SCAA has issued a report with maps that describe the generalized patterns of aboriginal settlement in the G reenport area~ 3. significant impacts of the project on the resources of the site are not identified. There is virl~ually no acknowledgement that the activity may result i~~ an adverse imPact~ SpecifiCally, sit~ development at the proposed densit~ will inevitably result in groundwater imPact and obliteration of the sit~s flora. It is~ recommended that proposed actions must be weighted to determine additional impacts Page 13 - Draft ElS - Co~ello which may occur and appropriate mitigation measures should be discussed. With respect to geology and groundwater, Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional Iow production wells on the subject site but does not say if the project water supply, is dependent on the development of these wells. The impact of this installation on groundwater requires an explanation. Mitigation measures for high iron concentrations should be explained. The general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required and the impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental.setting is necessary. Similarly, the water supply associated with this site will inevitably be adversely impacted by site development. Anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to: nitrate and herbicide onctamination as a result of law and turf care practices, on 170 residential lawns, stormwater recharge containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons in areas of high groundwater and a potential for oil tank leakage and/or discharge of household chemicals in a 170 lot development. If groundwater contamination were to occur, the report does not state what surface waters, wetlands or public water supply wells might be impacted down gradient of the site or at locations of aquifer discharge or what mitigating measures can be taken. In addition, this report did not discuss mitigation measures for: the loss of open space and the obliteration of natural site vegetation; the increased traffic burden on County Road 48, Moore's Lane, Middleton Road and associates tap streets; the impact on the value of existing residential homes; and the demographic disruption of the town. 4. Viable alternative such as reduced density and clustering were not considered. Environmental aspects or alternatives were not compared. The section dealingi~with project alternatives is based entirely on the developer's objectives, perceived community needs, and economics to the exclusion of discussing relative environmental impacts of various proposals. Actual environmental impacts have been identified which may indeed be minimized under alternative actions. A discussion of relative environmental consider- ations is essential. Varying levels of density are the most obvious alternatives which demand investigation. Doubling the lot size to 20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) would undeniably' lessen environmental impacts while still providing comparatively high density housing. Such a scenerio would still provide an affordable housing alternative to most real estate opportunities on the North Fork. Other logical densities deserving consideration are one acre zoning, cluster zoning and the development of an alternate siite in accordance with existing zoning. A project of the magnitude and importance of this one requires a thorough understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues according to the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and the SEQR process. The Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement associated with this project fails in this matter. An abundance of additional information must be presented and evaluated in connection with this proposal before a well informed decision can be reached by the Lead Agency. In conclusion, the DEIS is deficient in that it: 1. The DEIS does not adequately define government objectives for the site and the various approvals required to develop the project. 2. The DEIS does not properly describe the broader potential impacts with regard to groundwater, transportation, existing land use, demography and cultural resources. 3. The DEIS does not fully assess potentially ~adverse impacts. 4~ '~rhe DEIS does not analyze viable alternatives such as varying levels of density. _1 thank you for your consideration and attention. SLIPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else here would like to make any statement? CHUCK STABILE: I'm glad ! moved here before he got out of school. I probably never would have been able to buy. I live in the unincorporated Gree~nport. I also Page 14- Draft ElS - CO~ello have some property in the Village of Greenport and i know this hearing address strictly '~he environmental aspects of this and I really have nothing to add to that particular aspect~of it, except that that gentleman from the engineering firm could probably apply everything he said to existing communities existing in Southold Town already and probably say exactly the same things that he has already said. It's a form of procrastination. I think that the Town Board should decide on this ~matter. If it doesn't, it is procrastinating and frankly a decision not to decide is just a form of procrastination. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. ARTHUR LEVINE: Was such a complicated survey furnist~ed for every one of the high density areas that has been developed? ! don't understand it. Suddenly--- I think about the best thing about that report that was read is that it's biodegradable. I~,OB MILLS, Greenport: The questions that i had--I thought the purpose of getting this property annexed into the Village was to let the property gain access to the Village water supply, i believe if~l~m not mistaken that once the property is in the Village of Greenport it has priority over projects outside of the Village, such as I~recknock Hall, Long Creek Estates that Judge Tasker pointed out. Affordable housing is desperately needed in this community. Everybody knows it and the longer it takes the more people are going to move out. It's time the Town Board and the Village Board and anybody does something for the young people in this community~ Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you~ sir. LOUIS~SACKS, First Street, Greenport: I came as an observe and I didn't learn too much, but when 1 hear about a~l these impact statements I got to go back to June 4th~ 1983. At that time I believe Mr. Pell sat in your chair and he declared it Lena Klipp Gardiner Day. It was her 100th birthday. She lived in a house on a lot that was 50 by 80 and on that lot was a septic tank and a pump. When she got sick she wanted water~ from that pump. All these impact statements and every- thing is defuted, because I had the proof, I know she made 100 because I got from the Board the certificate. Mayor Hubbard gave me the certificate, so these impact sl~atements are only a delaying action in my mind. Let's get the ball rolling. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. FRANCES DEEGAN: I just have one question. How do you get more water by drilling more wel~s? I mean~ it's like putting a spiggot in'a tank. You can empty the tank in two hours with one spiggot and you'll empty it twice as fast with more spiggots. That'~;s ali. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir~ BILL MUELLER, Middleton Road, Greenport: I've lived the~e, for t~hirty-two years. I've been in'the area for thirty-six and as explained to me, this project is 'really wlnat we need in this area. I know, ~.m in business in the area and I find--and we find--that we cannot entice young people to stay here because they can't find affordable housing. Here's a project that looks really Ilke Middleton Road did forty years ago and Middleton Road, which was then known as Fleetfielcl, was built' up with small houses on small lots and I defy anybody to tell me today that in'the area Midd]~tOn Road isn't really kePt up nicely. All these small houses were added Page 15 - Draft ElS - C'~ello on to as time went by, when the owners could afford to do so and it's a deligl~tful community and area to live in and I think that what's being proposed here for the 48 acres is almost what Middleton Road was like forty years ago and it really is a deserving thing and it should be inculcated. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. GENE CANSWICK: I work at Greenport Yacht. I'm a little nervous now, but--this is my little son. We've been in Greenport for the last seven years. I just had to take him out because I had to discipline him a little bit because he just can't sit still. Within the last seven years I've moved four times and it's just something, you know, that takes its toll--I mean for him, he's four years old, so he's moved three times he's already shifted around, so right now he doesn't know how to sit down, and I work at Greenport Yacht and I have three men underneath me and it's tough. I mean, I'm about ready to lose two of these guys. I'm a welder and Greenport Yacht is like, you know, it's looking to expand, it's looking to do something for the Town, for the people. I'm renting right now and I'd love to have something of my own and I'm ready to lose two good guys. It's really tough to get somebody that's good to work, but to be able to stay and live in this town of Greenport, because of a chance to find some place to live. l'm telling you the rents are up there now. I mean, just where I'm living now from when I first came to what I am now, the prices are just kind of like just nuts and this is just rentals and if people that live in the Town know this, I mean the people that are renting know this and the rents are going to go and it's hurting, it's hurting me because I need help like as far as workingwise, you know you got to have help to do a job and like if I can't get the help then I'm hurting physically and ! don't know all this about this environmental impact, you know, water and this, I mean, but I can understand everybody's worrying about water, but you have all these condominiums coming in here and these people are going to be using more water watering their lawns then they are drinking it. I mean, it's a little ridiculous. I mean, yo.u getting all these people, you're getting from all out of town. They probably got plentyof money. They're probably going to live here and now you're going to Work in this area, but definitely their lawns are going to be one of the most beautiful lawns in the whole, you know, world, but here's all your water. There it goes. Who's going to stop them from watering their lawnS? And now everybody's worried about water for drinking. Hey, that's great. I'm for that too, but here is how you got people who want to work and live here and, you know, I know you're worried about the water, but Jesus Christ, give us the water too. We don't want to water our lawns, we just want it to drink, and we want to work here and that's it. Thanks. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Is there anyone else would like to speak? In the rear? DAN BLAISLEY: I work in Greenport and I just moved out this way a few months ago and I haven't been able to find a place to live yet. l.m living at my in-laws because my wife's from the area and I can find a place to live but I just can't afford $700 a month rent and living with the in-laws puts a tax on us too. I've never seen an area quite like this, you know. It's beautiful, but for the average working man it's ridiculous. I think you should take it and really consider it. Thank you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, sir. And we won't tell your mother-in-law. Anyone else like to make any comments? Bill. WILLIAM ESSEKS, Attorney for the Applicant: The only way that you can do this and that we can present it is to follow the SEQR regulations for better or for worse. According to SEQR regulations, this is the hearing and the hearing you can either Page 16 - Draft ElS - Co~ello close or you can continue. The purpose of the hearing is to ascertain whether the environmental impact statement, as submitted and as supplemented by criticismsf is sufficient to give you a hard look--that's the test--concerning the proposal before you, and the proposal before you is one and that is whether this piece of land is to be annexed from the Town to the Village, and as a resultant effect in that the zoning is changed automatically. As far as I know those are the only two things you are supposed to look at and that's what we addressed our impact statement to and to a certain extent that's what the opposition has responded to. Now, they've said there are four things that we didn't address. If you think that you don't have enough information for the requisite hard look, then you should say to us that you don't. You can say to us that you want more information and if you decide that you want more information about any of those four issued that they brought up, or any of the issues that they haven't brought up or we haven't brought up that you think you need, you tell us and we'll present it. And the way that's done, as far as ! l~now~ is for you to adjourn the hearing for an hour or a day or a week or a month and reconvene it and say to me and my people that work with us, you got any more stuff? Because in the interim we will try to respond to those questions, We think we~ve done it, but the last thing I want to do is to have you close the hearing and not be satisfied that we've come forth. Not to convince you that it's a good idea. Not to convince you that it's a bad idea, but to bring forth information whereby you can make an intelligent decision. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? JOHN RAYNOR, Engineer for John Cosello: I'vE been working with him on the project since late last year. I make my living by going to meetings like this and I listen quite frequently to the comments on draft environmental impact statements and what I usually hear is the type of a presentation that came from the gentleman from Middleton and Kontokosta Associates. It's usually a littany of the things that they woul~ like to see added to the impact statement in the hope that when you're finished you'll have a better impact statement or perhaps a better pic1~ure of wha~ the impact will be. Invariably that doesn't lead to better information, it's just a battle be~een the proponents and the opponents of the project, it's refreshing to si~ here tonight and listen to the kind of testimony that's been given, because I think that the things that people have said are better indication of what the impact ot: this project will be on your community, because the impacts are on the environment-- I should say the environment that is being impacted is composed of all of the things that we've discussed. It isn't just water supply or questions of flora and fauna. has to do with the people who live in the town and I think you should take that into consideration before deciding you needs mounds of additional information. Thank you. SUPE~RVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, is there anyone else would like to make a comment? Sir? RICHARD KOPEK; I live in the East-West Fire Dis~rict~and I want to point out that people have made light of impact studies, but before I bought property out here on Long Island me and my wife looked at some property around Artist Lake in Brookhaven, wl~ich is ~ beautiful place with, condominiums around this pristine lake where you go fishing and swimming and boating. Well, because they built around this area and the runoff of fertilizer and everything, the lake slowly died. They couldn't go fishing, they couldn't go swimming and now these beautiful people and beautiful houses are around a swamp and I tell you I'm quite sure these people regret that an impact study wasn't made when they built this around Artist Lake. Thank you, SIJPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Anyone else like to make any comments? F'age 17 - Draft ElS - Co~'ello HOWARD PACHMAN, ESQ.: is concluded or revised or comment~ of this code word "affordable housi. these people are talking about so t~ housing that they should have and and also this term "sweat equity".' understand what this means and wh those things are very important ant and no one's against affordable hou home, at the cost they can afford. stated and I think it should. Than Just one last statement. When this impact statement ~d on, I think for the first time the definition ig", with some real numbers so we know what at they're not conned into thinking that the need to live in will'be satisfied in this transaction, Let's define what that is so these people will at this will mean if this is a change. I think they've been bantyed about and they've nice se. Everyone wants to be able to live in a proper But it's never been defined and it's never been k you. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you comments? John? JOHN COSTELLO: Well, I'd like to Pachman just handed it to me, "swe he's not aware of what it amounts t done it. You do what you have to have to mow your own lawn, you m. have someibody else do it. You pal Is there anyone else would like to make any address the easiest question first, and Mr. at equity". Him being an attorney, I'm sure ). ! built my house and most people here have do. You work. You get out there and if you ~w your own lawn, because you can't afford to it it when you have to do it. That's "sweat equity~'~ ~f you have to build your own foundation, put your own fence in, and if it takes you twenty years not hiring all contractors but doing it yourself, you have to do it. You'.Il sweat, and if he's done it and most people have done it, you'll know what "sweat equity" is and I'm sure~ everybody here remembers, except maybe possibly Mr. Pachman. Well, I'd like to answer a couple of the questions. I'm sure we're getting away from the meeting~-you said at the end. There are some legitimate questions and I'd Ilke to try to answer some of it. Ruth Oliva asked wl~at the benefit to SOuthold is? I feel that the ben~ these people here, and they're your I don't care where the land is, if y. Southold. She also asked about the are not going to put sewerage into · sewerage into the ground and recha including several with the County H there is sewage treatment plants, p~ will also use public water that Gree~ I believe that we will be allowed a J' Town there will have to be an appli~ probably have to supply the water ability of this project per se. It's sewer system. The water system is by water hookup. It's unique. Th don't have the sewage capability. don't have the water. I think this of Southold Town for right now. M and the North Fork Water Study rec That's not the fact. It's not going going to do is control it and meet ti didn't wanz us here but they got us and Kontokosta Associates made the comments do not address annexation and the development of the parcel. will be hearings on both but we wot fit to Southoid is--the same expression of most of g kids and they're the working force in Southold. ~u provide for them that is the biggest benefit for water and the sewer. If it's into Greenport we ~he ground. Mr. Trent recommended that we put 'ge. Personally I've talked to many experts on it, ealth Department and they would recommend where ~t it in the plants. That's why we have them. We Iport has available. If this land goes into Greenport, ookup without the application. Outside in Southold :ation and Greenport, as you read in the paper, will time. Delay tactics is going to ruin the afford- Jnique that i~ lies 50 feet from hookup to the also right in the Main Road there. It's surrounded ~re are 50 acres in several other spots. They 'hey don't have the availability to hook up. They project and this piece of land is unique to the needs · . Trent also mentioned one time that he recommends ommends no development east of Ashamomaque Pond. to happen. We're all realists here. What we're ,e needs of the Town. The indians probably · All right, and Mr. McCarthy from Middleton comment, and I believe ninety percent of those of a parcel of land. They address planning It will be planned, it will be developed. There ~'t be talking about hypothetical numbers at that Page 18 - Draft ElS - Ca.~ello time, but specific numbers. did ask fer a Iocator map. yOU. Most of those objections apply I'm sorry we didn't do it, we'll SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, John. Okay, is there to address the Town Board? Okay, if not I would just like on the need of a draft environmental impact statement. At at that time, but he do it next time. Thank anyone else would like to make one comment times it might seem very time consuming and wasteful and all of that, but as several people pointed out it certainly has its advantages. We cannot really afford not to have this done any more. '['he Town Board will review as soon as the Town Clerk can get these minutes trans- cribed, will review the proceeding and we will make a determination in the earliest possible chance that we can. So if no one on the Town Board has an objection, I'd like to ask for a motion to adjourn. COUNCILMAN COCHRAN: So moved. C, OUNCILMAN TOWNSEND: Pd like to discuss it first. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Want to take a recess? (Board agreed.) Just a short recess to talk to the Town Attorney before we make a determination. I don't believe there will be any more input tonight unless someone wants to do it right now, so I would like SHIRLEY CROCKER: Doesn't the Board have anything to say on this? SUPERVISOR MURPHY: No, we're not. We're taking input on this. That's what the hearing is for, to let us hear what you have to say.---Sir? FRED SCHOENSTEIN: I Work in Greenport and i live in Greenport and I'd like to say that the younger people in this community also need a place to stay and I think it's a great project and I'm all for it and I'd like to see it go through. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? ERICK HEiNS: I came to speak for all the young people of Southold Town. I've grown up here all my life. I was lucky enough to be able to buy a piece of property four years ago for around $14,000. The property right next to mine just three weeks ago sold for $45,000. With the money that I'm making and the young people I know, the salari,es-~l~ey're making, I don't believe there's any way that they can afford to be able to never mind buy a piece of property but yet build a house on it. I'm working two jobs now and it's tough just for me and my family. I think somebody better do something for the young people or they'll be no young people in Southold Town. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. Sir? BILL GOLDE-R: I wasn"t going to say anything, but I gotta. They don't call me "big mouth" for nothing. Now, I was born out here, brought up out here and always, came out here and as of today I enjoyed the fishing here. I enjoyed every- thing here, but I've seen things go very bad and in my opinion because the only people who have come out here are people with no ties to the community. I'm talking of the older people and as,.a retired person I'm talking against my own kind maybe. I'm for the kids. What happens, you get peopIe out here in retirement. They come out here. They have no connections to the community. They are not interested in the community per se. What they are interested in is what can we find fault with~ What can we knock down? We can knock down the schools because we have no Page 19 - Draft ElS - Co~tello grandchildren, no children, no reason to worry about it. What we want is our own little piece of land with a pink ribbon about and nothing for nobody~ no how, never. That's the attitude. There may be exceptions, but I find them few and far between. ~low, when these people come out here if they knew nobody was going to rob their place, let's get rid of the Police Department and we don't have to pay taxes on that. And if they knew there was going to be no firesr we don't need the Fire Department. Get rid of them too. The only thing they can really criticize is the schools is because we have no bonds and so forth. Are they interested? Are they helping the community? They are the retired people who can really afford these big places and by circumventing things they can buy a little house and then by leaving part of it, I understand, they can build a lot bigger part around it and make a mansion. There's always a getting around it if you get back to it if you have money, but for the kids who come out t~,ere you can see in the newspapers right now all the advertisements there are for people to work, but you have to have people who want to want. You have to have young people. This is a wonderful place to raise kid~. Thank God my kids were raised here, but then what can they do outside of that. Tl~ree of mine--one's in California, one's up in Massachusetts~ one, thank God, is here and he can find a job because he has his own place, electronics~ but he can't find people to work for him' either, because he cannot get them to come out here because there is no afford- able housing. So I shot my mouth offr I just had to say it. I wasn't going to say a word. Thank you very kindly. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you; Bill. Okay, is there anyone else would like to address the Board? If not, Councilman Townsend would like us to take a five minute recess to talk to the Town Attorney and then we'll make a decision either to close l~be hearing or to recess it to the future. There will be no more testimony then. Recess for five minutes. 