Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Hamlet at Cutchogue 1988 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK NOV - 31986 J $OUTHOLt3 TOWN PANNING BOARD go GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS/PLANNERS BABYLON, NY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PRESENT LOCATION: Town of Southold Suffolk County New York APPLICANT: Nocro, Ltd. ' Main Road Cutchogue, New York 11935 LEAD AGENCY AND CONTACT: Town of Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. (Chairman) 765-1938 PREPARER: Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. Consulting Engineers 325 West Main Street Babylon, New York 11702 Robert Grover, Kenneth Grasso and John Healey (516) 587-5060 DATE OF PREPARATION: October 1988 AVAILABILITY OF DOCUMENT: This document represents a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) . Copies are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Comments on the Draft EIS should be submitted to the Lead Agency listed above by to be included in the public record. TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SUI124ARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Background and History. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1 Project Need, Benefits and Objectives of Sponsor. . . . . 2-3 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-6 Design and Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-9 Construction and Operation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-10 Approvals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-13 INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Subsurface Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1 Soils. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8 Agriculture. . . . . . . . 3-14 Vegetation and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-15 Land Use and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17 Land Use Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 Community Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-20 Demographics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-21 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-23 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Geology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1 Groundwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2 Vegetation and Wildlife. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-10 Land Use and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-11 Community Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-12 CulturalResources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16 MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Soils and Topography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1 Water Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2 Land Use and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-4 Community Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-5 Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 ALTERNATIVES Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1 Alternative Sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-2 Alternative Land Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-5 No Action. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-6 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES. . . 8-1 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 APPENDICES Appendix A - Demographic Information Appendix B - Plant List and Vegetation Report Appendix C - Report on Wastewater Disposal Appendix D - Water Supply Report Appendix E - Groundwater/Nitrogen Budget Analysis Appendix F - Synopsis of Proposed Zoning Ordinance ADDENDUM 1 - Colonial Shopping Plaza ADDENDUM 2 - Traffic Impact Study SECTION I SUMMARY SUMMARY This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to provide complete assessment of impacts of construct- ing a townhouse complex, entitled The Hamlet at Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. In addition to providing a detailed description of the proposed project, the DEIS presents a portrait of the existing environmental setting, and a discussion of the following areas of potential impact: o Geology of Site o Groundwater and Water Supply o Land Use and Zoning o Community Services o Cultural Resources o Vegetation and Wildlife o Transportation Following the impact analysis, a discussion of measures taken to mitigate impacts, and a discussion of alternatives is provided. This DEIS addresses all of the possible environmental impacts that may result from project implementation. As will be described in the sections to follow, there are virtually no sig- nificant environmental impacts anticipated from the project. Mitigating measures, however, are incorporated into the project to reduce or eliminate the minor effects of the Hamlet at Cut- chogue on the surrounding community. The report leads to the conclusion that the project location is an optimal setting for the development of a planned retirement community to serve the Hamlet of Cutchogue and the Town of Southold. 1-1 SECTION II DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The subject parcel, situated near the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, was purchased from Leisure Greens Associates by Seacroft, Ltd. on September 1, 1983 . At the time of purchase said parcel con- tained 46. 16 acres zoned M Light-Multiple Residence. An addi- tional parcel consisting of 7.1 acres zoned "B" Light Business was also purchased from Leisure Greens Associates by Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. For the purposes of this report the commercially zoned acreage will be addressed separately as it is not part of the application for development presently in front of the Plan- ning Board. Prior to this, on February 1, 1983, a petition had been filed with the Town Board requesting a change of zoning from A Residential-Agricultural to M Light-Multiple Residence. Along with this petition, both a long and short Environmental Assessment form were filed. On March 22 , 1983 the Town Board as lead agency declared that the project was "unlisted" under Section 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law. It was further determined that the project would have no significant impact upon the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement was unnecessary. The change of zone request was granted on July 19, 1983 . A preliminary sketch plan for the construction of 160 condo- minium units for senior citizens was submitted in April of 1984, and later a certified set of plans (which bore the approval of 2-1 the Building Department) and request for site plan approval was submitted on October 17, 1984 . Upon review of the plan by the Planning Board, the Board determined that the action was subject to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (SEQRA) , expressed the desire to be the lead agency and fur- ther determined that the project constituted a "Type 1" action requiring the preparation of a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement. On November 7, 1984 the SEQR Positive Declaration was issued by the Town Planning Board. On January 7, 1985 a resolution was adopted declaring the site plan application incomplete under SEQRA, and denied it. Subsequent to this determination, a petition was filed with the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Suffolk by Cron and Cron, Esqs. , attorneys for Seacroft Ltd. , the development corporation protesting the Planning Board Action. On March 21, 1988 the court ruled in favor of the Planning Board, declaring that the proposed action is a "Type I" as defined by Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law and requiring the preparation of a full DEIS for the project. 2-2 PROJECT NEED. BENEFITS AND OBJECTIVES OF SPONSOR As stated in the Master Plan Update prepared by the Planning Consultant firm of Raymond, Parrish, Pine and Weiner of Tarry- town, New York, and as detailed in a subsequent section (Human Resources - Demographics) the population of retirement age per- sons in eastern Suffolk County in general, and the Town of Southold in particular, has increased greatly in the past decade. The trend is expected to increase at a rate greater than that of the general population growth. Along with this change in age structure there has become a need for increased senior citizen housing in the Town. Town of Southold Master Plan recommendations regarding overall planning call for providing "a community of residential hamlets which are: composed' of a variety of housing opportuni- ties and commercial, service and cultural activities; serving to establish a sense of place; set in an open or rural atmo- sphere; " . . . striving for compatibility between the natural environment and development. In regard to residential develop- ment, the Master Plan recommends providing for "the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of people at various stages of the life cycle, various income and age levels afid household compositions" , and encourages" housing develop- ment, of varying types and densities in and around existing hamlets" . Construction of the proposed project will address many of the goals and recommendations stated in the Master Plan. The predominant housing type within the Town of Southold is the 2-3 - single family home. The proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue" will add to the availability of multiple residence units and help meet the goal of providing a variety of housing types. The design of the project groups residential units together leaving large areas of open space thereby helping to preserve an open or rural atmosphere. The overall placement of the proposed project is within walking distance of the center of the Hamlet of Cut- chogue. This not only eliminates the need for vehicle trips for shopping but also is in accord with the recommendation to con- struct housing in and around existing hamlets. As stated pre- viously, the proposed project will help to provide needed senior citizen housing in the town and, through its central location, traditional architecture and careful site planning will provide compatibility with surrounding development and strengthen the overall feeling of "a sense of place". Senior citizens currently occupy many of the larger homes in the Town; the upkeep of these homes and the lack of security are two of seniors' major concerns. The development of this project will enable senior citizens to move to a more desirable dwelling and also allow younger and larger families to purchase and re- store these large houses. As previously stated, the primary social benefit of the proposed project is to provide adequate senior citizen housing within the Town of Southold while its major economic benefits include an increase in the town' s tax base, without a comparable 2-4 increase in the cost of services, stimulation of the construc- tion and building materials industries and creation of mainten- ance and management opportunities after construction is com- pleted. 2-5 LOCATION The proposed project is to be situated on approximately 46 acres located at the intersection of School House Lane and Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutchogue, Township of Southold. Specifically, the parcel is referred to on the Suf- folk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 102 , Block 01, Lot 333 (see Figure 1) . Access to the site will be accomplished by using either Griffing Street or School House Lane, both of which are classi- fied as minor streets. These intersect with, respectively, Main Road, a major arterial road and Depot Lane, a collector street. The site is currently zoned M Light Multiple-Residence. This zoning allows for theconstruction of dwellings up to 125 ' in length and a density of 4 units per acre. 2-6 FIGURE 1 ONOZuck Pord Pf \Colo OREGON i\\/ sou, HOLD I�Afl TTITUCK 4 CUT u-E N IV MATTITUCK cA. le kv ik� L C r MATTITUCK fi i ��,`,' `� rI AiRPORT lip, arratookaPt Pt kT KeRAU6 Y.C. NEW SUFFO cm c,,c -'r 54-9056'35"E - 221.471 FIGURE 2 N26o46' 05"E .00--ol "aw I 563.41 N N43�17'45"E 145.28' 1 O O p N37°35'05"E 251.03' 1 1 1 1 52455'45"W 210. 23' 1 1 540012'15"E W 170.00' ti N 1 549047145"E C all 95.00' 1540022'35*W 406.93' 549047'45"E O 273. 68' O , 0 1 PROPERTY LINE MAP HAMLET AT �NpOL NDUSE (.ANE CUTCHOGUE 540012'15"W 217.33' R/FF/N 1"=250' STREET DESIGN AND LAYOUT The overall scheme of development calls for dwellings to be clustered around cul-de-sacs or along two major roads, leaving several sizeable areas as "open space" . The two proposed roadways, each of which terminates in a loop, will be curvilinear in design, in order to conform to existing topography while being aesthetically pleasing. The site plan includes a total of 40 structures, each having a "footprint" of approximately 6, 150 square feet and containing 4 dwelling units. In addition to this, proposed pavement areas (roads and driveways) measure 288, 062 SF for a total of 534, 062 square feet of impervious area. This represents 27% of the total site area of 46. 16 acres. At present, much of the site is cleared field, devoid of any trees with the exception of a small wooded area along the east- erly property line. All runoff will be contained on site and routed by means of swales, leaching basins, catch basins, and ponds. This system has been sized to handle a 611 rainfall as per Town of Southold requirements. The site plan provides for two parking spaces per dwelling unit, one garaged space and one driveway space. Parking spaces will also be provided for guests. 2-9 CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION The total anticipated construction period is two years, with construction being accomplished in three phases (see Figure 3) . Phasing of the project follows a logical progression. Phase I, in addition to providing the recreational amenities for the entire complex, also includes construction of the swales and pond, water supply well, storage tank and main access road to the site. Construction of Phase I provides key portions of the infrastructure necessary to construct subsequent phases. Phase II fully completes one branch of the roadway system and puts in place that portion of the drainage system needed to construct the final phase of the project. Phase III completes the southwestern section of. the site, landscaping and other amenities to complete the project. By phasing the construction of a project in this manner, adverse impacts to neighboring properties are minimized. Each section is completed in a shorter period than would be required to complete the entire project. Noise, dust, erosion-siltation and other potential nuisances to owners of adjacent parcels become relatively short lived. This method of construction provides the added benefit of earlier realization of increased tax revenue on occupied dwellings. The schedule of construction for each phase is as follows: SITE WORK BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Clearing Rough grading 2-10 -- SITE WORK BUILDING CONSTRUCTION Excavation for drainage and Excavation for foundation swales and sanitary system Drainage installation Install foundation and sanitary system Curbs (in club house area) Framing Utilities (watermain, Roofing, sheathing and windows electric, telephone) Final grading and paving Plumbing, electrical, drywall Finish interior and exterior Landscaping Landscaping The estimated construction period stated above is based upon actual experience with a similar project on Long Island. Once constructed, maintenance, of grounds and buildings will be performed by private contractors, hired by the property owners management, and paid for out of monies received from common charges levied on owners of all units. 2-11 -_ -- FIGURE 3 co 0 y - I I 1 I I I F I i Y� I I I I' I oa I I I 1 O I I I STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION 1 ° I I I HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE 1°=250' --I -j"v�3S(*0'4 ___ APPROVALS In addition to approval of the site plan by the Town Plan- ning Board subsequent issuance of a Building Permit, the fol- lowing approvals are also necessary: A) Suffolk County Health Department 1) Water supply system. 2) Sanitary system. B) New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 1) DEC well permit. 2-13 SECTION III INVENTORY OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS NATURAL RESOURCES SUBSURFACE GEOLOGY The glacial outwash sands which make up the surface topo- graphy at the project site are one of several layers, or geo- logic strata, underlying the area. Beginning at the lowest strata, the bedrock is located in excess of 500 feet below the surface. This is an extremely old formation, dating to the Precambrian era of five hundred million years ago. All sedi- ments deposited on this bedrock formation were eroded until the sand and gravel accumulations known as the Lloyd sands were depo- sited during the late Cretaceous, about 60 million years ago. In the western part of Suffolk County, this strata contains potable water. However, in the project area, the formation is saline in nature. Above the Lloyd sand is the Raritan clay, also of late Cretaceous age, which although lying hundreds of feet below present sea level, contains floral fossils indicative of a dry land deposit. The surface of the Raritan formation underwent a period of erosion, after which the thick Magothy formation was laid down as a series of clay lenses, silts and sands. This layer, also Cretaceous in age, serves as the pri- mary source of.. potable water for most of Suffolk County, but as with the Lloyd sands, bears only saline water in the project region. The surface of the Magothy also underwent a period of erosion, and no additional sediment was laid down for many millions of years until the glaciers brought us the Pleistocene till and outwash deposits. This upper glacial formation consti- tutes the sole source of water supply for the area, as will be discussed in detail in other sections. 3-1 SOILS The site contains five predominant soil formations, Haven loam 0-2 percent slopes, Haven loam 2-6 percent slopes, Plymouth loamy sand 3-8 percent slopes, Plymouth loamy sand 8-15 percent slopes and Riverhead sandy loam 3-8 percent slopes (see Soils Map, Figure 4) . The characteristics of the soil types found on the site can be summarized in the following forms from the Soil Survey of Suf- folk County proposed by the Soil Conservation Service of the United States Department of Agriculture. Haven loam, 0-2 percent slopes (HaA) The Haven series consists of deep, well drained, medium tex- tured soils. These soils have high to moderate available mois- ture capacity with low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good with moderate permeability in the surface layer and subsoil and very rapid permeability in the substratum. The hazard of erosion is slight with slopes ranging from 0-2 percent. The formation comprises approximately 62% of the area of the site. Haven loam, 2-6 percent slope (HaB) . Characteristics of this formation are similar to HaA above with the exception of erosion hazard which is slight to moder- ate. Haven loam covers approximately 10% of the site. Plymouth loamy sand, 3-8 percent slope (P1B) A very small portion of the subject parcel, about 1%, con- tains Plymouth loamy sand. The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained coarse textured soils. These soils 3-2 have low to very low available moisture capacity and low natural fertility. Internal drainage is good and permeability is rapid except in the substratum where it is moderate. Hazard of ero- sion is slight within this formation. Plymouth loamy sand, 8-15 percent slopes (Pic) This formation is similar to P1B above with the following two exceptions. It tends to be more gravelly, particularly along the crests of low ridges, and the hazard of erosion tends to be moderate to severe because of the slope and the sandy tex- ture of this soil. The formation accounts for approximately 8% of the area of the site. Riverhead sandy loam 3-8 percent slopes (RdB) The Riverhead series consists of deep, well drained, moder- ately coarse textured soils over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. They have moderate to high available moisture capacity and internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil and very rapid in the substra- tum. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight within this formation which makes up approximately 19% of the area of the subject parcel. Engineering Properties As viewed on the soils map (Figure 4) , nearly 75% of the site is covered by the Haven Series of soils, HaA or HaB. These soils, as stated in the US Department of Agriculture Soil Survey of Suffolk County, present only slight limitations to their use as homesites, streets, parking lots, sewage disposal fields and 3-3 1 lawns. A "slight limitation" according to the survey means that "the soil has few or no limitations" and that "any limitations that are present can be overcome at little cost" . In short, these areas represent good locations, from a soils standpoint, for homesites and related appurtenances. The only exceptions to this generalization are areas within formation HaB containing slopes approaching six percent, where additional care must be taken both during and after construction to prevent erosion. However, this soil group represents only about 10 percent of the total site and the actual portion of this group having slopes near 6% is even less. Nearly 70% of the remaining site area, all but 9% of the total site, is comprised of soils in the Riverhead sandy loam, 3-8% slope formation. This group, as with the Haven soils mentioned previously, poses few limitations to its use as a homesite or sewage disposal field. Again, the only exceptions are areas where the slopes approach 6% or greater. Proper siting of buildings and slope stabilization will overcome any difficulties caused by these steeper slopes. The remainder of the site contains Plymouth loamy sand. This formation, which lies predominantly in the area of the proposed pond, contains deep excessively drained soils with rapid permeability and good internal drainage, providing an excellent location for this structure. 3-4 FIGURE 4 om RdB ti ilow 1 PIB I 1 1 HaA I . i RdB 1 i 1 I HaB PIC GOMM Soo SOILS MAP HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE 1"=250' 3-5 TOPOGRAPHY Unlike the northern portion of the Town of Southold which has elevations of 160 feet and steep slopes exceeding 50 percent in some areas, the topography of the subject property is some- what flatter with lower elevations. One can generally characterize its topography as rolling, with slopes ranging from approximately 0. 5 to 13 percent. The site contains two knolls with elevation above 38 and 36 respec- tively. These lie west of the centerline of the parcel, the first being at the southerly end, and the second 1, 000+ feet to the north (see Figure 5) . A low point of elevation 20+ is found near the easterly property line, equidistant from the two knolls. The;runoff from the southerly two thirds of the parcel would be expected to flow toward this low point while the northerly portion drains to the north and east. 3-6 y ; ,' �� FIGURE 5 GOP loll \\ N\I II i �(� � \� '� T OPOGRAPHY MAP HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE ti 1"=250' 36—� 3-7 GROUNDWATER In contrast to the situation in the more western reaches of the County, where the Magothy and Lloyd aquifers contain vast quantities of fresh drinkable groundwater, these water bearing formations contain only salt water under the Town of Southold. For this reason, the Upper Glacial aquifer provides the sole source of drinkable water for the area of the proposed project. The "shape" of the groundwater surface follows that of the land surface, but at a somewhat reduced scale. As a result, the gla- cial aquifer can be thought of as topographically controlled, and consists of several mounds of water located under the higher areas of the town. The North Fork Water Supply Plan (ERM - Northeast/Camp Dresser and McKee, 1983) recognized this charac- teristic and established five water supply zones for groundwater management purposes. Zone 3 covers the area from Mattituck Inlet to Arshamamoque Pond, including the project site. The Water Supply Plan also identified Water Budget Areas, which are those areas where there is sufficient depth, or thick- ness, of fresh groundwater to permit development of public water supply wells. The thickness of the groundwater aquifer is a function of the elevation of the water table above sea level, as described by a formula known as the Ghyben-Herzberg relation- ship, which accounts for the density difference between fresh and salt water. Simplified, the formula predicts a depth of fresh groundwater below sea level equal to 40 times the water 3-8 table elevation above sea level. Although this idealized pic- ture can be modified by local geological conditions, the rela- tionship provides a useful water supply planning tool. The Water Budget Area for the project region has been mapped by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and includes most of the inland portion of Zone 3, including the entire project site. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has also identified and mapped eight groundwater management zones in the , County, based on hydrological characteristics and importance in protecting water supplies. The proposed project is in Zone IV, which covers the North Fork and portions of the South Fork. The hydrological characteristics and management implications of the various zones are discussed in some detail in the Nassau-Suffolk Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, known as the 208 Study (Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, May 1988) . According to the 208 Study, this zone has unique conditions and requires careful management. Agricultural land use has impacted water quality, as will be discussed below, and saltwater intrusion is a problem near the shore. The plan also indicates ample water supply to sustain projected development, and calls for proper development and management of supply wells and disposal systems. The Water Resources Division of the Suffolk County Depart- ment of Health Services has installed and periodically monitored a groundwater well several hundred feet west of the subject pro- perty, on Alvah' s Lane (Well #53327) . This well provides ground- water data from 1975 to the present which is useful in describ- 3-9 ing conditions in the project vicinity. This well is located at a ground surface elevation of about 25 feet above sea level, which is somewhat lower than the subject property. The ground- water elevation at this well shows a long term average (1975- 1988) of 4. 08 feet above sea level. Seasonal fluctuations of the water table at this location generally range from a low of 3 .5 during the fall to a high of 5.5 during the spring. The maximum recorded groundwater elevation at the well was 6.78 in March, 1979, and the minimum was 2 .20 in September, 1981. Additional water supply investigations have also been con- ducted as part of the preliminary engineering for the subject property. A complete report on this investigation is presented in the Appendix. An exploratory well was installed on the, pro- perty and appropriate data was collected in March, 1984. The groundwater elevation of the property was determined to be approximately 7. 0 feet above sea level. The higher groundwater elevation at the subject property, as compared to the Alvah' s Lane well (which registered 6.2 the same month) is due to the higher ground elevations found on the project site. As indicated in the 208 study, groundwater on the North Fork has been impacted by agricultural practices, particularly the use of fertilizers and pesticides. In this regard, pesticides probably have the greatest potential water supply impact, and one in particular, aldicarb, has generated the most concern. Aldicarb is the generic name for Union Carbide ' s product, Temik, which is used as a killer of leaf eating insects and, on Long 3-10 1 Island potato farms, nematodes, which injest roots and cause severe crop damage. Aldicarb is from the carbamate family of pesticides and a potent nerve poison. Its effectiveness is due to its water based mobility and ability to be absorbed into plant tissues, forming a systemic (thus "temik") protective M barrier. In 1977, the USEPA issued permission for exceptionally heavy applications of aldicarb on Long Island, and further raised the limit in 1979 . In 1978, the pesticide began showing up in well water. By 1985, over 2, 000 Long Island wells had been found to exceed the EPA aldicarb drinking water guideline of 10 parts per billion (Health Department standard is 7 ppb) . Aldicarb is no longer approved for use on Long Island, and groundwater levels of the chemical have shown signs of drop- ping. It is not known how long complete breakdown and ultimate. disappearance will take. Fortunately, aldicarb can be removed from well water by installation of a carbon filter. On the subject property, tests conducted on samples from the ground water exploration well did not reveal contamination by any organic chemicals. In addition, the groundwater monitoring well on Alvah' s Lane has also been tested periodically. In 1982 , a temik breakdown product, aldicarb sulfoxide was detected at a level of one part per billion and, in 1983 , this and another byproduct, aldicarb sulfone, were detected at 5 and 4 ppb, respectively. At this time also, two other pesticides, carbofuran (1 ppb) and oxamyl (5 ppb) , both, incidently, also now banned on Long Island, were also detected. However, earlier in 1983 , all pesticides were below detectable limits. 3-11 From this data and discussion, it is apparent that the pos- sibility of periodic slugs of low level pesticide contaminated -- groundwater passing under the property must be considered. Fortunately, careful well management and treatment practices can alleviate any such problems, and no limitation on development results from this condition. Although pesticide contamination is a bigger headline grab- ber, fertilizer associated nitrogen loading should not be over- looked as a groundwater problem. Due to the predominant agri- cultural land use on the North Fork, this is a significant pro- blem. The Alvah's Lane monitoring well has consistently hovered around the 10 milligrams per litre drinking water standard. Somewhat lower levels were found at the subject property, al- though provisions for treatment are being included in the water supply plan for the project. There is, at the present time, no public water supply avail- able in the community. Therefore all development adjacent to and surrounding the project site is served by individual well systems. The North Fork Water Supply Plan, referenced above, estimated the ability of the available groundwater, within the various water supply zones, to sustain existing and future development. Of the zones within Southold town, zone 3 , which includes the project site, is in the best position to sustain additional development. It is estimated that in excess of 14, 000 additional households can be sustained, a figure which will increase slowly over the next several decades, as agricul- 3-12 tural pumpage decreases. Obviously, for this or even a lower level of development, extreme care will have to be exercised to maintain an acceptable level of water quality. 3-13 AGRICULTURE The subject property, prior to its purchase by Seacroft, Ltd. , was used for agricultural purposes. The parcel has been zoned M Light Multiple-Residence for approximately 5 years since the change of zone was granted . In November 1960, the Suffolk County Planning Commission, in its report, People and Parks, recommended the preservation of over 30, 000 acres of farmland. In 1972 the Suffolk County Legislature authorized the estab- lishment of a farmlands acquisition program. This program was created for the purpose of acquiring development rights to ap- proximately 15, 000 acres of farmland. As of 1984, the develop- ment rights to , over 540 acre$ of farmland in the Town of Southold have been purchased. ' Suffolk County would compensate the farmers to limit their land to farming uses exclusively. The County, therefore, was able to assure the preservation of land they felt had the greatest potential for agriculture in the future. The subject parcel was not included in the County' s Master Plan for farmland preservation. 3-14 , VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Vegetation and wildlife on the project site were surveyed in June of 1988, when most of the vegetation would be in evidence and when most of the sites wildlife would be in a breeding, non-migratory phase. Vegetation on the site consists of typical old field fringed by second growth woods. A complete listing and report on the site' s vegetation is presented in the technical background appendix. None of the plants identified on the site are listed as endangered or threatened, nor are any contained on the New York Heritage list. The site is used by a variety of mammals, including gray squirrel, eastern cottontail, opossum, raccoon, chipmunk, meadow mouse, eastern mole, white fouled mouse, house mouse, and pos- sibly red fox. An eastern box turtle was also observed on the 10. site. Various birds were observed on the property, many of which could be expected to be nesting on the site. Below is a table of the common names of the species found on the site. BREEDING SEASON BIRDS FOUND ON PROPERTY Red-Winged Blackbird Scarlet Tanager Common Yellowthroat Common Flicker Song Sparrow European Starling Yellow Warbler Wood Thrush Common Crackle Rufous-sided Towhee House Finch Chimney Swift Mourning Dove Barn Swallow Gray Catbird Herring Gull (flyover) American Robin Black-Backed Gull (flyover) White-eyed Vireo Ring-necked Pheasant Northern Cardinal Blue Jay Common Bobwhite American Crow Northern Mockingbird 3-15 None of the inventoried species are on any listing of endangered, threatened, or special concern species for New York State. The woodlands bordering the project site, to the north, provide better quality woodland habitat, which are probably used by other species including various woodpeckers, thrushes, wrens, finches, titmice and nuthatches. Owls may also use these woods, although the north fork is historically raptor poor, except for Orient, where Great Horned Owls are quite numerous. During spring and fall migration periods, additional species may use the old fields as stopover sites. At this time, additional flycatcher, warbler, finch and bleckbird species would be expected. 3-16 LAND USE AND ZONING Land Use. Existing land use of the subject property is "vacant" . As stated in a previous section of this report, a large portion, perhaps 95% of the parcel, had been cleared for agricultural use prior to its most recent purchase. As with neighboring parcels, it was used for agriculture purposes at one time. Land use in the surrounding area varies widely. To the south are a school and commercial properties fronting on Main Road. Along its westerly boundary, the subject parcel is bordered by a residential area of single family homes. To the north are properties whose use is agricultural, while to the east lies another vacant parcel. Along Schoolhouse Lane, also to the east, is a residential area containing single family homes and a trailer park. There is also a machine shop opera- ting in this area. Zoning. The subject property is currently zoned M Light Multiple-Residence and has been such since it was rezoned from "A" Residential-Agricultural in July of 1983 . Surrounding properties to the east, west and north are zoned "A" Residen- tial-Agricultural while those to the south are a mix of "B" Light and "B-1" General Business. 3-17 LAND USE PLANS The Town of Southold recently commissioned the Planning Consultant firm of Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. to assist them in updating the Town's Comprehensive Development Plan. The updating involves three phases. The first deals pri- marily with the assimilation of information and data and the identification of goals and issues to be considered in the development of the Plan. The second phase is the development of the Comprehensive Development Plan. This was created through the coordinated work of the Consultants, the Planning Board, and the Master Plan Workshop Committee. The third phase includes the preparation of the essential instruments to ,implemgnt the Plan. This stage includes the revi.ew and revision of the Town' s land development regulations and also includes revising the zoning ordinance together with the existing zoning map. The background studies for the Master Plan Update indicate that the largest proportion of Town land is in agricultural use or vacant. Approximately 40% of the Town' s land is used for agricultural purposes. A fraction of the Town' s land is used for the development of residential, commercial and industrial facilities. Residential uses (approximately 15% of the land area) are clustered around creeks and inlets. Most of the existing residential development averages approximately 2-4 dwelling units per acre. The largest commercial areas (excluding Greenport) are lo- cated in the hamlets of Mattituck and Southold. Smaller, local 3-18 shopping areas are located in Peconic, East Marion, Orient and Cutchogue. Uses such as churches, schools, cemeteries, post offices and government facilities are generally located in the hamlet areas. Recreational areas, such as State, County and Town parks, golf courses, nature preserves and camps, range in size from neighborhood parks to the 350 acre Orient State Park. In March, 1988, a Draft Generic Environmental Impact State- ment was accepted by the Town Board on the Proposed Local Law of 1987 Amending the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance. The pro- posed ordinance originated a number of new districts designed to implement specific policies included in the Master Plan. The Zoning Ordinance describes the formation of a Hamlet Density (HD) , District Which allows 4 dwelling units per acre. The subject parcel has been deemed to be included within the Hamlet Density District. The proposed project has a planned density of less than 3.5 units per acre although current zoning for the site allows for a greater density. As one can see, pro- ject density not only meets current, but also proposed, require- ments. 3-19 COMMUNITY SERVICES Existing police protection for the area is provided by the Town of Southold Police Department with a force of over 40. Fire protection is provided by the Cutchogue Fire Depart- ment. This is a voluntary force with personnel of over 100. There is no Town sanitation service in the subject area, therefore, the proposed residential community must hire a pri- vate refuse collector. The subject property is located within School District #9 - Mattituck/Cutchogue school district. There are no public water or sewer services present in this area. A well and storage tank will be constructed on site to provide water•. Each building quad will be connected to a deni- trification system in order to properly dispose of sanitary wastes. 3-20 DEMOGRAPHICS Several studies have been performed on the pattern and types of development within the County of Suffolk and the Town of Southold. These reports include the "Analysis of Population and Housing" for the Background Studies, Town of Southold Master Plan Update; "Focus on the East End" , written by the Suffolk County Inter-Agency Coordinating Council; "Demographic Information" , prepared by the Suffolk County Office for the Aging. As this proposed development will serve the residents of Suffolk County primarily, a brief synopsis of the demographic information within this region will be given. The Nassau- Suffolk -region grew rapidly .• during the• 1950 ' s and 19601,s. As Nassau County became saturated, Suffolk County saw a great increase in development, both of population and jobs. Suffolk County' s population has been steadily increasing; this consis- tent growth has been creating development pressures in eastern Suffolk County, including the Town of Southold. From 1970 to 1980, the number of persons age sixty and older increased from 121,759 to 162 ,864 . During that time span, the percentage of seniors in the population increased from 11% to 13%. By the year 2010, the population of seniors will have grown to 277, 296 or 17% of the County's total population. ) Recently, a great influx of retirees have settled in Suffolk County, particularly in the eastern end. This not only adds significantly to the year-round population but also shifts the age structure of the region. Refer to table in Appendix. 1 Demographic Information (see Appendix) 3-21 The Town of Southold mirrors the effect of this recent trend. In 1980 37. 3% (more than 1 of every 3 residents) was 55 years or older. In the Nassau- Suffolk region, the percentage of residents 55 years or greater is 20. 6% (1 in every 5 residents) . The changing demographics of Southold have increased the average age of the Town from 36. 6 in 1960 to 40. 1 years in 1970 and to over 43 years in 1980. 