9:00 P.M. Hearing reconvened. 9:05 P.M. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The Town Board has decided to close the hearing right now and tl~is'wHl~be the end of the inPut on the draft environmental impact statement. Thank you for coming out. Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April '26, :1985: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Mr. John Costello 206 Wiggins Lane Greenport, New York 1,1944 Dear John: Enclosed herewith is the Legal Notice setting 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985, Southold Town Hall, as time and place for a public hearing on your Draft Environmental Impact Statement in. connection wil~h your petition for annexation. I am also enclosing herewith a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd. and submitted to me by Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk PACHMAN ~: OSHRIN, P. C. ATTORNEYS VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY P.O. BOX COMIvIACK, ~W YORK I 1 April 25, 1985 TELEPHONE AP. EA CODE 516 Ms. Judith T. Terry Town Clerk, Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Sterling Eastern Shores Annexation of appr. 48.7 Acres in Town of Southold by Village of Greenport ]Dear Ms. Terry: We see from the local media that a public hearing will be scheduled relative to the above-captioned matter within the next several weeks. We would very much appreciate your providing us with advance !notice of the date as soon as it is set. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Very truly yours, HEP:ss E. Pac~n cc: Sterling Eastern Shores Property Owners Association LEGAL NOTIC~ NOTICE OF NOTICE IS HEREB~ ,~IVEN thg~ the Town Board oithe Town of~outhold will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, ~ of' ~ew Hours, D~TED ~Pril 23 1985 JUDITH ~ TERRY : SO~UTHOLD TOWN CLERK 1TMy~z4878· ~FATE OF NEW YORK ) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) A~_It~A_ T.F~T~.~A_~q of Greenport, in said County, being duly sworn, says that ha/she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Greenport, 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 on~ weeks successively, commencing on the 2 dayof ~:7 19 85 Principal Clerk Sworn to before ms this ~ ,~~,~f.of Malz 19 85 ANN M. ABATE -- -- ~ mOmRY PUBLIC, State of New York ~ /~ ~ Suffolk County No. 474818~ ~ Term Exprre~ ~amh 30, t9~ i COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STATE OF NEW YORK SS' pact a his ~of of Patricia .Wood, being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Trav, eler-Watchman once each week for ..................../- ....... weeks / successively, commencing on the ........... ~ .......... Sworn to before me this ..................... day of Notary Public BARBARA FORBES l~ot~ry Pub'~e, State of ~ew York No. ~6 ~lifi~ ~ ~uffo~ Coun~ ~m~ion ~pires Ma~h ~. 19 ~ .:TERRY STATE OF NEW YORK: SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that she is over the age of twenty-one years; that on the 26th day of April 19 85 , she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper arid substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County; New York, to wit: Town Clerk Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Notice of Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Statement - John Costello - petition for annexation. 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 26th day of Aoril 1985 otary Public / LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will;hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, :1985, at the Southold Town Hall, Main~Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by John Costello in connection his petition (fOrmerly East End Associates) for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48), and easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file: in:the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: April 23, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TO~¥N CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MAY 2, ,~985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T, TERRy, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's ]3ulletin Board John Costello Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Village of Greenport LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., Thursday, May 16, 1985, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by John Costello in connection his petitiot~ (formerly East End Associates) for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road (C.R. 48), and easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Southold Town C~erk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: April 23, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MAY 2, 1985, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John Costello Pelletreau & Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Village of Greenport LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 7:30 P.M., T. hursday, May 76, 1985, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by John Costello in connection his petition (formerly East End Associates) for annexation of approximately 48.7 acres of land in unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the Incorporated Village of Greenport, at the corner formed by the intersection of the southerly side of North Road [C.R. 48), and easterly side of Moores Lane, Greenport, New York. SEQR lead agency is the Town of Southold. A~ copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: April 23, 1985. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ONCE, MAY 2, .1985, AND FORWARD ONE {1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Long Island Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Clerk's Bulletin Board John Costello Pelletreau F, Pelletreau William W. Esseks, Esq. Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Village of Greenport JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF TIlE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April ~15, :1985: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Honorable Nancy W. Cook Greenport Village Clerk Greenport Village Hall Greenport, New York 11:944 Dear Nancy: Transmitted herewith is :a revieTM of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement Submitt'ed by Howard E. Pachman, Esq., prepared by Middleton, KontokoSta Associates, Ltd., and pertaining to the proposed annexation of approximately 48.:7 acres of land in'the unincorporated portion of the Town of Southold into the the incorp- orated Village of Greenport as Submitted by John Costello (formerly East End Associates). Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk' EnclOsure HO%VARD E. PACHMAN ALAN D. OSHRIN KAREN R. BRO%~N PACHMAN ~ OSHRIN, P. C. ATTOR/qEYS VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY P.O. BOX 0?8 COMMACK, NEW yORK ! i 7~ April 15, 1985 Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Sterling Eastern Shores Annexation of appr. 48.7 Acres in Town of Southold by Village of Greenport Dear Ms. TerrY: We enclose herein eight copies of critique of environ- mental impact statement, dated April 11, 1985, which our clients had prepared by Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd., in response to your notice dated March 11, 1985. We believe that, because of the nature of the controversy and the criticism set forth herein, the Town of Southold, as lead agency, should hold a requisite public hearing under the SEQR rules and regulations. Very truly yours, HEP:ss Enclosures M IDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. DONALD J. MIDDLETON E. M. KONTOKOSTA, P.E. GARY S. ROGERS, R.A. April 11, 1985 Ms. Judith Terry, Clerk of the Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find a review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) relating to the annexation of certain lands of John Costello. This evaluation has been conducted in accordance with the intent of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which allows for the review of such documents for Scope, Content, and Adequacy. All comments pertaining to these parameters are contained in the attached detailed review. In summary we find that the DEIS is deficient in the following areas of major concern: 1. The project description does not adequately define governmental objectives relating to the parcel or approvals required which would lead to achievement of the project sponsor's goals. 