3-22 CULTURAL RESOURCES Visual Resources - The proposed development is located with- in ±1, 500 ' of the downtown business district of the Hamlet of Cutchogue, on the north fork of Long Island. The Hamlet is typical strip commercial development along Route 25 but contains some historic structures and newly renovated/constructed build- ings that give it a district rural town character. There will be no impact on this visual resource from the proposed project. The surrounding area is mostly rural with many existing farms, vineyards, horse ranches, nurseries and other various open space uses. The above uses are visually appealing and they have evolved as a visual resource for the area. To the west of the- project. is an existing° single family development that borders the' western property line. These are all fairly new two-story family large dwellings with immature landscaping. The north end of the property is bordered by a mature wooded lot, of indigenous oaks, maples and beech. The project site is gently rolling farmed land that has laid fallow a number of years. Second growth reforestation has evolved in the southeast corner of the site with emergence of weedy trees, i.e. mostly locust and poplars and other weedy plant material such as briars, blackberries, etc. Grasses and weeds cover most of the remaining site. 3-23 SECTION IV SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS GEOLOGY Impacts to the topography and subsurface geology of the subject parcel will be minor. The site plan has been developed to conform as closely as possibly with the existing terrain. Any regrading which may be required to facilitate the construc- tion of roads and/or buildings will be minimal. Existing steep slope areas will be regraded as necessary to produce flatter slopes. These areas will be covered with topsoil and replanted with a ground cover to minimize erosion. Because of the nature of the soils on site (medium to coarse textured free draining) , it is expected that material excavated for the construction of basements will be suitable for use as a road subbase. Construction of roads, driveways,•• buildings and pond will necessitate the removal of topsoil from these areas of the site. All topsoil which is stripped to facilitate construction will be stockpiled on site to be reused for the development of landscaped areas and to stabilize those slopes which have been disturbed. 4-1 GROUNDWATER Development of the project site will have two, largely distinct, areas of impact; the first from water supply well pumpage and the second from disposal of sanitary waste and site drainage. These two impact areas will be discussed in that order. Preliminary engineering for water supply for the site was conducted during the planning for a previously submitted development scheme. This report is applicable, also, to the present proposal, and is presented in the appendix. The pro- posed water supply system calls for two wells, with a capacity of 50 gallons per minute (gpm) each. Also included is a 100, 000 gallon storage capacity to meet peak hour demands, projected at 225 gpm. The water supply facility will include a protection zone with a .200 foot radius to protect against contami4ation. Testing of the exploratory well demonstrated that lowering of the water table at the wells will be minimal, and the resulting cone of influence, or depression, from the well pumping will be entirely contained within the zone of protection. Under these circumstances, there will be no upconing or intrusion of saline water, and the well will not influence adjacent wells or be ef- fected by adjacent wastewater disposal systems, farm chemicals, or highway deicing salts. The water quality impact of sanitary waste disposal and surface runoff is of concern and must be evaluated. The major concern regarding wastewater disposal is nitrogen loading of the 4-2 groundwater. Nitrate contamination is a serious problem in the Town of Southold, as indicated earlier, due to the extensive agricultural use of fertilizer. With this in mind, a wastewater disposal system has been designed for the project, incorporating provisions for denitrification. The details of this system are presented in a separate report which is contained in the append- ix. This report included a "ballpark" estimation of water bud- get and nitrate loading, and projected a resulting increase of 2 mg/l in groundwater nitrate levels. Due to the importance of precisely determining the nitrogen impacts of the project, a more extensive analysis, based on a higher level of precision, was undertaken for this DEIS. This nitrogen budget analysis is based on the Cornell University Water and Land -Resource Analysis System (WALRAS) , which provides a methodology for predicting im- pacts of land use on nitrate and other runoff/recharge factors. The inputs to the model are based on data presented in vari- ous sources, and the derivation of various inputs are described in detail in the paragraphs below. The complete computer output from the model is included in the appendix. Nitrogen is an important factor, due to health impacts at high concentrations in drinking water, and due to the potential for cultural eutrophication of surface water. It may not be a I coincidence that the "brown tide" has been most severe in east end waters, where agricultural fertilizers are most used. The health consideration has resulted in the establishment of a 10 mg/l nitrate standard for groundwater suitable as a source of 4-3 potable water supply. The nitrate concentration in recharge water is a function of various inputs, including sewage, pet wastes, and fertilizer, both for agricultural and residential lawns, all of which is diluted by the water budget consisting of precipitation, domestic water use, and lawn irrigation. The techniques developed for WALRAS have been used to forecast groundwater impacts of development of Long Island Pine Barrens areas. This use is particularly applicable to the project be- cause it focuses on the Carver and Plymouth Sands soil associa- tion, which has similar hydrological characteristics to the Haven soils found on the site. It should be noted that several of the model assumptions will result in conservative (i.e. overestimates) prediQtions of groundwater - nitrate concentra- tions. For the purpose of this analysis, nitrate is assumed to be extremely conservative, that is, its concentration does not diminish once it passes below the root zone. The individual input parameters used in this analysis are presented in the following paragraphs: Precipitation. The rainfall input to groundwater is a func- tion of total precipitation minus evaporative losses. The mean annual temperature and mean annual precipitation for the area are 51°F (10°C) and 45 .97 inches (116.76 cm) , respectively. Total evapotranspiration, or evaporative loss of water from soil, plant, and other surfaces, and plant tissues, can be estimated in the following manner: 4-4 Bio-temperature = sum of mean monthly temperatures which are greater than 0°C divided by 12 . The bio-temperature on Long Island is about 10°C. Evapotranspiration (mm) = bio-temperature (CO ) x 58 . 93 . This means that 589. 3 mm, or 23 .2 inches of our annual pre- cipitation, is unavailable for recharge to surface or ground- waters in this area. This analysis applies only to precipi- tation which falls on permeable surfaces. For impervious surfaces, including roof and pavement, it has been determined that 90% of total precipitation is recharged to groundwater (WALRAS) . Domestic Water Use. Water use in the United States varies dramatically, with an established range of .•from 40° ta. 500 gallons per person per day. For this analysis, a use rate of 150 gallons per dwelling unit per day was used, which is the design sewage flow rate for a planned retirement community as published by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Irrigation. Total annual irrigation of 5. 5 inches per year contributed to groundwater from landscaped and turfed areas was taken directly from WALRAS. Fertilizer. For fertilizer applied to turfed areas, the total groundwater contribution of 64 pounds per acre annually was also taken from WALRAS. For this analysis, the 34 acres of landscape and lawns was used with the assumption that 12 of these areas will be landscape beds. It is also assumed that vegetation native to the area, tolerant of arid conditions and 4-5 acidic soils, including red cedars, rhododendrons, and azelias, which do not need or receive annual fertilizer, will be used. This leaves 22 acres of turf which will contribute fertilizer nitrate. Animals and Pets. The average of 6.5 pounds per acre annual- ly, also from WALRAS, is used here. It should be noted, how- ever, in accordance with the 208 plan, dog control, or pooper- scooper, ordinances are becoming more common. In a planned com- munity such as this, it is quite likely that the homeowners asso- ciation would impose such a requirement, and all but eliminate this nitrate source. Sewage. An annual contribution per capita of 10 pounds, of which 15% reaches groundwater after. atmospheric_ release and denitrification, was ' used for this analysis. -For comparative purposes, the model was run without the denitrification ele- ments, also. The nitrate levels were calculated for three development scenarios: 160, 156 and 152 units. The average density used was two persons per unit, which is appropriate for a planned retirement community. Conclusions. Using the above inputs and assumptions, the budget analysis results in the following estimates for nitrate concentrations in recharge groundwater from the project site. Nitrate (mg/1) Nitrate (mg/1) # Units With Denitrification Without Denitrification 160 5. 05 7 .84 156 5. 05 7. 78 152 5. 04 .7.71 4-6 It should be noted that even the minimal nitrogen reduction which would be achieved by density reduction is somewhat over- estimated by this analysis, because the reduction would open up a greater amount of turf and landscape area, allowing greater evapotranspiration and requiring additional lawn fertilizer. The model runs for this analysis were not refined this sensi- tively. However, it can be concluded that the nitrate levels in recharge water from the proposed project will be within the ac- ceptable limits of to mg/l, that density reduction does not significantly reduce nitrate levels, and that the denitrifica- tion system is effective in achieving significant reductions. The drainage facilities proposed for this project provide for on site retention of all storm water, .inpluding parking lot and roof surface drainage. The proposed system will allow for the recharge of virtually all of the precipitation falling on the project site to the underlying aquifer system. In this sense, the natural drainage pattern of precipitation and on site recharge with little or no runoff, will be maintained, although reduced evapotranspiration will allow greater quantities of recharge. The primary area of concern, with respect to groundwater quality, is the possibility of degradation caused by substances carried into the ground with the recharge water. Storm water runoff from pavement surfaces has been found to be contaminated with coliform and other bacteria, nutrients, heavy metals, hydro- carbons and pesticides. In fact, stormwater runoff is the major 4-7 source of bacterial loading to surface waters in Suffolk and Nassau counties. This tenet was recently reconfirmed by the research performed in conjunction with the Long Island segment of the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) , which explored alternatives for the disposal of stormwater from urbanized surfaces. It has been further demonstrated, however, that because streets and highways serve as collection systems for urban and suburban land runoff, the total loading of pollutants from a pavement surface often reflects the watershed area characteristics rather than the pavement surface. For example, nutrients and pesticides in runoff can be traced to nearby agricultural or landscaped areas where these chemicals are applied. The roof- and pavement surfaces on the project site, unlike highways, will not collect runoff from a wider area. This fact greatly reduces the potential stormwater contamination to minor loads of hydrocarbons and rubber products from vehicles, deicing salts and rarely, pet wastes. This relatively small pollutant loading will be carried into the leaching system, where reten- tion will allow partial chemical and biological treatment to occur, while remaining contaminants will leach into the soil. The NURP determined conclusively that the most appropriate storm- water runoff disposal alternative is discharge to a leaching recharge system. The project site contains 50 feet of sand filtering capacity for the recharge water, which will assure that the runoff is scrubbed to a drinkable quality prior to 4-8 entering the groundwater. As such, the project is fully con- sistent with the findings and recommendations of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. 4-9 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE Vegetation on the property will be altered by direct removal and replacement with a more ordered landscape. No endangered, threatened, or New York State Heritage list species will be impacted. The open space areas remaining after construction will be reseeded and replanted, but will be maintained in a shorter condition by mowing. As the landscaping matures and fills in, most of the species currently using the property will return and resume nesting on the site. Habitat value for ground- nesting species, such as Common Bobwhite and Ring-necked Pheas- ant will be reduced somewhat, but they will continue to be com- mon on the property, making optimal use of fringes and buffers. The introduction of residences . such as this are generally accompanied by individuals who maintain feeders throughout the winter months. Approximately one in five residents can be ex- pected to enjoy this pasttime. This change in food availability will increase the numbers and species diversity on the project site, resulting in large numbers of overwintering sparrows, blackbirds, titmice, nuthatches and others. The area many then become more attractive to the areas sharp-shinned hawks and kestrels. 4-10 LAND USE AND ZONING As stated in a previous section, the subject parcel is currently vacant land as is some of the land in the immediate area. An impact of construction of the proposed multiple residence project will be a loss of open space. This will be addressed in the section on mitigation. The zoning of the subject parcel is M Light-Multiple Resi- dence and is not included in any town master plan as a proposed open space district. Project design is in compliance with current and proposed future zoning regulations and will feature a traditional archi- tectural style which will not only be in harmony with existing structures within the region, but also serve as a- precedent for future projects of this type. 4-11 COMMUNITY SERVICES Police Protection - The Town of Southold police department's staff of 43 consists of 36 officers and 7 civilians. This force is augmented by an additional bay constable and four or five part time officers during the tourist season. The station, built in 1971, is centrally located in Peconic and contains offices, two detention cells and houses the communi- cations system. Equipment includes 17 vehicles and several boats for bay constable use. The US Coast Guard also provides assistance to boaters in life threatening situations. NY State Department of Commerce estimates place the project- ed town population at 23 , 000 year round residents by the ,year 1990. From Municipal Police Administration data for cities having population in the 10, 000-25, 000 range, an average of 1. 68 persons (including uniformed and civilian support staff) are needed per 1, 000 population. Using this criterion, a population of 231000 would require a police force of approximately 39 per- sons. The current staff of 43 appears to be more than adequate to handle the towns current need for police protection and will not be adversely affected by the addition of 280 new persons to the towns population (160 units of housing x 1. 75 persons/ unit) . While not overtaking the current year round police pro- tection needs, the increased tax revenue derived from develop- ment of the subject property will help to defray the cost of hiring the additional seasonal staff needed during the summer 4-12 C months when the towns population grows to over 36, 000 persons. If at some point in the future, population increases do require the hiring of additional year round police personnel, the cur- rent facilities are sufficient to accommodate some expansion. ' Additionally, the applicant is proposing to retain the services of a security firm to protect the tenants of this development 24 hours a day. Fire Protection - For the purposes of fire protection the Town of Southold is divided into seven fire districts. The Cutchogue fire district has one station, centrally located within the hamlet. Built in the 19201s, renovated and enlarged several times, it houses a 24 hour dispatcher. The district owns` 9 vehicles and relies on pumper/tankers, ,pump trucks and portable pumps for water supply. As in other areas of the town, water supply is a major problem2 due to the fact that many areas do not have public water, and in those areas that do, mains are often old and pressure is inadequate. A substation, east of the current firehouse, is being con- sidered to better serve the Nassau Point area. The volunteer force of 100 persons appears to be adequate when one considers that a city of similar size would only require a full time force of only 30. This figure is derived from Municipal Fire Administration data which shows that 1, 211 cities throughout the county had a median number of 1. 29 full time fire department personnel per 1, 000 population. 1 An4lvysis of, Community Services, Raymond, Parish, Pine and 2 WelnBr Planning Consultants Analysis of Community Service RPPW 4-13 As stated previously, the fire station is centrally located, near to the proposed Hamlet at Cutchogue Project, and has been expanded and renovated several times to house new equipment. The only potential impact of concern that may be caused by construction of the proposed project is an increase demand for water for fire fighting purposes. This will be addressed in the section on mitigating measures. Health Care - In terms of analyzing the impacts upon exist- ing health care facilities in the area, one can use as a general rule of thumb that one hospital bed is needed for every 200 per- son increase in population. Given the size of the proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue" project, 160 units, this will result in a • year - round population• increase of approximately, 280 person's. Such an increase will result in a need for 2. additional hospital beds at most. The eastern Suffolk area is currently served by three hospi- tals including Central Suffolk, a 157 bed facility in Riverhead, Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport which has 66 beds and the 194 bed Southampton Hospital on the south fork in Southamp- ton Township. Each of the three facilities has 24 hour emer- gency service, an intensive care unit, cardiac care unit, psychi- atric unit and radiology. Outpatient facilities are also found at Eastern Long Island Hospital. While the occupancy rate at Central Suffolk Hospital is high, approximately 94%, the rates of occupancy at Eastern Long Island and Southampton Hospitals 4-14 are 66% and 77% respectively, among the lowest for the 37 larg- est hospitals on Long Island. 3 In addition to these facilities, San Simeon-by-the-Sound, a 150 bed, not for profit corporation on North Road in the unin- corporated portion of Greenport, provides skilled nursing care and other health related facilities. In the Town of Riverhead, the Riverhead Nursing Home as 121 skilled nursing beds and 60 health related facility beds. Addi- tionally, Central Suffolk Hospital has received permission to add 60 skilled nursing beds and Southampton Hospital plans to acquire a 62 bed nursing home. Regionally, St. Charles Hospital in Port Jefferson has sub- mitted a proposal to ' add a 200 bed- geriatric facility and the . Suffolk County Infirmary in Yaphank has 215 skilled nursing beds and is available to all County residents. In the light of the number of existing and proposed facili- ties in the area and their levels of use, a population increase of 280 senior citizens should not adversely impact the health care system. 3 1987 Long Island Almanac 4-15 CULTURAL RESOURCES Reduced visual quality will primarily be for the group of viewers from the existing subdivision to the west of the pro- posed project site and from the passing motorists that utilize Depot Road that runs north/south to the east of the proposed project. There will be insignificant visual impact upon the viewer from Cutchogue Hamlet, especially when the proposed landscaping is accomplished. 1 4-16 SECTION V MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY As mentioned previously, impacts to the topography and sub- surface geology of the site will be minor. Proposed grading will follow existing terrain as closely as possible. Shortly after construction is completed on each phase, areas will be replanted with grass or other suitable ground cover to prevent erosion. Steep slope areas, where disturbed, will be regraded at a flatter slope and stabilized with vegetation. It is anticipated from the soil types found on site, most of which are granular and free draining, that materials excavated for the construction of footings and foundations can be used as subbase and fill for roads and parking areas. Topsoil, which must_ be, removed ,prior to •constructing' roads., walks- and building foundations, . will be stockpiled onsite. _It will then be placed in areas where the existing topsoil cover is thin to establish lawns and gardens. 5-1 WATER RESOURCES As discussed previously, development of the project site will impact upon groundwater in two distinct ways; from water supply well pumpage and from disposal of sanitary waste and storm water runoff. In order to mitigate impacts caused by pumpage, the design includes a 100, 000 gallon storage tank. The purpose of this facility is to allow for the use of pumps having a low pumping rate (50 gpm) . This helps to reduce the drawdown and cone of influence of the well, which minimizes the possibility of salt water intrusion, degradation of water quality from sanitary systems and road deicing salts and impacts upon neighboring well$,_ The water , storage tank enables, the system to meet the r peak hour demands estimated at 225 gpm without having to actual- ly withdraw water from the aquifer at this rate. A second factor which helps to mitigate the impacts caused by pumpage is the limiting of occupancy to senior citizens, a group having a lower water usage than the general public. This decreases water demand, resulting in reduced pumpage and associ- ated impacts. In terms of mitigating impacts from disposal of sanitary and storm water runoff, the following measures have been taken. A 200 foot radius protection zone has been established to assure that effluent from sanitary systems and pollutant contami- nated stormwater runoff do not enter the proposed water supply system. 5-2 In addition, all runoff will be retained on site and re- charged to the ground by means of recharge basins. This will allow the water to pass through 50 ' or more of sand, assuring its quality before reaching the aquifer. As stated earlier, recharge will actually be greater following construction of the proposed project due to the net reduction of vegetated areas and subsequent reduction in evapotranspiration. A final mitigating measure will be the continuous disinfec- tion of the water supply by chloration. 5-3 LAND USE AND ZONING As mentioned in the section regarding impacts to land use and zoning, an impact upon land use as a result of construction of the proposed project will be loss of open space. Several measures have been taken to mitigate this impact. One such measure has been to cluster dwellings together in groups, leaving large open areas between structures. This type of development gives more of a sense of openness than would be experienced if the units were spread out over the entire site, each on its own lot. Another mitigation measure which has been incorporated into the site plan is the inclusion of a landscaped buffer around the property. Using spocies which are ma.tive to the area will fos- ter a natural, undisturbed appearance on site while requiring a minimum of • fertilization and water use. This landscaped buffer will also shield the project from neighboring residences, there- by creating for each project an atmosphere of privacy. 5-4 COMMUNITY SERVICES An impact to community services is found in the area of fire protection or more specifically, water supply for fire fighting purposes. Water mains are absent throughout many parts of the Town of Southold. Many of the mains that are present are old and the water pressure in them is inadequate for fire fighting. The construction of a 100, 000 gallon water storage tank for the proposed project, in addition to mitigating other impacts addressed earlier, will provide a reliable source of water for fire protection. Because of the location of the proposed pro- ject, near the center of the hamlet, this source of water may not only prove valuable for fire fighting within the proposed complex, but also for fighting fires. in the neighboring. residefl­ tial areas "to the west and east and commercial area to the south. The centralized location of the project is, in itself, a mitigating measure. It allows easy access to shopping, and public transportation reducing the need for reliance upon private transportation. A final mitigating measure to impacts on community services is the inclusion of a recreation center containing a swimming pool, tennis courts and club house. While this complex is not expected, or intended, to meet all of the recreational needs of the residents of the project, it will help to lessen the impact upon existing town facilities. 5-5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 1. Visual Resources a. The architectural theme for the project will be designed to reflect the historic architecture of the surrounding communities as well as maintaining a variety among the units themselves. b. All graphics and lighting will be low keyed residential type with low impact design. Mounting heights of lights to be limited to 181 , downlights and glare restricted with the use of high pressure sodium fixtures. c. Visual impacts as identified above for the neighbors to the west will be significantly reduced by a landscaped buffer approximately 25 ' deep around the .entire pro- perty. These will be primarily evergreen trees of species • indigenous to Long Island and the east end, i.e. Spruce, White Pine, Holly, Hemlocks, etc. For screening of objectionable views, i.e. around dumpsters and other mechanical equipment, fast growing evergreen plant material will be proposed, i.e. Japanese pine, spruce, fir and hemlocks. 5-6 SECTION VI UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS The subject parcel has few critical impact areas. No rare, threatened or endangered floral or faunal species have been observed, and none are anticipated because of the previous agricultural use of the property. Existing vegetation consists mostly of grasses and there are no surface bodies of water on or near the site. No unsuitable organic soils were found, nothing of historical interest is present, and no noise or air quality problems exist. The terrain can generally be described as rol- ling with few steep slope areas. Water supply will be provided for through the use of an on site well field and 100, 000 gallon storage tank which mitigates the impact of pumpage from the aquifer. . Sanitary waste will be disposed of using a denitrifi- cation system as explained in the appendix.. As with any type of development, there will necessarily be a loss of open space. Land use plans have been developed for the Town of Southold and the County of Suffolk and both have estab- lished tracts of land within their jurisdiction to be used as open space. The subject parcel is not included in any proposed open space areas and has, in fact, been zoned for residential use. The site plan for the proposed development arranges dwel- lings in clusters to preserve as much open space as possible and mitigate this impact. Another unavoidable adverse impact is the addition of nitro- gen to the groundwater. As detailed in a previous section on 6-1 groundwater impacts, the estimated nitrate concentration in re- charge groundwater for the proposed project is 5.05 mg/liter. This figure is substantially below the nitrogen loading one would expect if the site were used for agricultural purposed, 7. 30 mg/.-7.96 mg/1. These numbers are estimates based upon the growing of vegetables and potatoes respectively.4 If the site were to be used as a nursery, concentrations as high as 13 .20 mg/l could be expected. Therefore, while use of this site for residential purposes will impact nitrogen concentrations in the groundwater, this impact is in some cases significantly less than the impact to be expected if the site were used for agri- culture purposes. In addition, use of the site for agricultural purposes would also result in. a -heavier contribution of •pesti-• tides and herbicides to the groundwater than would be expected for a residential site. This project will also require both short-term and long-term expenditures of various kinds of energy. In the short-term, the energy consumption will be caused by the construction operations directly. This will involve electricity and various fuels for operating tools and machinery either directly or indirectly, i.e. , fuel consumption of trucks delivering building materials. Long-term energy consumption will involve primarily the electri- city and fuel used in the normal occupancy of a residential com- plex. 4 Land Use and Groundwater Quality in the Pine Barrens of Southampton, Water Resources Program Center for Environmental Research, Cornell University. 6-2 The design and construction of the buildings will take into consideration all of the latest advances in fuel efficient build- ing technology. Use of such things as superior insulation and double glazed windows will all be maximized to the fullest ex- tent to reduce the amount of energy consumed. 6-3 SECTION VII ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES Alternative Design and Technologies An alternative site layout might include one in which each 4 unit structure were placed on a separate 40, 000 square foot lot. This plan would best be accomplished by arranging the roads in a conventional grid pattern, while keeping the entrance to the complex in its current planned location. Such a layout would most likely result in increased side and rear yard set- backs, as all of the site area would be utilized with most buildings being equidistant from each other. This plan is not without drawbacks however. Among the disadvantages of such a layout are: further loss of open space, less compatibility with existing slope and drainage patterns, more pavement area and a less aesthetically pleasing community. In order to meet all setback requirements, those areas which are now open space will have to be utilized. While this would result in greater spacing between structures, the overall impres- sion would be one of less openness as large "common space" areas are eliminated and the result is a "Levittown" effect. The use of a grid system of roadways will also result in a less visually pleasing design due in part to increased pavement area. In addition, this type of layout is less adaptable to existing slopes and drainage patterns and requires greater amounts of regrading in order to arrive at a workable plan. The proposed plan is more adaptable to existing terrain due to the curvilinear nature of its roadways which allow avoidance of steeply sloped or otherwise unsuitable construction areas. 7-1 ALTERNATIVE SITES In assessing the possibility of use of an alternative site, the following factors regarding the proposed site must be kept in mind. The proposed site lies near the center of a water budget area, thereby allowing for construction of a water supply well which shall provide a suitable yield for a project of this size. This is an important concern since public water is not readily available in many areas of the Town. The proposed site is centrally located with respect to the Hamlet of Cutchogue. This allows for easier access to shopping areas. Additionally, this is in conformance with suggestions made by _the • Towns' planning consultant -to limit development- -to central areas thereby leaving open - space between hamlets and reinforcing a "sense of place" . Additionally, there is no other site in the Hamlet of Cutchogue which fulfills the objectives as delineated in past and present Master Plans of the Town. Lastly, the proposed site is currently zoned M Light- Multiple residence and requires no change of zoning. To be considered, any alternative site must, as a minimum requirement, meet the criteria listed above and in addition have other significant features which make it a more attractive site for development. Alternative Size Reducing the size of the proposed project will undoubtedly result in reduced impacts in certain areas, both natural and cultural. 7-2 Impacts upon existing community service, and the existing topography will be less. There most likely will be less impact upon groundwater use, although the decreased residential demand will at least be partly offset by additional demands for irriga- tion purposes. As detailed in previous sections, none of the above men- tioned impacts are considered significant. Existing community services are adequate to support a planned development of this size and while traffic volumes will be affected, this will not occur to a degree which will change the no-build level of ser- vices of nearby streets. (See Addendum 2 - Traffic Impact Study. ) As discussed earlier, the site plan was developed to conform as closely as possible to existing topography thereby minimizing potential .impacts. . Unavoidable adverse impacts to be expected as a result of the proposed project includes loss of open space and addition of nitrogen to the groundwater. The first of these, loss of space, could be mitigated some- what by decreasing the size of the project. A smaller number of units could be clustered in such a way that larger open areas will remain thereby retaining more of the rural character of the community. The second of these adverse impacts, addition of nitrogen to the groundwater, will not be mitigated by decreasing the size of the project. As detailed earlier, in the section addressing groundwater impacts, a reduction in the number of units would open up a greater amount of turf and landscape area, allowing 7-3 greater evapotranspiration and requiring additional lawn ferti- lizer. The reduction of project size while providing only minimal benefits creates four additional adverse effects. By reducing the size of the project, land costs must now be spread among a fewer number of units, thereby raising the selling price of each. This is often a critical factor for senior citizens who are living on a fixed income. Additionally, there are fewer units available to help meet the growing need for senior citizen housing in Eastern Suffolk County and in the Town of Southold. Thirdly, a reduction in the size of the project will result in less tax revenue for the Town. This would be an acceptable alternative, and indeed desirable,. if such a decrease in p-roj•ect scope would result in significant environmental benefits. Finally, of great significance is the reduction in project size may result in a reduction of total loss of planned amen- ities due to unacceptable increased cost to the property owners in the areas of construction and carrying expenses. 7-4 - ALTERNATIVE LAND USE As discussed in previous sections, a need exists in eastern Suffolk County in general and in the Town of Southold in particu- lar for senior citizen housing. In addition, recommendations made to the town by their planning consultant call for a variety of housing types to be built. The predominant housing type within the town is the single family home. Construction of addi- tional housing of this type would not only ignore the needs of senior citizens in the area, but also the recommendations put forth in the Master Plan background studies. Use of the site for either commercial or industrial purposes is not only contrary to current zoning, but would be inconsis- tent with surrounding development. - A large. ,scale shopping plaza or industrial complex would be out ,of character for this site. which is surrounded by parcels used for residential and agri- cultural purposes. Another alternative would be the return of the site to agri- cultural use. Although this would be possible, it is inconsis- tent with the Town Master Plan. Also, the impacts to ground- water would be as great or greater than those caused by residen- tial development, while the taxes generated would be much less. In summary though, it should be noted that the above men- tioned alternative land uses are not consistent with adjacent uses (i.e. residential dwellings) . The intent of this develop- ment is to produce a residential community similar in quality to adjacent ones. The quantity of use shall be different but con- sistent with the Town of Southold Master Plan. 7-5 NO ACTION No development of the site would obviously not have any en- vironmental impact upon the existing wildlife, vegetation, hy- drology, surface waters, or traffic. The site would remain in its present undeveloped state. The no development alternative, though, would _ leave unfulfilled the obvious need of senior citizen housing in this area. It would be inconsistent with the intended use of the property and contrary to the findings and recommendations shown in past and present Master Plans. 7-6 SECTION VIII IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed project does not involve simply a short-term use of committed resources. Wood, steel, concrete, and glass building structures can be expected to last 100 years or more and can even be rebuilt on the same site, if necessary or desired. There will be minimal removal of vegetation from the site as only a small amount of vegetation existed before construction began. However, to create an aesthetically pleasing site, a substantial amount of planting will be installed in conjunction with the development of this project. Development of this project will irreversibly and irretriev- ably commit the short-term use of various resources .during -the construction period. These include the use of electricity for operating tools and machinery and fbr lighting; the use of gas, oil, and diesel fuel for operating construction equipment and for the delivery of building materials; and the human resources of manpower for the construction itself. Long-term commitment of building materials including wood, concrete, steel, glass, and others, will also be necessary for the development of this project. The quantity of these materials and energy committed will be in keeping with. those used for the development of high quality residences. 8-1 SECTION IX GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS Population - Construction of the proposed project will re- sult in an approximate increase of 1. 6% in the population in the Town of Southold. These projected increases are due in whole to the construction of new housing. There may be an additional smaller population increase brought about as a result of new businesses coming into the area to serve the newly increased population. This secondary increase would be expected to be insignificant however, when compared to that cause directly by the construction of new residences. Support Facilities - As stated in a previous section regard- ing impacts to community services, the existing police, fire and health care as well as school facilities are adequate to handle the anticipated demands of the proposed development. However, area retail stores such as, those selling food, clothing, etc. or service oriented businesses such as haircutters, dry cleaners and automotive repair centers might feel a need to expand their businesses, thereby, requiring new personnel. This could indirectly lead, as stated in the previous section, to an additional population increase above that of the 280+ new inhabitants of the proposed project. Development Potential - Construction of the proposed project will not lead to further growth in the area because of improve- ments to the existing infrastructure. All improvements are to be on site, with no improvements planned to any existing road or utility. 