2. The environmental setting requires broader scope and more exact content with regard to groundwater and geology, water resources, transportation, existing land use and zoning, demographic factors and cultural resources. Most significant is the cursory treatment of groundwater resources which is considered to be a key issue. 3 The significant impacts of the project on the resources of the site are not identified. There is virtually no acknow!edg~ent that the activity may result in an adverse A JOINT VENTURE KONTOKOSTA AssoCIATES E.NVIRONMENTAL PLANNERS, ENGINEERS ANDARCHITECTS 43WEST FIFTY FOURTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY, NEWYORK 10019 · 212582-6100 1797 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK 11722 · 516 582-8700 impact. Specifically, site development at the proposed density will inevitably result in groundwater impact and obliteration of the site's flora. 4. Viable alternatives such as reduced density and clustering were not considered. Environmental aspects or alternatives were not compared. Kindly contact me if you should have any further questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Donald J. Middleton President DJM:M enc o cc: Howard E. Pachman, P.C. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT RELATING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LANDS OF JOHN COSTELLO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION On January 9, 1985 the Town Board of the Town of Southold declared that the proposed annexation of certain lands belonging to John Costello may have a significant impact upon the environment. It was further resolved that the applicant would be required to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to be reviewed and made part of the decision making process for consideration by the Southold Town Board and involved agencies. The proposed project involves the annexation of 48.718 acres of property located within the Town of Southold. The applicant requests that the property assume a zoning classification under the Village of Greenport R-1 Residence District to achieve a hypothetical 170-1ot, 1/4 acre single family development. The existing zoning is 2 acre residential under the Town of Southold R.A. district. The subject acreage is located east of and north of the Village of Greenport between Moore's land, Middle Road and Middleton Road. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted in March of 1985 is the subject of this review. The DEIS discusses the following: Proposed Action, Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Alternative Actions, Irreversible and Irretrievable Committments, Growth Inducing Aspects and the Effect on the Use and Conservation of Energy Resources. It is the reviewers objective to determine if the document is adequate with respect to scope and content to serve as a meaningful decision making tool. The DEIS will be reviewed in accordance with procedures established under 6 NYSRR Part 617 SEQRA under 617.8(b) and the format contained in 617.14. Contained herein is a review of the scope of the document indicating omissions or insufficient detail in areas where additional discussion is required, as well as, a critical review of the document's content. A conclusion is provided as the final section of this report. REVIEW OF SCOPE AND CONTENT Summary (1.0) (p.1) The summary of the DEIS is excellent in describing the project, defining the sponsor's objectives and acting in advocation of the proposal. The summary does not describe significant adverse effects, acknowledge public controversy or describe feasible mitigation measures. Appropriate changes should be made to fulfill the intent of Part 617.14(e). Description of the Proposed Action (2.0) (p.5) The proposed action borders on two distinct governmental entities, the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. The action involves a significant deviation from the intended low density use required by Town zoning, to comparitively high density use under Village zoning. The DEIS must discuss the objectives of the Town of Southold for the use of this property under the Master Plan or other 2 pertinent studies. It would also seem prudent to discuss Greenport Village objectives for the nearest adjacent land as specified in Master Plans, local waterfront studies or other community development plans° The proposed project description should seek to define the chain of events and required approvals which would ultimately lead to achievement of the project sponsor's objective. This section states what the applicant desires but fails to outline how to accomplish it within the procedures of the two government bodies. A locator map showing the whereabouts of the 48.718 acre tract in the Greenport region would be useful. Also, A discussion of the former use of this property might be presented to better understand the backround and history of the project site. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Geology and Groundwater (3.11) (p.10) The statement "sands and gravels are characterized as highly permeable and yield little runoff during precipitation periods" must be quantified. A water budget for the North Fork would put this claim into perspective. Parameters such as: percipitation, runoff, evapotranspiration and recharge should be considered. The groundwater elevation data presented is severely outdated (1966). Groundwater elevation is dynamic, therefore, recent data is required for planning consideration. The conclusion that water table elevations lie at 2 to 3 feet above sea level (in the Greenport vicinity), is not -3- evident from the figure provided. The sources, titles and relevancy of Figures 2, 3, and 4 should be stated. A discussion of upper horizon soil types and potential planning and development limitations based on soils is essential and must be included in this section. Are there any geologic formations beneath the Upper Pleistocene deposits? Water Resources (3.13) (p.14) The "in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities" mentioned in this section should be specified and discussed. What are they and are they working? The quality of groundwater in the glacial aquifer beneath the site should be presented. The existing nitrate problems mentioned in Mro Villa's letter (Appendix No. 4) should be enumerated upon. Direction of groundwater flow and estimated discharge points and down gradient receptors is relevant. The quantity of groundwater, the locations of wells, and present pumpage for various uses must be presented in order to determine impacts of the proposed action on water supply. Transportation (3.21) (p.20) The peak hour traffic flow on roadways servicing the site should be included. The characteristics and usage of Middleton Road should be discussed in that it is near to the subject property and his tap roads which abut the subject. County Road 48, in the vicinity of the subject site, is not adequately defined. The characteristics and usage should be provided. Any development which is proposed on --4-- the subject will be highly dependent on C.R. 48 for ingress or egress. Existing Land Use and Zoning (3.22) (p.22) The zoning, or development potential of land lying north of the subject, or across C.R. 48 should be discussed. Water Suppl~ (3.23 E.) (p.27) The projected increase in water supply demand due to increased population density should be evaluated. The total developable acreage within the Greenport Water District is an important consideration. The potential for contamination of public water supply well fields from pesticides, fertilizers or other sources should be discussed. The Upper Glacial Aquifer being shallow is susceptible to contamination which may render sources unusable. The specific findings and conclusions of the North Fork water supply plan as it relates to the Greenport Water District and development of acreage in Southold Town should be established. The DEIS should acknowledge the need to install and monitor a test well in the Silver Lake area, and agree in concept to this requirement (Appendix No. 3). D~mograDhic Factors (3.24) (p.30) The characteristics of the population of Greenport Village and Southold Town are absent from this discussion. It is important to understand parameters such as distribution, density and household size and composition in order to assess and mitigate potential impacts of annexation and significant land use changes. Census data includes population figures from 1970 and 1980, however, no future growth potential or population projections are considered. Cultural Resources (3.25) (p.32) The sensitivity of the subject property with respect to aboriginal inhabitation as