9-1 APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION 360,000 350,000 • SUFFOLK COUNTY SENIOR CITIZEN 340,000 330,000 POPULATION PROJECTIONS • • •320,000 310,000 _ 300,000 • 290,000 280,000 270,000 260,000 250,000 240,000 230,000 220,000 210,000 200,000 * �C 190,000 • 180,000 � �C 1-70,00.0 • 160,000 150,000 140,000 130,000 120,000 110,000 - 100,000 � �( 90,000 80,000 * ° 70,000 60,000 O O O 0 50,000 40,000 0 O p 4 p O O 30,000 O p O O © O 20,000 O 0 O o O O 0 10,000 p p O O O O O O O O O c 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Age 75+ ipp0 Age 60+ -prepared by Sherry Brandsema, Program Manager -Age 55+ •••••• based on ] 980 Census data projections APPENDIX B PLANT LIST TABLE PLANT LIST WITH RELATIVE ABUNDANCE SPECIES Old Field Marginal Acer pseudoplantanus Planetree Maple S Agrostis tenuis Bent Grass R Andropogon scoparius Little Bluestem S F Apocynum cannabinum Indian Hemp S Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed F Aster vimineus Small Aster S Baccharis halimifolia Groundsel Bush S Betula populifolia Gray Birch F C ichorium intybus Chickory F Erigeron strigosus Daisy Fleabane S S Festuca myuros Fescue F S Hieracium pratense Field Hawkweed C C Hypericum perforatum Common St. Johnswort S Hypochaeris radicata Cat's-Ear F Juncus dichotomus Rush F Juniperus v irginiana Eastern Redcedar S Lactuca serriola Wild Lettuce F Linaria canadensis Old Field Toad Flax F F Lonicera morrowi Bush Honeysuckle F Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle C Morus alba White Mullberry R Myrica pensylvanica Northern Bayberry S Onoclea sensibilis Sensitive Fern' S Panicum lanuginosum- Panic Grass F Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia Creeper S Plantago lanceolata English Plantain C Polytrichum sp. Moss C Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen F Prunus serotina Black Cherry S Poa compressa Canada Bluegrass F C Quercus velutina Black Oak F Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust S Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose F S Rhus copallinum Shining Sumac S Rhus glabra Smooth Sumac S Rhus radicans Poison Ivy S Rubus allegheniensis Black Raspberry F Rumex acetosella Red Sorrel C Solidago canadensis Canada Goldenrod C C Solidago juncea Early Goldenrod C C Solidago nemoralis Gray Goldenrod F Solidago rugosa Rough-stemmed Goldenrod C C Solidago tenuifolia Slender-leaved Goldenrod S S Trifolium hybridum Alsike Clover F Verbascum thapsus Mullein F Vitis labrusca Fox Grape F Key: C - Common S - Several F - Few R - Rare VEGETATION. The vegetation of the subject site was inventoried in June of 1988, at which time the majority of species occupying the parcel were either in flower or Bruiting. Two distinct associations occur on the site: 1) old field and 2) second-growth woodland. The former occupies all of the parcels agricultural soils where the topography is flattish, the latter occupies the uneven topography on the parcel's extreme south. A more mature forest type---oak-hickory hardwood association---is situated around the periphery of the parcel's northwest boundary. (Table ) Old Field The site's old field vegetation represents an early stage in succession on prime agricultural soils on eastern Long Island once farming has ceased. The particular type seen on the subject parcel is typical of flat farmlands with loamy soils used for row crops on an annual basis. The parcel's soil conditions---regularly nutrified and tilled topsoils---have resulted from a long history of active -f arming. Succession on Long Island agricultural soils of .poor or marginal quality excessively porosity,,Iand/or extreme topography is more often typified by the growth of drought resistant grasses (e.g. little bluestem, sheep fescue) , followed by bayberry, sumacs, 11 red cedar and other woody plants more adaptable to poor soil conditions. In the present sere the dominant species are the goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and the introduced hawkweed (Hieracium pratense) both of which are robust perennials that perennate by runners or stolons. These offshoots give rise to rosettes of leaves that produce stems and flowers in the next year. Consequently, they are rapid colonizers of land recently left fallow. Additionally, all of the goldenrods and the hawkweed produce fertile seeds (achenes) which have hair-like appendages attached, adapting them for windborn dispersal. The combination of shoots and seeds has resulted in a relatively uniform stand of these species that covers all of the parcel's land that was here-to-fore farmed. The few exceptions are dirt trails (tractor roads) and gulleys where the soils are either too compressed or too worn to be colonized by these species. VEGETATION/Penny-2 These last areas are of relatively small size. They are occupied by a sparser, lower vegetation consisting of grasses (e.g. , Festuca myuros) and various forbs (e.g. , alsike clover) . All of the common old field herbaceous species with the exception of the sensitive fern and Polytrichum mosses are found flowering and fruiting on the peripheral marginal lands. Inasmuch as these species are opportunistic, i.e. ,aggressive and weedy, it would be expected that they would be among the early colonizers, the pioneers, so to speak, comprising the first seral stage. The addition of the fern and the moss would not be unusual as they often colonize old fields and are able to do so by dissemination by way of spores over many miles. Damp soil conditions during the early spring before the onset of active herbaceous grown would be suitable to their propagation and spread. The second seral stage is already in progress. This sere is repre- sented by the several woody species scattered throughout the goldenrod-- hawkweed field. All of those found on the site are known colonizers. The gray birch is a solitary colonizer, while the quaking aspen tends to form dense stands: Multiflora rose also tends to form dense stand's-, inside of which little else grows. All three species prefer loamysoi.is to- sandy ones, with the two trees preferring mesophytic conditions, and they do equally well on hydric soils(as does the sensitive fern) . The groundsel bush is most typically found in saltmarshes landward of the saltmarsh hay zone. However, it is a colonizer disseminating its plumose seeds over long distances, and is found sporadically over a wide range of old field soils. It should be noted that none of the aforementioned woodies are more than a few years old and so the second seral stage is very young. Although the deciduous woods to the northwest contains many typical deciduous hadwoods (oaks, sassafras, etc.) , it is interesting that none of them are presently colonizing the field. Neither are black cherry and eastern red cedar, found in the periphery, because the two would have a hard time establishing in amongst such a dense stand of vigorously competitive forbs. VEGETATION/Penny--3 It would be expected that black locusts would eventually begin to establish with the other woody species as the soil nitrogen is exhausted as they are adept nitrogen fixers and already occupy the marginal periphery. At this point in time it is fair to say that a form of"sweepstakes" succession is underway. Any number of woody species may invade the field and temporarily win out over others. However, if left alone it is safe to say that the field will grow up into a second growth forest dominated by an oak-hickory association. Such succession will take at least 50 years. The marginal edge association on the periphery of the old field is richer in species (see Table ) , more mature, but, still, decidely second- growth and weedy in composition. The planetree maples and black locusts are just a few of the introduced species that are indicative of this disturbed association's present status. This area also contains a rich assemblage of second-growth forest types including forbs, shrubs, vines, saplings and semi-mature trees. Between the old field and this marginal forest is an ecotonal area containing elements of both associations. As,• mentioned above this association serves as a jumping off place for colonizing °the old field, inasmuch as it is immediately proximate to the old field and contains several species which are typical old field colonizers (e.g. , multiflora rose) . Endangered And Threatened Species A few of the species (e.g. , northern bayberry) are on the state's protected list, but none of the species found on the site are on the state or federal endangered and threatened list, nor is anyone of them on the state Heritage list. It is expected that a late summer-early fall survey would turn up additional herbaceous species, but it is not expected that any endangered or threatened speices will be found because of the disturbed nature of the site. APPENDIX C REPORT ON WASTE WATER DISPOSAL t REPORT ON WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FOR SEACROFT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK Prepared By: Henderson and Bodwell Consulting Engineers 120 Express Street Plainview, New York 11803 AUGUST, 1984 REPORT ON WASTEWATER DISPOSAL FOR SEACROFT RETIREMENT COMMUNITY CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK Introduction Seacroft is proposed as a planned retirement community to be located in the hamlet of Cutchogue, Town of Southold. The proposed project is to consist of 160 two bedroom adult age residential units to be located on a total of approximately 46 acres. Investigations done on the site for the establishment of a potable water supply indicate that the water table is approximately at elevation, 7 . 0,, placing, it 23-26 feet .•below" ° the' existing ground " surface over most of the . site . The presence of granular materials - of reasonablepermeability above the water table indicates that subsurface disposal of treated wastewater by means of leaching pools is feasible. Proposed Disposal System The proposed disposal system is to consist of septic tanks followed by a nitrifying leaching zone, denitrifying filters ( sulfur-limestone) and final leaching. Two approaches are possible with regard to layout: a) a centralized system , located in one of the open space acreas. b) localized systems, serving 4 to 20 units, located a relatively short distance from these units. Approach (b) has been developed and recommended because : 1) it results in fewer utility ( particularly water ) crossings. 2) It shortens sewer runs, thereby keeping the systems shallow. This is important when leaching rings are to be used for nitrification and final disposal. Effect On Water Quality The denitrifying septic systems are anticipated to achieve a total nitrogen removal of 80-90 percent, resulting in a final concentration of 4-8 mg/1 . A water balance based on average recharge of 20 inches of rainfall for the entire year over the site yields a nitrate increase in the underlying groundwater of 2 mg/l . General- Description Of Treatment System The treatment system( s) will consist of the following components : 1) Septic tanks - these will provide a minimum of two days retention at design flow , and will serve to remove settleable and floatable solids from the wastewater . 2) nitrification leaching pools - this will be a field of leaching pools (precast) set in a common excavation. A liner ( 20 mil PVC) will be set four feet below the bottoms of the leaching pools. the lines will have sidewalls which extend up one foot. The leachate from the pools will percolate vertically through 3 1/2 feet of sand where it will be oxidized by soil bacteria. The effluent will be clarified and ammonia (NH3-N) nitrogen will be oxidized to nitrate (NO 3-N) nitrogen . When it reaches the liner the leachate will be collected by an underdrain located in a six inch thick gravel bed. The leachate will drain to a biological dentrifying filter , 1 charged with 4 . 5 pounds of sulfur and 4 . 5 pounds of limestone per gallon per day of wastewater . This will be sufficient substrate for a period of 10-15 years, based on 40 mg/l NO3-N. The filters will be brought up to grade, with manhole covers provided for measurement of remaining substrate and addition of new substrate. Final effluent disposal will be by means of leaching pools sized on a basis of 10 gallons/day/square foot. The Improvement Plans contain the necessary design information, and these are keyed to the building. SEACROFT DESIGN NOTES FOR SUPER SEPTIC SYSTEMS TYPICAL 8-UNIT SYSTEM 1) Use 150 gpd per unit 2) For 8-unit system, use the following values ( 1 ,200 gpm) A. Septic Tank - 2,400 gallons 10 ' diameter x 5 ft. liquid depth B. Nitrification - 1. 5 gpd/s. f. - 800 s . f. Need 25. 4 vertical feet of 10 ' ring Use four' 7 ' deep -rings: C. - Denitr.ification 5,400 lb. sulfur 5,400 lb. limestone 18,800 lbs. Estimated density 90 lb/cf Media volume = 120 cubic feet Filter size = 8 ' diameter x 3 ' D. Disposal - 10 gpd/sf - 120 s. f. 3 .8 vertical feet of 10 ' pool APPENDIX D WATER SUPPLY REPORT HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER SUPPLY REPOR SEACROFT AT CUTCHOGUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK REVISION: AUGUST 13, 1984 PAGE Branch Offices: C p ORLANDO, FLORIDA Partners:O G'+s RUSSELL S.BODWELL ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS O JOHN J.PRICE PISCATAWAY, NEW JERSEY 2 STEVEN L.SAMET MASON,OHIO • • HALL CLARKE Main Office A y J ANGUS D HENDERSON JAMES DELAND 120 EXPRESS STREET ;o � CONSULTANT PLAINVIEW,NEW YORK 11803 •�OO� PAUL H.ULATOWSKI _ CONSULTING ENGINEERS ASSOCIATE HENDERSON AND BODWELL 120 EXPRESS STREET, PLAINVIEW, NEW YORK 11803 516-935-8870 August 13, 1984 Mr . Richard Cron Cron & Cron Main Road P.O. Box 953 Cutchogue , NY 11935-0032 Re: Water Supply Report Seacroft at Cutchogue Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York Dear. Mr . Cron: Enclosed are copies of the .revised report on. the above subject dated July 1, , 1984 . Please mark "superseded" or destroy all previous copies in your possession. The changes made in the report include: 1. Revision of population to reflect the usage of a strictly adult community ( 2 persons per dwelling unit) 2 . Elimination of the demand of the former proposed shopping center , which is no longer proposed 3 . Adjustment of the "Table of Water Supply Demands" to reflect the reduced population now anticipated 4 . Reduction in the capacity of the two wells proposed from 75 gpm to 50 gpm each (note that one is still a spare) All corrections to text will be found on page 1. Wssell lyyS. u Bo 1 RSB/dm Enc. cc: Mr. P. Ponturo HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population to be Served . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Water Supply Demands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Proposed Well Source. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 StorageReservoir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Service Pumping Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fire Pump Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Treatment of the Source of Supply. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Distribution System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Disinfection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Pumping `Station. Building:, . . . . . . . . . ,`. . . . . . . . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Site. . . . . . . . ... . : . . . . . . . . . ._. : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4 Appendix "A" : Tests of the Water Bearing Strata Summary. . . . . 5 Memo of Record, April 5, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Memo of Record, April 16, 1984 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Appendix "B" : Water Analysis Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Analyses by New York Testing Laboratories. . . . 11 Analyses by Suffolk County Health Services. . 18A Appendix "C" : Sketches of Proposed Installations , etc. . . . . . 19 Sketch No. 1 General arrangement and Water Distribution System. . . . . . . . . . 20 Sketch No. 2 Well Site , Treatment Plant, and Pump Station Arrangement. . . . . 21 Sketch No. 3 Pump Station Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Sketch No. 4 Typical Well Installation. . . . 23 Sketch No. 5 Selection and Capacity of Pumping Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . 24 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS WATER SUPPLY REPORT n� m rm nmm� "GUE SEACROFT A �T� HvvOrJ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK INTRODUCTION The proposed "Seacroft" community is planned as an adult condominium type community, comprising some 160 apartments grouped in about 40 buildings. A recreational area, clubhouse, and swimming pool will be provided . POPULATION TO BE SERVED 160 dwelling units at 2 persons per dwelling unit = 320 . WATER SUPPLY DEMANDS (ESTIMATED) Average day 32,0 x 100 gpd/cap = 32 ,000 gpd _ Allow for clubhouse, pool , etc. = 2 ,000 gpd Total average day demand 34 ,000 gpd , or 24 gpm + Maximum day at 4- 'ti-mes average = 136.,00'0 gpd, or 95: gpm + Peak- hour rate at 9 1/2 times Average = 13 ,460 gph + or 225 gpm + PROPOSED WELL SOURCE TO MEET DEMANDS It is proposed to install two wells , each of about 50 gpm capacity, to meet the average day and peak day demands. Peak hour demands would be met from storage. Each well is expected to be about 88 feet deep, constructed of cemented 6 inch diameter steel casing and furnished with 5 foot of stainless steel screen. Each well would be equipped with a deep well turbine pump capable of delivering 50 gpm against a total delivery head of 40 feet. Discharge from each well is to be separately metered , and each will be equipped with its own sampling cock , and blowoff . The wells would discharge into an 100 ,000 gallon storage tank . A protection zone with a 200 foot radius is to be provided as a protection against contamination, and the land about the wells will be graded so as to protect them from run-off during rainy weather . 1 HENDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS E Information regarding testing of the water bearing strata , and expected quality of the supply as shown by laboratory analysis , will be found in the appendices . STORAGE RESERVOIR A steel storage reservoir 28 feet in diameter and 24 feet high ( 22 feet working depth ) would be installed near the center of the 3 acre well site . This reservoir would provide a storage , when full , of 100 ,000 gallons . It is planned that this tank be of bolted steel construction with all metal , inside and out, shop coated with oven-baked epoxy . t The tank would be supported on a concrete ring footing , and have an epoxied steel bottom. The two well pumps will discharge into this reservoir . water levels in the reservoir will be used to start and stop the well pumps. SERVICE PUMPING EQUIPMENT Two service pumps, each rated 120 gpm at 140 feet total delivery •head , -would be provided "to meet' normal demands on- - the system: , These pumps would discharge into a 5,000 g"allori hydr opneumatic tank and would be started and -stopped by the pressures in the tank. Both these pumps would be stopped at tank pressure of 75 psi . One pump would start when pressure dropped to 60 psi , and the second pump would start when pressure dropped to 55 psi . Under these conditions , inspection of pump curves discloses that with the water level in the storage tank 10 feet above ground , pump capacity would be available as follows : Capacity Capacity Tank Pressure 1 pump 2 pumps psi T.D.H. Operating Operating 75 + 156 + 0 gpm 0 gpm 70 ± 145 + 115 230 65 + 134 + 145 290 60 + 123 + 175 350 55 + 112 + 205 410 50 + 100 + 230 460 -2- HENDEREV::i1v AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS FIRE PULP Eo: IPMENT The storage reservoir , two-third full , would be able to furnish a fire flow of 500 gpm for a two hour period. A separate pump, capable of delivering 500 gallons per minute against a total delivery head of 160 feet would thus furnish a reasonable water supply for fire use to the community. Examination of the pump curves indicates deliveries would be available as shown in the following table . (Note that a pressure relief valve would be installed to prevent shocks to the system on quick shut-down of a fire hydrant and that its use will restrict discharge pressure to 75 psi ) . 2 Service Fire Pump Pumps Total psi T.D.H. Delivery Delivery Flow 75 + 156 ft. + 360 gpm 0 gpm 360 gpm 70 + 145 ft. + 545 gpm 230 gpm 775 gpm 65 - + 1.34 ft. + 5°7.0 .gpm. _ 290. gpm 860 gpin 60 + 123 ft. + 600 gpm. 350 gpm 950 gpm. . 55 + 112• f t. + 630 gpm 410 gpm 1040 gpm 50 + 100 ft. + 655 gpm 460 gpm 1115 gpm TREATMENT OF THE SOURCE OF SUPPLY Water Analysis data presently available indicates no treatment other than chlorination is likely to be needed . However , as it is possible that over the years trace amounts of fertilizer or pesticide residues might be found in the ground water at this site , or nitrate content might increase , provision is being made and space provided in the pumping station building for future installation of granular activated carbon filters and/or ion exchange units , which would remove such substances from the well water prior to its entering the storage reservoir . Two small chemical feed pumps (one is to be a spare) will be provided to provide continuous disinfection of the water pumped to the distribution. Chemical feed will be proportioned to demand . It is expected to use hypochlorite as the disinfecting agent and all requirements of the health authorities will be included in the plans and specifications . -3- MtNDERSON AND BODWELL CONSULTING ENGINEERS • t A sm-zll chemical feed pump is also to be provided to disinfect the well discharge to the reservoir . j DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM The distribution system would be constructed of PVC pipe , 6 inches in diameter and meeting the requirements of AWWA C-900 . About 10 6 inch gate valves and 9 fire hydrants would be installed . Arrangement is shown on Sketch #3 . DISINFECTION 1 Both wells , the storage reservoir , the hydropneumatic tank and the entire distribution system are to be disinfected before being placed in operation , in full conformance with # the requirements of the New York State Department of Health . PUMPING STATION BUILDING All pumping equipment and any treatment equipment needed would be housed in a small attractive brick and concrete block building. See attached Sketch #3 , which shows building floor plan, arrangement of equipment , etc. SITE. The proposed site work includes grading of the site-, acces's driveway and parking area , , landscaping, and fencing around the storage reservoir and wells. The concept is shown on attached Sketch #2. AH%dm -4- APPENDIX "A" sof the Water Bearing Strata 4; . Test ' ,. Nk���,. Investigations at the site are reported 'in the two .field reports. dated April 5 and April 16, .19$4, ,attached hereto: } Briefly, they indicate that the'"kequired source of water Y' _ supply can be obtained safely and;ythat the chloride' and nitrate content -of the 'water will be-4cceptable and should >' not require any- special treatment-process. " Lowering of the water table at the wells will' be minimal, and the cone of influence created by the.. pumping operations will be contained entirely within the limits o€ the three acre ,f site being reserved for water supply installations.. .. _ - f • r`f � .. .iF v>..•j,. - ' � (!- ' -Aye. i HENDERSON AND 80DwELL DATE : April 5 , 1984 PAGE : 1 of 2 FROM : J. MILLIKEN TO: MEMO OF RECORD RE : SEACROFT, CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK CC : A. HENDERSON, R. BODWELL, B. RIESS ------------------------------------------------------- On March 28 , 1984 , the well driller (Casola) installed a 4-inch well casing to 68 ft. and a 2-inch well with 2 ft. well point to 67 ft. The static water level measured was 27 . 5 ft. below grade or at approximately EL 7 . 0 . Since the county requires 40 ft . of water present in the well , the 67 ft. depth would be the approximate minimum depth of the well ; therefore, a pesticide sample was taken at this depth . Samples were also taken at 10 ft. intervals from 67 ft . to 37 ft. below grade to collect data on nitrate and iron levels present. On April 4 , 1984 , the well driller installed a 2-inch ell within- the 4-inch .well casing- -previously -installed to .68 -ft . The 2-inch well with 2 ft. well point was driven to a depth of 9.8 ft... Samples were taken at •5 ft. ' intervals from 98 ft . to 7.3 ft. again. to collect data on nitrate- and iron levels present. The wash from the 4-inch well casing was coarse to fine sand with trace amounts of gravel , and the driving of the 2-inch wells did not indicate any large clay or gravel layers. All samples were collected as the 2-inch wells were pulled back and the well was pumped off for 5 minutes at a rate of 10 gpm + prior to the taking of each sample. The wells were checked twice in the field for the chloride level present at the 67 ft. and 98 ft. depths . These results along with the nitrate and iron results which were tested by Henderson and Bodwell in the office are attached. The pesticide sample is being analyzed by New York Testing . Based on the attached test results, it appears the best depth for the well is between 83 ft. and 88 ft. depths . Additional testing will consist of setting the 4-inch casing previously installed to the desired depth and pumping it for 12 hours at a rate of 60 gpm. This rate is the approximate horly peak rate of the proposed project. Two 2-inch observation wells will also be installed at 1 ft . and 100 ft. distances from the test well in the direction of the existing homes . The well will be sarupled both at the start of PjMpinc -6- HENDERSON AND BODWELL and just prior to the termination of the pumping . Both the Pump testing procedure and the type of testing to be done on the samples has been discussed and approved by Paul Ponturo of the Suffolk County Health Department. JM/dm -7- SEACROFT - CUTCHOGUE TEST WELL Static Water @ 27 . 5 Sample # Depth Chloride Nitrate Iron 1 37 ' - 6 . 0 Q 2 471 4 . 5 0 3 57 ' - 7. 0 0 4 671 22 . 5 7. 0 0 . 25 5 731 6 . 0 0. 10 6 781 6 . 5 0 . 05 7 831 - .3.. 5 0, 05 8 88,1 5 . 0 0 .05• 9 93 ' _ 7 . 0 0' 10 98 ' 32 . 5 8. 0 0 . 10 -8- HENDERSON AND BODWELL DATE : April 16 , 1984 1 FROM: J . MILLIKEN PAGE : of 1 TO: MEMO OF RECORD RE : SEACROFT CUTCHOGUE - TEST WELL CC : A. HENDERSON, R. BODWELL, B. RIESS ---------------------------------- The Seacroft Test Well was installed to a depth of 88 ft . with a 5 ft. well screen and 4-inch submersible pump. Additionally, 2 2-inch observation wells were also installed to a depth of 88 ft. located one foot from the 4-inch Test Well and 100 ft. from the 4-inch Test Well , both in the direction of the existing houses on Highland Drive . This work was done by the well driller ( Casola) under the direction of Henderson and Bodwell prior to the pumping test. On Friday, April 13 , 1984 , the 12 hour pumping test began at 7 :36 a.m. The static water level prior to pumping was 26 ft. 1-inch below grade at the observation well one foot away from the test well and 26 ft. 3 1/2 in. below grade at the observation well 100 feet away from the test well . The draw down was measured immediately after pumping began and the water level at the one foot observation well dropped to 26 ft. 10 1/2 in. below grade where it remained throughout the course of the pumping test. The 100 ft. observation well experienced no draw down effect and the water level remained at 26 ft. 3 1/2 in. below grade for the entire pumping test . The recovery of the water level at the one foot observation well upon completion of pumping was immediate. It returned to 26 ft. 1-inch below grade as soon as the pump was shut down. Samples were taken at 8:00a .m. and 7: 15 p.m. by our office, to be tested by New York Testing . Additionally, the Suffolk County Health Department took stamples at 8 : 30 a.m. , 10: 30 a.m. , and 6 :15 p.m. The pumping rate was checked several times during the ,day and twice by the county people and found to be between 57 and 60 9Pm- The chloride level was checked periodically and found to be 27 . 50 ppm throughout the day. The nitrate level was checked in our office and found to be 5. 5 ppm at the beginning of pumping and 5. 0 ppm just prior to shut down. The iron level was also checked in our office and found to be 0.05 at the beginning of pumping and just prior to shut down. JM/dm -9- ' - APPENDIX Report,— `Water "Analysis Re rt' .. - _ ,s.°,,:,...Y�~;a..�isT_. ,.{- �.. '4i�.iYy:"�;3:..` '- ii'"d!-*'w,' '�� - +',.�-r.`a.'•-' , { .. 4 ,,'"P` - a.',�`. "�:,..9 'bs '!�. a' Is:.?' ,*c• -' 'S: '#.'ii�+'•c:,..,'"ids 3i�:� 7�h;.{��sx.r�"'F" �•' ' The quality' of the p`eopased'=saufrce appears='�,�t sf .6i"6r TM'- potable use., needing ,only: d,,isinfection,'°b _cb'Tor.ina.tion r,r"i, - - \ .r }T•,''✓, v .fir �4t� K '��4 •�vy,n. _. It is OS51 b_possible,, tau by w.e believe_,'not Mlike,l thai. 'nit t-' �.. Rr ate s. • :- �-R� -. may in the futvire' f nCcease..--to .mor.e� 'than t#. a allowable I.O: i�c� per liter as.- n.L- rog.en r: <cr 'ttia ob j`_ectionable amouints of- pesticide i*'° esticide or. lentil_ ler es du ,s' wg P �`�� is a mi ht�Iie�':. o�nd '.'�fi't-:d.-_N..J" ,�'`.a 'Y u.���•Z-4, <.- Tib. «S:'..€AL'c `�,gt,'t Gr. ---:.^-s' space is• bein r p. xravic dry in 't ie`ptiin r g zst^a r ;..., g:-P . � torr`•bi�i.�d'ing ^�foz the install.at:it,on, -oU,'trea�tent.':fiqu�; pmen u d b arise. - ,. �t' ,-�.y`.,' ts, .^r,fav�.^-z',���;.: L.�.,r I",4 sx y.wi'" ,..Lt'::4:;z.�•v � ww�w.r.�,�.amu.. ^� y.�F,[.:;^ >�,T� ;6�Q " • "� �x' e "{q�?+, -� �i 'b"`.:,'1',:�� °`%� A r.1'�';' `,>y zy �+P'> t ��+.n,�.�y`��r�t� •,r i+• s,.r,-,> . • `' �+ 4 �• ',>, 'fit'. ••• ,•'�ryy� �.. � •�� �� � - .a--' • - , 10- 1 Dait May 8, 1984 :\ENti YORK TESTIING LABORATORIES D tCALL BOX 1021 75 URBAN AVENUE WESTBURY L 1 , N V 11590 . (516) 334-7770 (212'1 297 1449 REPORT OF TESTS Client — 84 -72334 ( B ) - Henderson 8 Bodwell Material — Two ( 2 ) Water Samples Client's Order No. — Pending Identification — As below Submitted for — Chemical Analysis Sample Identification Sea Croft , Start of Pumping 4/13/84 Sea Croft , End of Pumping r (Res-olts , see following pages . ) Report prepared by : Remo Gigante , Laboratory We certify that this report is a true Director report of results obtained from our tests of this material . Respectfully submitted , NEW YORK TESTING LABORATORIES , INC . To : G . J H vitt , C h i e Officer Henderson S Bodwell 120 Express Street Plainview , N . Y . 11803 Att : Mr . J . Milliken gd Re-10r^ or ca r.;.r Ds chcn• c r. . 1c sampic Rcpor, or samp!cr F. Us a,r r on r: ir, ss^ Ir ^a u,r con a r.c nere r nc :r br uscC to re;rxc-::nr r,Ccn; o spccla c:r,. , T7 attc• Ca c o` rcpo,l unless speclflcal•, requrs:cC ohe•w:sc hCir, ?... to-. In ,.,tF respc_ 1c the xrsrca chargcC fog hcici^ sRa' rr nc c.rn, _r• �c cacccil rnr -11- iN ENV YORIt 'I`ESPT ING LA l3OR A'!'(_.)I2I E INC. Page 2 . Lab No 84 - 72334 VOLATILE COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sea Croft , Start of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Sample Size: 1 . 0 ml . Internal Std. Concs . Bromochloromethane 60 (total ngs. ) 2-Bromo-l-chIoropropane Surrogate Std. Concs. Deuterochloroform 45 (total ngs. ) Deuterobenzene 42 Deuterotoluene 30 Method Detection Method CAS Limit Found Parameter No. No. (ppb)* (Ppb) Ac rolein 624 107-02-8 100 NO Acrylonitrile 624 107-13-1 100 NO Benzene 6Z4 71-43-2 10 NO Bromodi chl oromethane 624 75-27-4 10 NO Bromoform 624 75-25-2 10 NO Bromomethane 624 74-83-9 10 N[. Carbon Tetrachloride 624 56-23-5 10 NO Ch I o robenzene 624 108-90-7 10 NG Chlorodibromomethane 624 124-48-1 10 N-) Chloroethane 624 75-00-3 10 ND 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 624 110-75-8 10 ND Chloroform 624 67-66-3 10 N' Chloromethane 624 74-87-3 10 N 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 624 95-50-1 10 N� 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 624 541-73-1 10 ND 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 624 106-46-7 10 ND NO = None Detected < ' = Less than *EPA. Put! ished method detection 1imi: -iL- :�l•;��' �'( )IZI{ 'i'I;�'1'I\( � I.AM )IZA'I'C>I2II: C. Page 3 . Lab No 84 - 723, VOLATILE COMPOUNDS - cont'd. Sample Number: Sea Croft , Start of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Method Detection Method CAS Limit Found Parameter No . No. (ppb)* Dichlorodifluoromethane 624 75-71-8 10 NC 1 ,1-Dichloroethane 624 75-34-3 10 ND 1-2-Dichloroethane 624 107-06-2 10 NC 1 ,1-Dichloroethylene 624 75-35-4 10 ND Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 624 156-60-5 10 N3 1 ,2-Dichloropropane 624 .78-8.7-5 10• Np 1 ,3-0i chIoropropene 624 10061-02-6 1'0- ND Ethyl benzene 624. 100-41-4 -10 ND Methylene Chloride 624 75-09-2 10 ND 1 ,l ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 624 79-34-5 10 ND Tetrachloroethylene 624 127-18-4 10 ND Toluene 624 108-88-3 10 Np 1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane 624 71-55-6 10 ND 1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane 624 79-00-5 10 ND Trichloroethylene 624 79-01-6 10 ND Trichlorofluoromethane 624 75-69-4 10 ND Vinyl Chloride 624 75-01-4 10 NUn ND = None Detected < = Less than * EPA published method detection 1 i rri t -13- -NEMS' ��ORE ' E' TANG LABORATORIES, INC. Pag► 4 , Lab No 84 - 7 2% ?t PE SI I C I DE COMP0L)NDS Sample Number: Seacroft , Start of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Sample Size: 600 ml . Extract Volume 1 . 0 ml Volume Ini . 5 ,u1 Limit Found Parameter Method No. CAS ( ppb ) ( ppb ) Aldrin 608, 625 309-00-2 1.0 NO a -BHC 608, 625 319-84-6 1.0 NO B-BHC 608, 625 319-85-7 1.0 NO 6 -BHC 608, 625 319-86-8 1.0 NO -f -BHC 608, 625 58-89-9 1.0 NO Chlordane 608, 625 57-74-9 1.0 NO Dieldrin 608, 625 60-57-1 1.0 NO a-Endosulfan 608-, 625 959-98-,8 _ 1.0 NO. - 9-Endosulfan 608, 625 33213-65-9 1.0 'ND Endosulfan sulfate 608, 625 1031-07-08 1.0 NO Endrin 608, 625 72-20-8 1.0 NO Endrin aldehyde 608, 625 7421-93-4 1.0 NO Heptachlor 608, 625 76-44-8 1 .0 ND Heptachlor Epoxide 608, 625 1024-57-3 1.0 NO 4 ,4 ' -DDT 608, 625 50 29-3 1.0 NO 4,4'-DDE 608, 625 72-55-9 1.0 NO 4,4' -DDD 608, 625 72-54-8 1.0 NO PCB 1016 608, 625 12674-11 -2 1,0 NO PCB 1221 606, 625 11104-28-2 1 .0 ND PCB 1232 608, 625 11141 -16-5 1 .0 NC PCB 1242 608, 625 53469-21-9 1 .0 ND PCB 124E 608, 625 12672-29-6 1 .0 ND PCB 1254 608, 625 11097-69-1 1 .0 ND PCB 1260 608, 625 11096-82-5 1 .0 ND Toxaphen; 60F, 625 8001 -35-2 1NE' 2 , 4 - G 6J-,,E2`_ -- i . NCS 2 6 0 C N- YORK ' FSTING LABORATORIES, INIC. Pagc 5 . Lab No. 84 - 7 2 3 3- VOLATILE VOLATILE COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sea Croft , End of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Sample Size : 1 . 0 ml . Internal Std. Concs . Bromochloromethane 60 (total ngs. ) 2-Bromo-l-chloropropane Surrogate Std. Concs. Deuterochloroforrn 45 (total ngs. ) Deuterobenzene 42 Deuterotol uene 30 Method Detection Method GAS Limit Found Parameter No. No. (ppb)* _ ( ob Acrol ei n 624 .1.07-0278 100 ND Acryl oni tri l-e 624 107-13-1 !Do ND Benzene 624 71-43-2 10 . ND Bromodi chloromethane 624 75-27-4 10 ND Bromoforir 624 75-25-2 10 ND Bromomethane 624 74-83-9 10 ND Carbon Tetrachloride 624 56-23-5 10 NC Chlorobenzene 624 108-90-7 10 ND Chlorodibromomethane 624 124-48-1 10 ND Chloroethane 624 75-00-3 10 ND 2-Chloroethyl vinyl ether 624 110-75-8 10 ND Chlorofom 624 67-66-3 10 NCS Chloromethane 624 74-87-3 10 ND 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene 624 95-50-1 10 ND 1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene 624 541-73-1 10 ND 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene 624 106-46-7 10 NG ND = None Detected < = Less than *EPr put--; shed method detect,on lir, :\1•:t�' i O1Z1� '!'j•:�'FI \( ; I ,�1I ;t ►ilA'1'UIZII•; I:�('. Pagc 6 , Lab No 84 -7233= VOLATILE COMPOUNDS - cont 'd. Sample Number: Sea Croft , End of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Method Detection Method CAS Limit Found Parameter No No. (ppb)* ab Dichlorodifluoromethane 624 75-71-8 10 NO 1 ,1-Di chloroethane 624 75-34-3 10 NO 1-2-Dichloroethane 624 107-06-2 10 NO 1 ,1-Dichloroethylene 624 75-35-4 10 NO Trans-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene 624 156-60-5 10 ND I ,2-Dichloropropane 624 78-87-5 10 NO 1 ,3--Diehl6rb0ro0ehe 62.4 . 10061-02-6 10 NO Ethylbenzene 624- 100-41-4 10 NO Methylene Chloride 624 75-09-2 10 ND 1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane 624 79-34-5 10 NO Tetrachloroethylene 624 127-18-4 10 NO Toluene 624 108-88-3 10 ND 1 ,1 ,1-Trichloroethane 624 71-55-6 10 NO 1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane 624 79-00-5 10 NO Trichloroethylene 624 79-01-6 10 NO Trichlorofluorometh-ane 624 75-69-4 10 ND Vinyl Chloride 624 75-01-4 10 ND ND = None Detected < = Less than * EPA published method detection limit \E' Z-()R1t TES'1`1,NG LABORATORIES, INC. Page 7 . Lab No $4 _7 2;3 A � PES?ICID: COMPOUNDS: Sample Number: Sea Croft , End of Pumping 4/ 13/84 Sample Size: 800 ml . Extract Volume 1 . 0 ml Volume Inj . Limit Found Parameter Method No. CAS p ( ppb ) ( ppb ) Aldrin 608, 625 309-00-2 1.0 NO a -BHC 606, 625 319-84-6 1.0 NO 8 -BHC 608, 625 319-85-7 1.0 NO 6 -BHC 608, 625 319-86-8 1.0 NO Y -BHC 608, 625 58-89-9 1.0 NO Chlordane 608, 625 57-74-9 1.0 NO Dieldrin 608, 625 60-57-1 1,0 ND a-End.asul fa n' 608•, 625 959-98,-8- 1.0 ND $•-Endosulfan 608, 625 33213-65-9 1.0, ND Endosulfan sulfate 608, 625 1031-07-08 1.0. NO Endrin 608, 625 72-20-8 1.0 ND Endrin aldehyde 608, 625 7421-93-4 1.0 NO Heptachlor 608, 625 76-44-8 1.0 NO Heptachlor Epoxide 608, 625 1024-57-3 1.0 NO 4 ,4 ' -DD7 608, 625 50 29-3 1.0 NO 4 ,4 '-DDE 608, 625 72-55-9 1,0 ND 4 ,4 ' -DDC' 608, 625 72-54-8 1.0 NO PCB 1016 608, 625 12674-11 -2 1.0 NO PC5 12 4-, ! 606, 625 11104-28-2 1 .0 ND PCB 123 608, 625 11141 -16-5 1.0 Lr i PCB 1242 608, 625 53469-21 -9 1.0 NO PCB 1241 608, 625 12672-29-6 1,0 ND PCB 1254 608, 625 11097-69-1ND 1 .G PCG 12c,i 608, 625 11096-82-5 1 .0 NC W o� apher=- 608, 625 8001 -35-2 1 .0 N• 4 - 6''5,62. -- ; .0 ,4 - - r -- _17_ NENV YORK 'FES'i'I:4(_; LABORATORIES, INC. Page C • Lab No F4 - 7 2 3 RESULTS - cont ' d . Sample Identification Sea Croft Sea Croft 4/ 13/84 4/ 13/84 Start of End of Pumping Pumping pH @ 20°C . 6 . 50 6 . 07 Colot Pt/Co Unit < 10 < 10 Turbidity ( NTU ) 0 . 3 0 . 3 Taste Unobjectionable Unobjectionable Odor ( TON ) < 1 < 1 Results in mg/ 1 : Nitrate 8 . 48 9 . 29 Ammonia 0 . 22 0 . 31 Sulfate 90 85 Ch Tori de. 24 -24. Detergents G. 2.7 0. 29 •Total Hardness- as CaCO3' 161_ • 162 Calcium as CaCO3 99 96 Sodium 9 . 42 10 . 21 Iron 0 . 078 0 . 052 Manganese < 0 . 006 < 0. 006 Copper 0 . 013 0 . 014 Zinc 0 . 158 0 . 043 Magnesium. 14 . 97 16 . 24 Total Coliform , MPN/ 100 ml - < 2 < = Less than -1C- E-A c R 0rT- C c ►_1S1L�1L�=—Z� �S /t acce�•�q +o We����i��Qr�, cai�rf sn m . . . . . . . . <0. i <0. 1 r _ Mcg Q ' free ammonia °.r: . . .. . . . .. O,o -d0.cy nitrate . . • .. .* . . .. . . . .PH S.9 specific conductivity . . ��_ D ' chloride 2Z sulfate . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . L ..0 __ • iron . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . O.1 <r7. l manganese . . . . . . . .. . . . . <O.Oj <O,c�S _ p,0,� ,• __ ' copper . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . i0. 1 <e ,1 < zinc . . . . . ... . . .. .. . . . . . 0, 44 < o <0. sodium . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . _1. �_ (I To;A L "ARDh&Q,5 . . .• • . . • Jam_ ITer, AL A�►�A�,N.Ty vinyl chloride . . .. . . . . t _ < 3 �C 3 P _ methylene chloride .. . . _ <2 c Z I l,, - bromochloromethane :: _2_ _ 1 , 1 dichloroethane _� L _ r c -L trans dichloroethylene < 'L L < •L chloroform . . . . . . .. . . . . .c 1 ,2 dichloroethane 1 , 1, 1 trichloroethane <Z _ < -L _< 7— carbon carbon tetrachloride 1 bromo 2 chloroethane < Z _< 7- 1 ,2 1 ,2 dichloropropane . . . ..eL < Z t -L _ 1 , 1,2 trichloroethylene .cZ •c 2 chlorodibromomethane . . <-L -- 7- 1,2 1,2 dib•romoethane . . . . . <-L c Z •cam_ I 2 bromo 1 chloropropane w--I- c_ bromoform c Z 7- -1- -2- tetrachloroethylene- tetrachloroethylene . . . <-Z_ Z < ,- - cis dichloroethylene I freon 113 .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . —. dibromomethane _ _L Z _< -7- 1 , 1 Z1 , 1 dichloroethylene . . < 2: < Z Z j _ bromodichloromethane . . _< Z <�, _ ,, _ I 2,3 dichloropropene cis dichloropropene < •L _-<__� _c 2. •i _�� _ trans dichloropropene . .4 :L_ 1 , 1,2 trichloroethane . e Z Z 'Z benzene . .. .. . .. ... . .. . • I toluene . ... . . . .. .. . . . . _! �_ -C -1 - chlorobenzene . . . .. . .. . -e-3_ t_� sem_ ethylbenzene . . . . .. . . . . 4 _< t , I xylenes e- - - bromobenzene c chlorotoluenes . . .. . . . . ._ j_ < _ •i _�_ _ 1, 3,5 trimethylbenzene _d_ I 1 ,2,4 trimethylbenzene . <� < - c �_ - •,_ - _ m,p dichlorobenzene o dichlorobenzene . . . . . e q p diethylbenzene . . . . . . _�_ 1 ,2,4,5 tetrmethylbenze C.3 I 1 ,2,4 trichlorobenzene < _� <�_ 1 ,2,3 trichlorobenzene -- 1 , 1 , 1, 2 1 , 1 , 1, 2 tetrchlorethar.e « — I 1 ,2,2,3 tetrchlorpropan <-L _ � < 'z 1 , 1, 1,2 tetrchlorpropan c 2 -� Z. ��Z �• 1 ,2,3 trichloropropane aldicarb . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ' carbofuran . . . . . . .. . . . . oxamyl . carbaryl . . . . . . . . .. . . . . _< methomyl . . . . . . . . .. . . . . ..... -�A�— —�--- -�' - If 'RtSi,a�S C�JcS-j J►.Idj�lE- — f\N/�L12ED {�C2p rIAN ZLI � G��.� APPENDIX "C" Sketches of Proposed Installa_ _ .. '.v'°'� -,�1'. "_-tic^",.-. •�t.1_}s> .;t13i�u`�.c,"i"�-`_ `+ yrs'.: ps.., ' ,. _ ., � � l -•rte d k <fi'�a"'t-� < • 5 ��"r ��`' •r�<.y"`+. -d 'I ' .3'a•, ' p'�' n �.�'• J"i I-SX `2..-C3�..Et" i. -. � ti1,�f*.:.. �,.3' - •� ��,>. .. •,;`tea*, .:�.�. �. t �_- `er fT , - kyr _ .. ., - i •r." air....=. •' .. - •r. „ til .'mac � .� - ��� • f�pil J`� ✓9- -r IF .� � N 3y,.yP444 AA.-Ir W4-ML R 41 N S �f1��4�'� �2!` G ~ l/'kl<l .SPCC C-94 o, f' D•R, IS A C 01r 7' s uw•v Nu � �-� -�_ —' - — 1 � T �l1Ttltilo�vr- ��y d Z'✓T S N 1 T�! A/ v F f soormotte f/ p A/4/ 'y lid VAK ..r� quo _ Vq-rrm p1.1-rt 1/1VTluw $yJ T orf - I EHvrR.r0J4 ANO ODw faliAk TIU6. E0441146Fltf .LSO. Ea mFSJ S7 n erc- r) Pw,•rvr�R., N'Y' 11001 I �E r F ntSrl[vto FiR 1✓�!7!R � � � fi+0/LY _vie 2. 88 A«A--$ L V!I h h � I N" tilfCv ti 'Izz ! �� • V3 � � t p1 q J.N'r Pow p,Al4 sT.. �I , /00, 000 Tf.voivG ,'V 1 v nr-fart volm 1 ,y s 28'0/w Ay Zsd' qti,*Y2v Aix C7 A-f Me-rEs : S�A Cm : � Cu'rC/yeOGC/Z- f:c a c,� .Tl .�a o� Pv•-+a,<,� %f-r y-r)ov ?owls o ,- -7,0 ,-TD Qf B��ABGVF C40a.v7 .S'&ITX.►LC - C7 7 r-7J O t- .Sr Tc -7 Vo 7.F r= Su r,O,L�j� ti✓EL< .S� 7� Oti"OJ�VS � /7 V17 f(O Ff CION✓G O/l7- 9C',C oa /0 r, 77 A / V, Poe-. S74710.AJ fJRZA.yGkr-IF�yT. -CkDErtSCQ q.vo y G D W C--C L, Cc 12 y FX tQ t F s S .s7R FfT � /'8c3 s f 5 , Wren Grp a r✓N r1 t;t e�v, 3 r C v r /�/PE 7?fNt�� � �QY�R • (vi wl'rife 2-096 ,. , .SIGN�'T mak• X09 M�•'nt 1'•�oe 3 .f/I r/Ptf N7 C'Of1•� I ' ' € 1 : ..r r r . . r 1► r .. r r r r r -, - r — .-. — r —.. 1 :1 t, R � C• �• dole G iuv � y, r I flYie.,•ur...,e r�•. 2 I1V ti o tl 6' , SYltl►1 01INJ je To ir rr y ig sow R.o �4.,fie' > P,Pe' Tn rpe u i.) 1 QD I Y.r - RlJcnwrw M BNar1 — t BTir I-rte lir 7%) - -•••- 1 Ti• I AcS Ari „ ' 7 G•Y ``• NOV CL d 4 n /• P•u•wAr 6AC r"usvwr GAG Or/' i Fitvtot ' i (i- Rt/u,nro) Rrawars) 3 IL i 4 , r � • 0 •rl yPc,N; ro K 3 �;c al o R 1-7L F v. 35:. 6 MF�t1 ti ..rurwr....Waif.xrW.r+.+u......r+ru..r+Y.rrr�r■ , 1' tr T A7 ('urcl/06ur -----s___ _ - l,e.. �'d 6v'w v r �•Oy T/,/O 4 d ,5 -r q • UC'/YJo </ Vc1D I�on.ihte- t ua�_rU� Ti,v ti t�U Ci a F!>ts 22'_ 0 P . - 7�rgy8'l Gl••197!• -23- SN47c n..r• �t� { I OUSE S1wL it R(r.•gotI r,Jr e ' • ro 4A-0 ca..•t I A I • � o . -/(,('► 1(may • /('f.fV••V / �in•r• ' d'f.7.t IJt.n�tfvrl i ♦ SL .r/A LIrIl- •v c-,.,..., $ CAC RO PrT Cu-rc l4 o c,u t- 701,/�.r O0, soo /yOto Nr v )eo7e ' - '7'yprr�+_l UfC� luJ-rnc c A-r�oN (Are-r -ro ,rc4sr ) - Hrlyorns6)v quo 1300111Ckl. r mffw _ ' I ; ► , i ' • . . : ' it ► 1 :. I _ I , ' ! 'i , . i . i ' . � . � ' . ' i I .' . ' . _ i. i .�: '. ;.� } i" ; ': } i `" .. ► . i�"���. : ;ti_;!� i} !� ► y 1 :j „ i !..i. �:.f.. 0_y J.1. 