determined by the Suffolk County Archeological Association (SCAA) should be investigated. A report and maps including generalized patterns of aboriginal settlement was released by the SCAA in 1967. The Stony Brook University Department of Anthropology in conjunction with the Long Island Archeological Project have conducted research on the east end of Suffolk County. Their findings and professional assessment of the cultural sensitivity of the 48.718 acre subject property should be required. The historic sensitivity of the subject has not been adequately determined. A brief consultation of available historic maps would ascertain the historic composition of the site with respect to location of former dwellings. The visual resources of the site and surrounding community have not been explored. The value of the property and surrounding area for open space and/or natural area should be documented. The physical character of the community is important to understand. The make-up of the densely population Village as opposed to the more rural Town setting should be described in order to evaluate the alternative used for the transitional subject site. A discussion of social factors including community views (opposition and support) and issues of controversy is an important component of cultural resources. --6-- Impacts of the Proposed Action/Mitigation Measures (4.0) (p.33) If it is indeed true that R-1 Village zoning is coincidental upon the act on annexation, then this chain of events is best discussed under the "Description of the Proposed Action" as required approvals. This also applies to the statement that, "The annexation will also ensure that electric service, water supply and domestic sewage disposal will be available to the parcel from the Village of Greenport without need for any special negotiations or contract arrangements" These items are part of the proposed action and are paramount to the success of the project. All of the aforementioned amendments to the DEIS recommended in the Environmental Setting section should be weighed against the proposed action to determine additional impacts which may occur as a result of the proposal. Appropriate mitigation measures if available, should then be discussed. The specific impacts in need of more detailed discussion are summarized herein for the convenience of the responding party. Geology and Groundwater (4.11) (p.34) Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional low production wells on the subject. Is the project water supply dependent on development of these wells? The impact of this installation on groundwater requires explanation. What mitigation is proposed if high iron concentrations are encountered? A general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required. The impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Water Resources (4.13) (p. 34) Appendix No. 3 mentions the development of additional low production wells on the subject. Is the project water supply dependent on development of these wells? The impact of this installation on groundwater requires explanation. What mitigation is proposed if high iron concentrations are encountered? A general clarification of water supply aspects and impacts is required. The impact of site development upon soils as determined in the environmental setting is necessary. Water Resources (4.13) (p.35) The water resources associated with this site (groundwater) will inevitably be adversely impacted by site development° Anticipated impacts include, but are not limited to: nitrate and herbicide contamination as a result of lawn and turf care practices on 170 residential lawns, stormwater recharge containing heavy metals and hydrocarbons in areas of high groundwater and potential for oil tank leakage and/or discharge of household chemicals in a 170 lot development. If groundwater contamination were to occur~ what surface waters, wetlands or public water supply wells might be impacted down gradient of the site or at locations of aquifer discharge? Mitigation measures (i.e. site development constraints, covenants, etc.) should be proposed. -8- Terrestrial Ecoloqy (4.15) (p.36) How will adequate buffer areas and open space be maintained and still achieve the desired yield? It is anticipated that roads, structures, drainage, and grading requirements of 170 units on 10,000 square foot lots will obliterate natural site vegetation and permanentely disrupt site occupation by natural fauna. A discussion of impacts and mitigation is called for. Transportation (4.21) (p.37) Additional impacts should be determined as appropriate in consideration of additional comments previously mentioned. The proPOsal calls for a limitation of access points on Moore's Lane and County Road 48. What is the Impact of the additional traffic burden on Middleton Road and tap streets in the residential neighborhood. Land Use (4.22) (p.38) How is high density residential development consistent with the Village's substantial landholdings within Moore's Woods? The conclusion that annexation and calculated development would not impact the value of residential homes must be documented, supported and referenced as to source. Water Supply (4.23 F.) (p.44) Water supply impacts should be discussed in terms of projected demand and related to the North Fork Water Supply Plan. 1979 groundwater elevations were recorded at an all time record high. Estimated water supply potential based on these contours is likely to be misleading. --9-- Please be advised that the water table contour map in Appendix No. 3 is labeled with the wrong year. Sewage Treatment (4.23F.) (p.45) Suffolk County Department of Health Services sewage design flow estimates are based on a single family equivalent of 300 gallons per day. Demoqraphic Factors (4.24) (p.48) How will the proposed action contribute to the stabilization of the Village's population? Demographic impacts should be further discussed as related to previous comments. Cultural Resources (4.25) (p.48) The conclusion that no significant impact will occur to cultural resources is unsupported. Additional discussion of potential impacts is impossible until the comments relating to the environmental setting are discussed. Alternative Actions (5.0) (p.49) The section dealing with project alternatives is based entirely on the developer's objectives, perceived community needs, and economics to the exclusion of discussing relative environmental impacts of various proposals. Actual environmental impacts have been identified which may indeed be minimized under alternative actions. A discussion of relative environmental considerations is essential. Varying levels of density are the most obvious alternatives which demand investigation. Doubling the lot size to 20,000 square feet (1/2 acre) would undeniably lessen environmental impacts while still providing comparatively high density housing. Such a scenerio would -10- still provide an affordable housing alternative to most real estate opportunities on the North Fork. Another logical density deserving of consideration is one acre zoning. The potential for developing an alternate site in accordance with existing zoning should be included. The use of clustering to minimize potential impacts and still achieve the desired objectives is worth consideration. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments (6.0) (p.54) Additional commitment of resources depends upon additional information which should be amended into the DEIS as per this review. Additional commitment of resources may include the following: A substational adverse change in water quality underlying the site, as a result of high density residential development and the nitrate loading from lawn care practices known to occur. The loss of up to 48.718 acres of pioneer growth vegetation. The permanent foreclosure of open space. The potential for impairment of cultural resources. Growth Inducing Aspects (7.0) (p.56) If approved, this action will give rise to the potential that similiar actions will be proposed. CONCLUSION A detailed review of the DEIS for annexation of certain lands of John Costello has been completed by the writer. Based on this analysis, it is concluded that an abundance of additional information must be presented and -11- evaluated in connection with this proposal before a well informed decision can be reached by the Lead Agency. An Environmental Impact Statement is the primary decision making tool and is the heart of the SEQRA process as intended by the New York State Environmental Conservation Law. A project of the magnitude and importance of the one considered herein requires a thorough understanding of the social, economic and environmental issues to be incorporated into planning and decision making. This review details items excluded from consideration, areas which require additional information and content which needs correction or clarification. -12- IIIMK ASSOCIATES DONALD J, MIDDLETON E. M. KONTOKOSTA, P.E. GARY S. ROGERS, R.A, MIDDLETON, KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES, LTD. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS A JOINT VENTURE KONTOKO~TA ASSOCIATES E~VlRONMENTAL PLANNERS, ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS 43 WEST FIFTY FOURTH STREET, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10019 · 212 582-6100 1797 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, CENTRAL ISLIP, NEW YORK 11722 ' 516 582-6700 INTRODUCTID~ Middleton, Kontokosta Associates (MKA) is a multi-faceted firm that offers a broad range of professional services. MKA offers the public, corporate or individual client, the services of environmental planners, engineers and architects. The skills of an experienced staff, coupled with the ability to bring special- ized consultant services to bear upon the delivery of these ser- vices, offers the client the highest possible level of professional performance. MKA also has the capacity to develop joint-venture client services, utilizing associated firms of exemplary caliber to tailor-fit particularized services to particular project demands. M~ seeks to join the timely delivery of client services to the need for valid, creditable and superior results. The manage- ment of project performance, including the submission of periodic client progress reports~ provides the foundation of the MKA man- agement method. MKA services will be presented to the client in a timely fashion and will be presented, as necessary, at public forums~ hearings or regulatory related proceedings. M~ offers a breadth of professional services founded upon the proven performance and experience of the firm's principals. The firm's two principals have more than fifty years of cumulative ex- perience in environmental planning and administration, architecture and engineering. As such, MKA is prepared to offer the following services in environmental planning and comprehensive development and design: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Permit services, health effects, environmental impact studies, pollution control, resource management, testing services, toxics analysis, monitoring and surveillance, waste management, ecolog- ical and archeological investigation. COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN SERVICES Commercial/industrial/residential/recreational project plan- ning and architectural design, site selection, real estate broker- age, zoning and plan approval service, permit approval service', construction cost estimating, preliminary engineering planning, codes/standards/ordinance compliance assurance, construction eval- uation, space planning, renovation and rehabilitation project architectural design. MKA is a newly incorporated venture which joins the skills of its principals to achieve development based upon sound architectural, engineering and er~ironmental principles. The firm is committed to proper building upon the environment -- demonstrating that esthetic and economic concerns can and must be dependent upon a safe and preserved environment -- at work, at play or at home. MKA principals have had experience in the following project areas: ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Permit service Health effect analysis COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Housing rehabilitation & renovation School design ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING Environmental Impact analysis Waste Management Regulatory reform study Resource recovery planning Hazardous waste site assess- ment Solid waste management Toxic spill response Environmental surveillance design Tidal and fresh water management COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Office rehabilitation & renovation design Adaptive reuse for housing, educat- ional & commercial use Co-op construction and sales Housing construction Real Estate brokerage Construction cost estimating Plan and zoning approvals Code compliance Space planning Land use planning PROJECT EXPERIENCE M~A is a small firm with in-depth experience in environmental planning and comprehensive design and development services. The principals, staff and associated consulting experts at MKA have a solid foundation and proven excellence in a wide range of profes- sional services. The following is a partial listing of projects which have been managed by principals of MKA. RCA Property Acquisition~ 1978 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Manager and chief negotiator of project to acquire 7,100 acres of land o~ed by the Radio Corporation of America. The land is located on Long Island in the Towns of Brookhaven (5,100 acres) and River- head (2,000 acres). The land is now managed under provisions of State Law as a Pine Barrens reserve and is the largest remaining open space on Long Island. The property donation was the largest corporate contribution in the history of New York State. The pro- perty is valued at $20 million. Long Island Groundwater Management Pro~ect, 1980 - 1983 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation General supervision of project designed to coordinate services of over thirty public agencies involved in groundwater protection acti- vities on Long Island. Structured inter-agency coordination com- mittee and supervised development of long term plan to protect the purity of Long Island's aquifer system. This $750,000.00 project reached its final stages in May, 1983 in preparation for public hearings. Long Island East End Towns Solid Waste Management Master Plan~ 1978 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Supervised the development of a solid waste management master plan for the five towns on the East End of Long Island, (Southampton, East Hampton, Southold, Riverhead, Shelter Island). Major final recommendation called for construction of $75 million resource recovery facility to serve all towns. First instance of inter- governmental planning between the State of New York and the five towns. New York State Environmental ~uality Bond Act of 1972 Funding on Long Island~ 1976 - 1983 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Supervised regional administration of funding under the NYS Envir- onmental Quality Bond Act of 1972. Under that Act more than $80 million were committed to various Long Island projects between 1976 and 1983. Projects ranged from construction of sewage treatment plants to the purchase of tidal wetlands for preservation. More than $30 million was committed to the construction of a solid waste resource recovery facility. Resource Recovery Planning Pro~ect, 1976 - 1983 New York State Department of Environmental Project Supervised the development of plan to stimulate the construction of solid waste resource recovery facilities on Long Island. Pro- ject established nationally precedent setting goal of developing resourc~ recovery facilities to serve 90% of Long Island's nearly 3 million residents by the end of 1987. One major $150 million facility built and four in development by 1983. Solid Waste Landfill Regulatory Reform Pro.~ect, 1976 - 1983 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Supervised services directed toward reform of solid waste land- filling practices on Long Island° Developed plan to site land- fills according to groundwater recharge sensitivity criteria. Supervised implementation of law instituting requirements for landfill closure, capping, gas control, leachate treatment and operation. 1981/82 Client: B & A Marine Inco, 75 Huntington Street, Brooklyn, NY John Crokos, Vice Pres. 875-6700 Description: This building contains 4,500 Sqo fto of executive office space; 7,500 sq. ft. of machine shop space; and the partial renovation of 17,000 sq. fto of existing machine shop area° Construction Cost: $875,000.00 Design/Drafting Time: 10 weeks Construction Time: 9 months 1981/82 Client: Depto of Health, 125 Worth Street, New York City C/O Depto of General Services, City of New York Mro Rudy Fattuta, Depo Director 566-2436 Description: The renovation of the entire 10th Floor and part of the 9th floor, from laboratory space to office space housing computer and data processing units for the Dept. of Health, City of New York. Construction Cost: $1,100,000o00 Design/Drafting Time: 5 months Construction Time: Scheduled for 1983. ][981/82 Client: Cleaves-Point Village, East Marion, New York C/O Metrohouse Builders, Woodbury, New York Mr; Sol Muchnik 516-367-3320 Description: Waterside residential community of 45 condominium units, with club house and restaurant, for a total of 60,000 sq. ft. of new construction. Construction Cost: $3,600,000.00 Design/Drafting Time: 5 months Construction Time: Scheduled for 1983 completion. 