1 its 4/-.. .: ! i—! .t ' _,:.r' t, �-r , t .I:: T •.. ., 1. .1 '.`..t: ._ _. I' j Lei -...._ !-1 �__ �� , .-1'• ••-�- —Jr�� _ , —• .. .' 1 -- I �aZ' .�I t" _ �. l ,� _ ' , I -- --- - ----h■ -- 1 �►et _ ��rJ, it ;_I_ _:_.._..:__ tl� �Vlc if f'f%. -r I_ ! :� :'- „I� 76'_ j ;G _-r 471 :;7 _.L'.'" sr a/r Jh_4_ }__ 'L: �_:.. .LLIL� 11•, LI 1 `:-- i1 i1:.I�, j_ t• tF r:_, �. �. ':i'�_l_ i'T �� i it r tl� 0 ,f rf vl<r 1� -r t.:1t_ 7:" fr ].►J ��• 1 �1 }+•,.., !_ `',.t , ,G'i ► ��,;- -- -- i , }1II • 1 �• ' �-�• •- r �,- 11 .� - ,+iL-i.. 1 I .1.• 1 - t 1 ; '. -f-. Izh �ti , It i1 t II* �11I ,.1' r �. 'I 1 .� r' 1 4.LI� 1t I . -.t i�-f •+ �_.1..+J1� i�.. �- tr. t ► �.o r. \ l 1 .. 11 .1...' i► , 1 t �. J _ f Ij i't�;!I �t ill I:'I,, F ilt y�- { _rIL{i r �•�.t: ' ! 1 _I i :' j ► I �tltl ' it'I� :W ( t- I � 1 r-- � :.,-, �}:I.- �ry�,- n 1~; '- - l•�#]i-I- .���-1� �•, _ '_. � I I •r. ' 1' - I S�H 1(''! �- r • .t. t-f'r X11 .-i,- i- - L��� f -}t I f ' t ,i 1. O 1} 1 •+i; ( I f I• _ J-. l I f.. l •.r _ i.• 1: - , . _ ;r1��-. t i I 1~ _ i L�. I 1�.`-• jt. I t I.�-Lt1 -'-.. �. 1� fi � T _ 1 Q ► If jl X11 � Tj-��'i- + I �.f.I j; f .'. L I jl.(�- 1: r�' L: � a- .I' _1 j , �. i.l iii_ , t 1 1 t_ I. 1. . ► i r. i .(: i. :�_ , i i I. 1. i i I. ,.,.i__. 1~ A / 2- J r I 9 I-.i .r4 - - �� Z V m 5t_-elC C "riyy Moo—r -1--mw hy"o �� �ya-t cot��►tec�.v s q uF-w Cvyc�ie��t• hl'o� B. Z6f8 >_3y "1Fsavmw- JT a -r�,n-Tr Iw or�ty oK �'ovrr�otn r /��U�vE� 3G�o rZnr-f IU �,r O1r"""Os fw Yon w l�rr/ plyd sycP� w� rU .1•y•t-rR-irr �L1r C'T16N r-1-rZ tr [70-1r ,3-J 3_JY'U 7 /o •QC2 �wAyh h'Ac1, s —e '1/0_O 44/00-11pr J�v_N 1'2 1 w4 t Pr7 36uo 14 • -. �1✓dPnsaN nNn 1300 wk t, L rot/Jt, L7IAxe, N!:l►14M�$ APPENDIX E GROUNDWATER/NITROGEN BUDGET ANALYSIS 1 ***—****38OUNDWAYER/QITROGEN 8UDGE7 ANALYSIE****w**+**« . DEVELOPED FROM CORNELL WALRAS STUDY BY CRZENM0N-QEIEREEN INC. ENVlRONYtENTAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT pROJECT: -|AMIET AT CUTCr0GU[ (WITH IENITR) DATE: b/ i5 /88 # UNI7Q 160 DATA PnZES[ED, R[SULF6 lO FD.L014 5. 052E?2 mg/I= TOTAL wITRCGEK COACEUTRQTI]N **IMES[43E FI�E*&« 81 : 2. L16994F+P7 C^ : 1 . ! :5',67E+07 ` / D1 : E71 `)f00 E1 : 50- 7499 F^ : 140E F : 14- TN: 25;� 7WM: 1 Q232C4E+0B TqM: 9. : 124FIE40C3 ***DA-A SUMMRRY**+ PREC7rT ; ATI]N; in/yr: 46 PERMEkd_E ACRES: Z3. 5 IhPER|1EOB_E ACRES: 10. 66 D3hDEST' C WATER, gpdj: 150 IRRI3Al [D ACRES: 34 TURF ACRES: 22 DENS7T, , PER UNIT: 2 ' UNIT N| POER VARIATION; DATA PROCESSED: RESULTS TO FOiLOW # UNJT�: 156 5. ?4w982 mg/l= TOTAL NI7ROGEN CONCENTRATION UNIT KUiBER VARlA7ION; DATA PROCESSED: RESULTS TO FOLLOW # UNI- S: 152 E. 039 /07 mg/l= TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION __ ***v* +*Q*GROUNDWATER/HlT[<O6EN BUDSET DEVELOrED FBO! COKNE"L WALRA5 ST()DV BY GREENMAN-PEDE9SEN INC. ENVIRONMENTAL EC [ENCES DEPAR'. MFN .' ` PROJE[l / HAMLET A7 CJTCH03UE (WITHOUT DEN =) DATE: 6/ 15/88 # UNITS; 16V DATA P7CCISSED` R[SL/L"6 TO FOLLOW 7. 879= mg/] = TCTAL NllROOEN CONCENTRA7I0N ***MESEQE FlLE**� B1 : 2. 215994E+07 Cl : 1 . '.` 5667E+07 - D1 : G7&=D � E1 : 5aOZ479 F1 : 1102 Pt 1477: TN: 31K1 TWNm j . N27204E+08 TNM: A . R29268E+09 ***DA" A SLM|iARY*** PRECTFITiTION; in/yr: 46 PERMEASL[ ACRES: 75. 5 IMPERME�PBLE ACRES: 10. 66 D[UMESTIC- WATER, gpdu: 150 IRRIGATED ACRES: 34 TJRF ACRES, 22 DBNSIT', PER UNIT: 2 ~ UNIT ULMBER VARIATION; DATA PROCESSED; RESULTS TO FOLLOW � UNITZ: 156 7. 77116 mg/l= TOTAL NI7ROGEN CONCENTFATI[/N UNI7 |SJ/1BER VAR [ATlON; DATA PROCESSED: RESULTS TO FOLLOW # UNITQ 152 7. 7104o9 mg/l= TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION ' ' — � APPENDIX F SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE OFFICE .OF TE J Pk:RVISOR TOWN.bF:=SSOC' . LD FRANCIS J. MURPHY ' TELEPHONE SUPERVISOR (516) 765-1800 MAIN ROAD (516) 765-1939 SOUTHOLD, L.I., N.Y. 11971 SYNOPSIS OF PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE for HAMLET MEETINGS JANUARY & FEBRUARY, 1986 -2- List of new districts A-C - Agricultural -Conservation District (Two acre minimum) R-80 - Residential Low Density District (Two acre minimum) R-40 - Residential Low Density District (One acre minimum) R-120 - Residential Low Density District (Three acre minimum) R-200 - Residential Low Density District (Five acre minimum) R-400 - Residential Low Density District (Ten acre minimum) HD - Hamlet Density Residential District RR - Resort Residential District RO - Residential Office District HB - Hamlet Business District LB - Limited Business District B-1 - General Business District M-Rec - Marine Recreation District MB - Marine Business District LIO - Light Industrial Park/Office Park District LI - Light Industrial District -3- Purpose of each District Agricultural-Conservation A-C District Low Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-2009 R-400 Districts Section 100-30. Purpose. The purpose of the Agricultural-Conservation (A-C) District and the Low Density Residential R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts is to reasonably control , and to the extent possible prevent , the unnecessary loss of those currently open lands within the Town containing large and contiguous areas of prime agricultural soils which are the basis for a significant portion of the Town' s economy and those areas with sensitive environmental features including aquifer recharge areas and bluffs. In addition these areas provide the open rural environ- ment so highly valued by year-round residents and those persons who support the Town of Southold' s recreation, resort and second home economy. The economic , social and aesthetic benefits which can be obtained for all citizens by limiting loss of such areas are well documented, and have inspired a host of governmental programs designed, with varying degrees of success, to achieve this result. For its part , the Town is expending large sums of money to protect existing farm acreage: • At the same time, the Town has an obligation to exercise its authority to reasonably regulate the subdivision and development of this land to further the same purposes, while honoring the legitimate interests of farmers and other farmland owners. Low Density Residential R-40 District Section 100-30A. Purpose. The purpose of the Low Density Residential R-40 District is to provide areas for residential development where existing neighbor- hood characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are r:ot predominate objectives. Hamlet Density Residential (HD) District Section 100-40. Purpose The purpose of the Hamlet Density (HD) Residential District is to (1) permit a mix of housing types and level of residential density appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers , particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient and the Village of Greenport and (2) to promote the provision of lower cost housing in these hamlet and village areas, where provision of utilities exists or may be possible and desirable and where Public facilities and commercial activities are available. -4- Resort 4-Resort Residential (RR) District Section 100-50. Purpose. The purpose of the Resort Residential (RR) District is to provide opportunity for waterfront resort development in what are essential low density residential areas at a density and character consistent with surrounding uses. Residential Office (RO) District Section 100-70. Purpose. To provide a transition area between business areas and low density residential development along major roads which will provide oppor- tunity for limited nonresidential uses in essentially residential areas. Limited Business (LB) District Section 100-80. Purpose. The purpose of the Limited Business District (LB) is to provide an opportunity to accomodate limited business activity along high- way corridors, but in areas outside the hamlet central business areas that is consistent with the rural and historic character of surrounding areas and uses. Emphasis will be placed on review of design features so that existing and future uses will not detract from surrounding uses. The additional uses must generate low amounts of traffic and be designed to protect the residential and rural character of the area. Hamlet Business (HB) District Section 100-90. Purpose. The purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business area, including retail , office and service uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and multi-family residential development that will support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area. General Business (B-1) District Section 100-100. Purpose. The purpose of the General Business/Highway Business (B-1) District is to provide for retail and wholesale commercial development and limited office and industrial development outside of the hamlet central business areas, generally along major highways. It is designated to accomodate uses that benefit from large parcels of land, and that may involve characteristics such as heavy trucking and noise. -5- Marine Recreation (M-Rec) District Section 100-110. Purpose. To permit and encourage water-related recreational uses on waterfront properties that are located on inland waterways or creeks. Marine Business (MB) District Section 100-120. Purpose. To provide a waterfront location for a range of water dependent and water related uses which are those uses which require or benefit from direct access to, or location in marine or tidal waters. Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District Section 100-130. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park (LIO) District is to provide opportunity for the location of business and professional offices, research facilities, industrial uses and similar activities in an open , campus-like setting in areas which are not appropriate for commercial activity or low density residential development. In this area such uses can be established in an attractive environment and serve both as a means of preserving the open qualities of an area and providing an area, adjacent to hamlet areas where such uses can be appropriately developed with suitable protection for ground° and water surface waters. All uses must conform to Suffolk County Health Department standards. Light Industrial (LI ) District Section 100-140. Purpose. The purpose of the Light Office (LI ) District is to provide an opportunity for business and industrial uses on smaller lots than would be appropriate for the LIO Light Industrial Park/Planned Office Park District. The Pages to follow are copies of the Table entitled- Summary of Permitted Uses by_Zoning District If SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 80 120 200 400 MD A B RO LB IIB B-1 MRec MB LIO LI nllding, electrlcal or plumbing contractor's business r,r yard P P P ulldings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, School Districts, Park Districts and Fire Districts P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P its or train station P P cntral power and heating plants A A A emetery SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE hlldren's recreation camp SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE old storage plant P ollege SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE onference facilities SE SE SE SE sinking estdbllshment, not including nightclub or other such entertainment establishment SE SE SE SE naim labor camp SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE ,erry terminal SE llsh market, Including wholesale and retail sale of finfish and or shellfish SE SE SE Fish prow ssleg plant SE Food procec,slnq and packaging, except fish processing P P P Fraternal or social office or meeting hall (nonpruflt) SE SE Fully er.cluscJ storage building A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT P - PERMITTED SE - SPECIAL EXCEPTION Iby Planning Board) SE* - SPECIAL EXCEPTION (by Town Boardl A - ACCESSORY RESIDENTIAL COM14ERCIAL INDUSTRIAL R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 80 120 200 400 HD A B RO LB NB B-I HRec MB 1.10 LI Accessory apartment in existing one-family detarhed duelling SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Agriculture (including accessory buildings) P P P P P P P P P P P P Airport, Basic Utility Stage II SE Antique shop, auction gallery, arts and crafts shop and workshop SE P P Apartment over store SE Auditorium, meeting hall P P Automobile laundry SE Bakeshop P P Bank P P Beach club or swim club SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE P P Bed and breakfast SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Boarding house, tourist house SE P P Boat and marine engine repair and sales P SE SE Boat docking facilities for charter boats, sightseeing boats and/or fishing vessels P Boat dock for personal, noncommercial use A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Boatyard, Including boat sales and rentals P SE SE 90 SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT RESIDDITIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 BO 120 700 400 IID A B RO LB NB B-1 MRec MB LIO 1.1 Motor vehicle, mobile home sales room or outdoor sales lol Including rental of equipment SE Multiple dwelling unit, three or more families SE SE SE SE Nursery school SE SE SE SE SE' SE SE SE SE SE SE Nursing hump, proprietary rest home SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Office: business and professional SE SE P P P P One-family detached dwelling P P P P P P P P P P P P P P Open storage pursuant to 5100-IOIC (4) A A A Personal service shop: barbershop, beauty parlor, professional studio, travel agency P P Philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious Institutions SE SE SE SE &E SE SE SE SE SE SE Place of worship, including parish house SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Printing or publishing plant SE SE Private garage or private off-street parking and loading A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Private swimming pool A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Private tennis court A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Public y,irages SE SE Public utility structure or rights-of-way structures or other necessary installations SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDIISTRIA1. R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 80 120 200 400 HD A B PO LB HB B-1 MRec MB LIO LI Funeral home SE SE P Garden houses, greenhouses, tool house pursuant to 5100-31C A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Gasollne service station, partial self service SE Gasoline service station with minor Indoor n Ialr facility SE Greenhouse, plant nursery pursuant to 5100-31A P P P P P P P P P P P P P Home occupation, including home professional office A A A A A A A A A A A A Iluspltal SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE hotel, motel, resort SE SE SE SE SE SE Hotel, motel, transient SE SE SE SE SE SE Inservice training facilities for employees A laundrrmat P P Laundry plant, dry cleaning plant SE SE SE I.ibrary, museum, art gallery SE SE SE P SE Light industrial uses SE SE Maintenance and utility shops A A Mariculture/aquaculture business P Marina A SE P P Membership club, country club, golf club or golf course public, tennis club (nonprofit) SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SF. SE SE Mubile home or house trailer (seasonal) SEA SEA SE* SEA SEA SE" SE" SE" SEA SE' SE" SE* SEA !a* SE* SL" 1 SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL INDITSTRIAL R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 BO 120 200 400 HD A B RO LB 11B B-1 MRec MR (.IO I,I Recreation facility, fully enclosed, commercial SL Recreal: facility for use of employees A Repair garage SE Repair shop for household, business, or Ferscual appliances P P Research design or development laboratory SE SE SE Restaurant, drive-!n, curb service or fast food SE Restaurant (except drive-in) A SE SE SE P P SE SE SE SE Retail sale or rental of fishing, driving or bdlhlr,g supplies or equipment SE SE Retail shop or store (other than those listed hr-rcln) P P Roadside farm stand for sale at retail for farm products grown on the premises P P P P P P P P P P P P SanlLdry facilities and laundry facilities A A A Sauerkraut manufacturing plant SE SE Scheol, elementary or high, private SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Ship's loft or chandlery SE SE Shop for custom work and for making articles to be sold at retail on the premises SE P P S►gnS A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Stable or riding academy SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SUMMARY OF PERMITTED USES BY ZONING DISTRICT RES I DEIIT I AL COtIM EPC I AL INDUSTRIAL R- R- R- R- R- RR- RR- A-C 40 80 120 200, 400. IID A B RO LB 11B B-1 MRec MB 1.10 I.I :;toragc of boat or trailer owned or used by occupant for personal use A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A Stora w- yard SE SE Telepl ne exchange P P P Theater or cinema, other than outdoor P P Tourlst camp SE* SE* SE* Townhouse SE SE SE SE Transportation service, private SE SE SE Truck or bus terminal ---" SE SE Two-family detached dwelling SE SE SE SE SE SE P SE SE SE SE P SE Veterinarlan and/or animal hospital SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Warehouse or storage building P P P Wholesale business, Including lumber and other building products, retail and wholesale boats i P p P Wholesale/retail beverage distribution P lAiolesale/retall nursery and/or sale of plants SE P W1nerles for the production and retail sale of wine from grapes grown on premises and/or in Town of Southold SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE SE Yacht club SE SE P P ADDENDUM 1 COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA ADDENDUM I PROPOSED USE OF 7-ACRE BUSINESS PROPERTY COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA PREPARED FOR: NOCRO, LTD. MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. 325 WEST MAIN STREET BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 OCTOBER 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Location. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Existing Environmental Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Existing Land Use and Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Project Need, Benefits and Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Design and Layout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 LIST OF FIGURES PAGE Figure 1 - Location Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Figure 2 - Property Line Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Figure 3 - Hamlet of Cutchogue Land Use Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Figure 4 - Conceptual Layout Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 INTRODUCTION As requested by the Town of Southold in their review of the proposed development of the Hamlet at Cutchogue senior citizen community, an analysis has been prepared for the possible devel- opment of the 7. 1 acre parcel of land adjacent to and south of the proposed Hamlet of Cutchogue project. Although the applicant has no immediate plans of construction on the parcel, a discussion of a rough concept of development would provide a useful insight to the Town for the future use of this parcel. Title to the above-mentioned proposed senior citizen community was taken by Seacroft, Ltd. on September 1, 1983 . Prior to this, on July 19, 1983 , the Town Board had granted a rezoning application for the site which consists of approximately 46 acres. The -land was rezoned to "M-Light Multiple -Use Zone" . Previously, the Town Board, as a lead agency, under Section 8-0109 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) , stated that the project was "unlisted" and would not have a significant impact on the environment. Concurrently with the purchase of the senior citizen community site, the applicant also took title to a 7. 1 acre piece of property zoned "B-Light Business" . On April 9, 1984, the applicant was given a pre-submission conference with the Planning Board to discuss the senior citizen development. At that conference a plan was presented showing the layout of a proposed shopping plaza on the 7. 1 acre site. The Town felt that the development of the business parcel was -1- connected with the development of the senior citizen community. Subsequently, the Town Board declared itself lead agency and re- quired the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact State- ment. In order to conform to the desire of the Planning Board, an analysis of the possible construction of a Colonial Shopping Plaza for this parcel has been evaluated and is depicted in this report. -2- LOCATION The subject parcel is 310, 347.5 square feet (7 . 