1980 Client: Mr. John Moscahlaidis, 47 - 00 Northern Blvdo, L.IoC. 729-9000 Description: The renovation of four (4) six story loft buildings in the Tri-Beca area into residential units on the upper floors, and cor~,ercial space on the lower floor° Total of 70,000 Sqo ft. Construction Cost: $2,300,000°00 Design/Drafting Time: 3 months Construction Time: 10 months 1981/83 Client: Lake Shore Terrace Inc., Centereach, NY C/O Ms° Dorothy Snyder 516-732-6671 Description: The construction of a new three-story motel consisting of 111 rooms and restaurant for a total of 60,000 sq. ft. in the Township of Brookhaven, New York° Construction Cost: $3,000,000.00 Design/Drafting Time: 6 months Construction Time: Projected 10 months° 1979/81 Client: Krinos Foods, Inc., 47 - 00 Northern Blvd., L.I.C., N.Y. Mr° John Moscahlaidis, 729-9000 Description: The new warehouse and packa§inE building for Krinos Foods in N.Y.Co, 130,000 Sqo ft.; consisting of 8,000 Sqo fro of executive office space; 18,000 sq. fro of food packaging space; 23,000 Sqo fro of refrigerated and freezer space; and 28,000 Sqo fro of loading/unloading and warehouse space o Construction Cost: $7,000,000°0 (with equipment) Design/Drafting Time: 4~ months Construction Time: 1 year. 1980/82 Client: St° Demetrios High School, Astoria, New York C/O St. Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church, Astoria, NY Mro Nicholas Andriotis, Pres. Parish Council, 728-1718 Description: A new 6-story, 31 classroom building of 32,380 sq. ft. of new construction and 10,200 Sqo ft. of renovated space consisting of science labs, library, lecture rooms and administrative offices. Construction Cost: $2,400,000°00 Design/Drafting Time: 6 months Construction Time: 15 months. 1977/78 Client: St° Michael's Home for the Aged, Yonkers, New York Mr. Spiro Pandekakes, 914-476-3374 iDescription: On a 12-acre site in Hartsdale, NY, this project is to provide a home for 150 elderly residents along with dining facilities, activity spaces, and a chapel, all consisting of 72,000 Sqo fro Construction Bid: $3,450,000.00 Design/Drafting Time: 1 year ,Construction Time: Not Built. 1977/78 Client: Bank of New York, New York City Mr° Michael Katos, 530-8561 Project-Offices of UoS. Geological Survey Agency, Syosset, NY Construction Cost: $250,000°00 1978/81 Client: Holy Cross Greek Orthodox Church, Brooklyn, NY Project: Holy Cross Educational Center, Brooklyn, NY Construction Cost: $1,400,000.00 1978/80 Client: Sea Breeze Village Condominiums, Southold, NY C/O Metrohouse Builders, Woodbury, NY Construction Cost: $900,000°00 1975/76 Client: St. Catherine's Elementary School, Astoria, NY C/O Mro Nicholas Andriotis, Pres° Parish Council Construction Cost: $350,000°00 1975/76 Client: Three Hierarchs Church Educational Center~ Brooklyn, NY C/O Mr. Gus Vellios Construction Cost: $800,000.00 1967/71 .Client: Chef's Orchid Airline Commisaries Locations: Los Angeles, Oakland, Las Vegas, Sacramento, LaGuardia, Kennedy Airport and Newark° ,Construction Cost: $8,000,000°00 (All projects)° PROFESSIONAL PROFILES The following professional profiles present an experience outline of some of the principals, staff and associated consulting experts at MKA. MKA's staff, coupled with consultant services and appropriate joint-venture services, offers the client optimum flexibility and the capacity to tailor-fit particularized services to particular project demands. DONALD J. MIDDIgTON PROFESSIONAL PROFILE EDUCATION Fordham University College of Arts and Science, New York, NY, B.S. 1961. Fordham University Graduate School of Social Service, New York, NY, MSW 1965. Undertaken courses in a program of studies leading toward a doctorate in Public Administration from New York University Graduate School of Public Administration. EMPLOYMENT President; Middleton, Kontokosta Associates, Ltd., (MKA), May, 1983 to present. MlOk is a multi-faceted firm that offers a broad range of pro- fessional services. MKA offers the public, corporate or individual client, the services of environmental planners, engineers and architects. MKA also has the capacity to dev- elop joint-venture client services, utilizing associated firms of exemplary caliber to tailor-fit particularized services to particular project demands. MKA offers services in the following major areas: Environmental Planning: Permit services, health effects, environmental impact studies, pollution control, resource management, testing services, toxics analysis, monitoring and surveillance, waste management, ecological and archeological investigation. Comprehensive Development and Design Services: Commercial/industrial/residential/recreational project planning and architectural design, site selection, real estate brokerage, zoning and plan approval service, permit approval service, construction cost estimating, prelim- inary engineering planning, codes/standards/ordinance compliance assurance, construction evaluation, space plan- ning, renovation and rehabilitation project architectural design. Middleton, Donald J. Page 2 Long Island Director, New York State Department of Envir- onmental Conservation - March, 1976 to May, 1983. The Long Island Director is the Commissioner's surrogate in Nassau and Suffolk County. He provides executive direction and oversees administrative support and community interface for all Department programs. His role mirrors that of the Commissioner in providing field oversight of the full range of Department activities which are unique in New York State government in terms of scope, complexity and impact upon the State's human and natural resources. The Long Island Director provides direct administrative sup- ervision for attorneys, professional engineers, environmen- tal analysts, foresters, biologists, law enforcement officers, surveyors and appraisers and others having diverse technical skills. The Long Island Director supervises programs related to water resource protection and management, fish and wildlife impacts, solid waste management, standards of permit compliance, sewage disposal, air pollution control, potential economic or health impacts, pollution prosecution and investigation. C~e hundred eighty people work under the Long Island Regional Director. Regional Director, Manhattan/Staten Island, New York City, Office of the Mayor, Office of Neighborhood Services. Appointed to direct the implementation of the Administrative Decentralization Program throughout the Boroughs of Manhat- tan and Staten Island - November, 1974 to August, 1975. The Administrative Decentralization Program, initiated in 1972 under Mayor J. V. Lindsay, was designed to coordinate ~d integrate all municipal services being delivered at the Community Planning District level; that is, in sixty-two designated sub-areas of the City, each sub-area having a population of approximately 150,000o There are sixteen (16) Community Planning Districts in Manhattan and Staten Island. District Manager, New York City, Office of the Mayor, Office of Neighborhood Gover~ment. Appointed by Mayor Lindsay as APR April 2, 1985 Judith T. Terry Office of the Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 728 Southold, NY 11971 RE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, EAST END ASSOCIATES (John CostellO) Dear Ms. Terry: This will Confirm our telephone conversation of yesterday wherein we discussed with you that the Notice of Receipt of Draft Environmental Impact Statement dated March 11, 1985 sets forth that any comments are due on or before April 14, 1985. Since the date set forth in the Notice falls on a S~nday, you indicated that any written comments could be submitted to your office by April 15, 1985, the next day. As ever, thank you for your courtesies extended to this office. ~ ~ly yours, cc: Eleonora Kopek Sterling Eastern Shores J AREA 0~ ~o. ~:'/i!i.!8F-'~ i' WATER RE$OUROES, PLATE C ". (REPRODUCTION OF PLATE %WATER: SUPPLY P~PER 16~-~,{I i ' MALCOLM RNIE ENGINEERS SCALE .' WHITE PLAINS , N.Y. DATE AS NOTED JUNE 1967 Figure #2