13 acres) in area and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of School House Road and Griffing Street in the Hamlet of Cutch- ogue. Refer to Location Map (Figure 1) . The parcel fronts approximately 643 feet of Griffing Street. It also lies adjacent to and south of the proposed senior citizen community, sharing a property line of approximate- ly 162 feet. The site, aside from the previously mentioned pro- perties, is completely surrounded by land owned by the Church of the Sacred Heart. The parcel lies approximately 292 feet north of Main Road (State Road 25) . -3- LOCATION MAP ClIrp- UCK P.S. EAST �(ti fvCftif CUTCHOGUE ( yy CEM. CIJTCHI 19 OGI/E O P — " CEMETERY is TR r 1 ,L o WO C UT 'm O 'U, E 9 FAWN LA N app o Y EpiaRy Pte= o Ltri'"w�t N cc 2 L T ow V� woMINNE i K c QoO © V ooIL � b �1.�(��7r� y�.Y cr EDARS RD S AM-!bioff f: p Q a� o f ccue -- 0 wig°`"�a��'sem Aa w �� �,O Q R - a SpJP�SS E "►►// yco R � � ,L i ap ALO� A W ECM �� RO •� .� •A NEST N „ 1 syFC u NORTH FORK �"t„-A !ot 0 o COUNTRY ' wQ C h _ ^ sl o t Cj• Sr t1 N�^Sesh z CLUB des C m m PROJECT LOCATION EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS Due to its proximity to the proposed "Hamlet at Cutchogue" development, many of the environmental characteristics of the site are similar to that of the proposed senior citizen communi- ty. In summary though: Soils. The site contains two predominant soil types, Haven Loam 0-2 percent slopes and Haven Loam Thick Surface Layer. Both types of soil are described as deep, well drained and medi- um textured. Internal drainage is very good and the hazard of erosion is slight. Tonography. The site is relatively flat with most slopes generally ranging from 1 to 5%. Please refer to Section 3 (Inventory of Existing Environmen- tal Conditions) of the Hamlet at Cutchogue Draft Environmental Impact Statement for information concerning community services, groundwater, wildlife, etc. -5- EXISTING LAND USE AND ZONING The subject parcel of land is currently zoned "B-Light Busi- ness" . As described in Chapter 100 of the current Code of the Town of Southold, the following uses are permitted in a "B-Light Business" district: o Banks o Retail Stores o Restaurants o Bakeshops o Personal service stores and shops Under bulk, area and parking the following requirements per- tain: o The lot area will not be less than one (1) acre and the lot width not less than one hundred fifty (150) feet. o At least • 25% of the lot area shall be landscaped with grass and plantings. o The required front yards shall be not less than thirty five (35) feet. o The required side yards and rear yards shall not be less than twenty-five (25) feet. o Parking shall be provided in off-street parking areas which shall provide one (1) parking space, three hundred fifty (350) square feet in area, for each one hundred (100) square feet of sales floor area. o The total floor area for each retail or service estab- lishment located therein shall not exceed ten thousand (10, 000) square feet. -6- The property is currently vacant and is being used under agreement by the Church of the Sacred Heart for church purposes and for use as a playground for the Sacred Heart Parochial School located to the south of the subject property. Also in- cluded within the subject property is a proposed extension of School House Road located to the north of the site (see Property Line Map, Figure 2) . The extension is 60 feet wide for approxi- mately 300 feet then widens to 80 feet for 100 feet as shown on the map. This extension covers approximately 26, 000 square feet (0. 60 acre) . As described in the license agreement between Leisure Greens, Inc. and the Roman Catholic Church of the Sacred Heart dated the 26th of January, 1982 and adopted by the appli- cant in an assignment of license agreement between Leisure Greens Associates and Seacroft Plaza, Ltd. dated September 15, 1983 , the described agreement between the 'Church of• the Sacred Heart and the applicant shall continue until it is terminated by the applicant giving the Church 60 days written notice after the applicant has constructed a roadway over the property denoted as "proposed extension". The applicant, as dictated by the agree- ment,. shall also construct a six foot high cyclone fence and install buffer landscaping along the common property lines of the subject site and the Church of the Sacred Heart. -7- MAIN ROAD FIGURE 2 cmo 0 �bb�ti N W " ti V68 c M.109�ZZ 01.9 S 4? O�d► p N0 qtr p 0 s � T O N 0• o W W 0. W N ch o a Z Q W � � � z o v N oo' � r � U 04 cb W N a N W W a o o o � � Z _ N ,9ti'loE _ N .oc'oo l a 0 �%"',HOOL HOUSE RD. ,Zo'09 PROPOSED EXTENSI 0 1.,99L ti•Z - __ ON c ��OZ.SS oZS S 3--OZ-SS oZS N I 69'LEZ 3��OZ,SS oZS N 3 W mo W W cv)o O = PROPOSED "HAMLET AT ro CUTCHOGUE" COMMUNITY m� i Z = N PROJECT NEED, BENEFITS AND OBJECTIVES As explained in the Master Plan Update Summary for the Town of Southold prepared by Raymond, Parish, Pine and Weiner, Inc. April, 1985, "a statement of what the Town considers to be its long range goals and the desirable types and patterns of develop- ment appropriate to achieve those goalsuis essential. As part of the master plan update, each of the four major hamlets of the Town of Southold, including Cutchogue, were examined in depth concerning the existing and future conditions of development, vacant land, parking and traffic patterns, natural and environ- mental features, and historic areas. Also derived in the Master Plan Update were Hamlet Land Use Plans that were designed to: o Maintain the hamlet as a community focal point and an activity center. o Strengthen the existing retail and service commercial uses in the hamlet centers. o Provide adequate parking for commercial and public uses. o Provide for a range of housing for younger and older res- idents with a range of income levels within the hamlet areas, with higher densities near the center and lower density in outlying areas. o Recognize that transition areas exist between the hamlet business areas and outlying residential areas. o Provide for some auto-oriented, general commercial uses at the outer edge of the hamlet to complement hamlet cen- ter commercial uses. -9- o Where appropriate, provide areas of sufficient size to establish office parks or light industrial parks to of- fer opportunities for expanded economic development with- in the Town. o Provide areas for recreation activities as well as open space areas for passive recreation opportunities and for protection of environmental features. o Suggest road improvements where desirable for smoother traffic flow within the hamlet and/or the Town. o Preserve agricultural use of land where prime soils ex- ist and a sufficient number of contiguous parcels have remained in farming activities to maintain the viability of agriculture in relative proximity to the hamlet cen- ter. o Protect the quality of ground and surface waters and nat- ural environmental features. As shown on the Hamlet of Cutchogue Land Use Plan, Figure 3, the subject property's proposed zoning is Hamlet Business. As explained in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact State- ment on Proposed Local Law of 1987 Amending the Town of Southold Zoning Ordinance (accepted by the Town Board, March 8, 1988) : The purpose of the Hamlet Business (HB) District is to provide for business development in the hamlet central business areas, including retail, office, and services uses, public and semi-public uses, as well as hotel and motel and Multi-family residential development that will -10- • •*of • `_ 1 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • :X. 00 • /yw to It • . .•••• • i , •...... •:. •,• • .f • • • ••; ...USE��• ;: ___'-�'----- • ••• :.�••' ::�:' ••SC .�. �� \\ — ••., , •, •v • • •1�•,•�• •1 • 4-11 I • • .... • • • • : • •• • • • • • • •�.i•• � cW \ 1.+•i L' ' :ate:::;:;:; up IL •`� •,•• • j :° K • • • •••�••� •�••• : � �•0•t • •• • _ •i��i�z •�•.rte••: • ••r to i t �i� • •• •:ik •• :•: 00• , •A;• •� •:: • ••• •� •ASF.. • • : � ..•• ••••• ,: • • ►•• • p • • • •dog i414 •, �••Xr • •• •° • 7 •••i�•• �• .�A '•�OIC♦ • •:• • • t•• • i .Y •• OOf• • : • L�• A.t•.q•• 1 • • • . .• i•:Y:. . ih•!a�!•• - '•' : ' °•sem/ ��11 •may + ::. �1 �; �1'� • AgioA gal ••• Hamlet Density Recreation General &ainess L13Conservation l4 D.U./acre) "n .�.•.����•,. Residential LOW Density Residential/Office s Open Space PLUic Parking Area C (1 D.UJ2 acres) : �o Residential Low Density m • 0 D.UJacre) Hamlet Business_ ..=` School W support and enhance the retail development and provide a focus for the hamlet area. The Hamlet Business (HB) District is a modified version of the present B-Light Business zone. It allows busi- ness, office, specialty and residential uses at higher densities provided utilities are available in the hamlet centers. The development of this parcel as a commercial retail area is not only consistent with both the current zoning law and the proposed zoning law, but as explained in the Draft Master Plan of the Town, essential in the proper growth of Cutchogue for years to come. -12- DESIGN AND LAYOUT As explained earlier in this analysis, the applicant has no immediate plans in developing this parcel. But in light of the Town's request, the proposed development scenario to be described does mirror the most appealing and realistic plan for this parcel of property. Under current zoning regulations, the 7. 1 acre site could yield a retail store floor area of approximately 30, 000 to 33 , 000 square feet. Under the proposed Hamlet Density Zoning the possible retail floor area could increase even greater. The decided upon scenario would be to develop a 22, 000 SF Colonial Shopping Plaza where customers may walk from store to store (i.e. bank, bakery, arts and crafts and hardware stores) . (See Figure 4.); the number of retail spaces will range in size as reasonably dictated - by the tenants and will be clustered to the north of the subject site. The architecture of the build- ings will be consistent to that of the proposed Hamlet at Cut- chogue senior citizen community adjacent to the north. The conceptual layout will include sitting areas, landscaped areas, and other amenities to create a Colonial Village-like feeling. Realizing the dire need of parking within the Hamlet area, any proposal would contain provisions to construct at least 325 parking stalls on the southern portion of the site. Included within these 325 parking stalls are the required 220 stalls needed by the development of the Colonial Shopping Plaza (1 stall per 100 SF of retail) and also 105 stalls that may be used -13- S FIGURE 4 o i\ I = v 00 ! O cr) Z GRIFFING STREET —— —— —— —— 292.20' O PROPOSED HAMLET - Q AT CUTCHOGUE DEVELOPMENT ,��'� PROPOSED PARKING FOR PROPOSED /+ COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA COLONIAL SHOPPING PLA2- 4 - I AND FOR TOWN SHOPPING I �1{ I STIR 1NTOR1S71TZOR CHURCH OF THE � �� Zoning: 8 Light Business District PROPOSED SACRED HEART AE�IIIRLD `� Total Site Area >43,560 sr 217,800 SF r Total Floor Area for each Retail Sstablishaent }0.000 SF 1,500 sr Percent Lot Coverage 75i Mrxiana>• Front Yard Setback 35 rt Rear Yard Setback 25 rt / Side Yard Setback 25 Ft Total Parking Spaces eased on 1 spreeSP of Total Floor Area 220 325 CHURCH OF THE SQ,G CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT 7-ACRE PARCEL i GREENMAN-PEDERSEN,INC CDNSULTINC FNGINEFps !Af TlLCA NtN T'pe as parking for other shopping activities within the Hamlet of Cutchogue; these parking stalls would be dedicated to the Town of Southold for public use. A conceptual breakdown of the proposed site is as follows: Acres 0 26, 000 SF Roadway Extension 0.6 0 22, 000 SF Colonial Shopping Plaza on 2 . 0 acres 2 . 0 0 82,800 SF of landscaping (25% required) 1.9 0 325 parking stalls x 350 SF per stall = 113,740 SF 2 .6 7.1 This conceptual development will be benefited by and will benefit the proposed adjacent Hamlet at Cutchogue community. It will be a relatively short walk (maximum distance: 1/4 mile) for residents of the Hamlet at Cutchogue and also a meeting place for seniors to get a bite to eat, pick up a newspaper, or talk to friends. The layout is also beneficial to the local com- munity as it will give the area a focus and a Village-like feel- ing and also reduce the severe parking problems currently affect- ing Cutchogue. But above all, the Colonial Shopping Plaza is within all zoning requirements, is consistent with all land use plans for the Town, and is a seemingly needed resource for the community. -15- ADDENDUM 2 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY 1 ADDENDUM II TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED FOR: NOC RO, LTD. MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK PREPARED BY: GREENMAN-PEDERSEN, INC. 325 WEST MAIN STREET BABYLON, NEW YORK 11702 OCTOBER 1988 TABLE OF CONTENTS P_va,ge Table of Contents.,.,,,.**.... i List of Figures................ .. ......... ............................... ii List of Tables............. ............... .....000.. ........0.00....00. .. ii INTRODUCTION............................... .............................. 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS...................................................... 3 o Roadways.......................................................00 3 o Land Use. .........................•.............................. 4 o Traffic Volumes...................0.........00......00..........0 4 STUDY PROCEDURE...o.o...o..00.00i......0000. —o..000..00.....—oo.00.000 5 o Sight Distance......... .................... ........ .. ............ 5 STUDY FACTORS................ ............. ............................... 8 o Trip Genera t ion.0.0.0.0...0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0 0•.. ..•.•.0 0 0 0 0..0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0. 8' o Trip Distribution and Assignment. ................................ 9 CAPACITY ANALYSIS............ ............................................ 11 RECOMMENDATIONS.............. ....... ........ ..................... ........ 18 CONCLUS IONS....0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0....0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0....0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0.0 0 0.0.•0 0. 19 APPENDIX A - Turning Movement Count Data APPENDIX B - Level of Service Tables and Printouts i LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Description Page 1 Location Map 2 2 1990 No Build Traffic Volumes 6 3 Trip Distribution (Percentages) 10 4 1990 Build Traffic Volumes (without Colonial 15 Shopping Plaza) 5 1990 Build Traffic Volumes (with Colonial 16 Shopping Plaza) LIST OF TABLES Table No. Description Page 1 Definitions of Levels of Service - Unsignalized 12 2 Definitions of Levels of Service - Signalized 13 3 Overall Levels of Service 17 ii THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK TRAFFIC STUDY INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to investigate the traffic impacts asso- ciated with the proposed construction of a retirement village to be located on Griffing Street north of School House Lane in Cutchogue. The development will consist of 160 units, and will be situated on a 46.16 acre site west of Depot Lane and south of County Road 48. A location map, Figure 1, is provided for reference. In addition to the proposed development, the Town of Southold requested that the report also consider the construction of a Colonial Shopping Plaza on a 7.1 acre site southwest of the retirement village. Therefore, for compari- son purposes only, this study assesses the impacts of the proposed development both with and without the construction of the Colonial Shopping Plaza. The site plan specifies a single access driveway with a landscaped is- land, which would extend to Griffing Street. Our assessment has determined: o The existing traffic conditions at the unsignalized intersections of State Route 25 (Main Street) at Griffing Street and County Road 48 at Depot Lane, as well as the signalized intersection of State Route 25 at New Suffolk Road. o The impacts on the capacity and level of service of the study inter- sections due to the proposed development. In performing our evaluation, we had available a copy of the site plan dated 1984. In addition, turning movement counts were taken at the intersec- tions of State Route 25 at Griffing Street, CR 48 at Depot Lane and SR 25 at New Suffolk Road. -1- 41 w _• - v, _ 1. .' f4.`�-.L� _ . - _• �.RlA4 i�4 i:-rr. �. t_ �I;;:- QOLDSMlTM'S `^ - *`F'u; ' INLET PARK' Duck Fond Ft L=. f O i p. �S`pND P E C O N I C I 6 REGON 11958 0 T H 0 o CUT;Nogua STA. 9 1 PROJ T EI1ST Ti1TUCK v EAST M 1 CUTCNOGUE 119 3 5 • ..�.s ,. C U C 1%' t� � • � Ile n •Yw�� Y eta Csw t � � 9 1 MOWN }x • w arsh Pt • , t coumrnr +s 1 0 AIRPORT b U aN curcHOGUE Z HARBOR'Law owmi6e;r w Xarratooka Pt " wunn.— .. and Gr"nmen-Pedwam .,-,,., HAMLET HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE C OM.YlTINO. gp' LOCATION MAP 3,1..•41 me..h.••1 DAAWMG ND. SCALE DATE •""•� "' ,, of 87398 N. S. OCT.'88 1 FIG. ! —2— EXISTING CONDITIONS • Roadways State Route 25 (Main Street), south of the project site, is a two-lane roadway with parking lanes provided along both the north and south sides. The actual lane widths vary within the range of 11 to 17 feet. The parking lanes are nine feet wide and exist primarily in the vicinity of the intersection of New Suffolk Road and SR 25. The roadway is curbed and there are existing con- crete sidewalks along the north and south sides. The speed limit on SR 25 is posted at 35 mph in the vicinity of the site. New Suffolk Road, south of the project site, is a 32-foot wide two lane roadway without shoulders. Its intersection with SR 25 is controlled by a three phase actuated signal, with a turn phase for westbound lefts. The speed limit along New Suffolk Road is posted at 35 mph. Griffing Street, south of the project site, is 55 feet wide, and its intersection with SR 25 is controlled by a stop sign. It has curbs as well as an eight foot wide grass median that extends from the intersection at SR 25 to a point 185 feet north. Parking along Griffing Street is common and unre- stricted. County Road 48 is located approximately one mile north of the project access driveway. It is a four lane roadway with shoulders but no curbs. The lanes are 12 feet wide, while the shoulders range from 10 to 16 feet in width. A 25 foot wide grass median separates the eastbound and westbound traffic. The eastbound and westbound lane geometry on CR 48, approaching the intersection with Depot Lane, includes two thru lanes, a left turn lane and a right turn lane. The speed limit posted along CR 48 is 55 mph. Depot Lane, east of the project site, is a 34 foot wide two lane roadway without shoulders. Its intersection with CR 48 is controlled both by stop signs and a flashing signal. -3- • Land Use Land use in the vicinity of the project site is mixed; however, north, east and west of the project site low density residential and farm lands pre- dominate. A school and several residences exist along School House Road. South of the project site, along Griffing Street, there are some small shops as well as a US Post Office. Along SR 25, south of the project site, the land usage is primarily commercial with scattered private residences. • Traffic Volumes In order to assess the impacts of the proposed development, manual traf- fic counts were obtained at key intersections in the vicinity of the project site. Previous counts conducted in the area indicated that peak volumes of traffic occur between 11:00 AM-12:00 noon and 4:00 PM-5:00 PM on weekdays, and between 11:00 AM-12:00 noon on Saturdays. These peak hours can be attributed to such influences as seasonal residents, rush hour traffic, and local ferry traffic. Based on this information, turning movement counts were performed at the key intersections of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road, SR 25 at Griffing Street and CR 48 at Depot Lane on Friday, July 15, 1988 and Saturday, July 23, 1988 during these peak periods. These turning movement count sheets may be found in Appendix A. Based upon these counts, it was determined that the weekday PM peak period (4-5 PM) and the Saturday midday period (11-12N) were the critical intervals for this analysis. -4- STUDY PROCEDURE The proposed development will contain a total of 160 residential units. The site plan calls for a single two-way access driveway, which will extend north from Griffing Street to the project site. The driveway in the vicinity of Griffing Street will have a large median island separating the two direc- tions of travel. The year 1990 was selected as the future design year for this analysis . A two and one half percent per year growth rate factor was assumed for the project area. This factor was applied to the existing traffic volumes to obtain a 1990 No-Build condition. A no-build condition means the proposed project is not yet constructed. The projected 1990 No-Build volumes are shown in Figure 2. The impact of the proposed development was assessed by superimposing the estimated trips generated by the site onto the projected 1990 No-Build traffic volumes for the same weekday PM peak and Saturday midday periods. o Sight Distance Sight distance is defined as the distance along a highway for which a vehicle or other object is continuously visible in daylight under normal atmo- spheric conditions. Sight distance is of particular importance at unsignal- ized intersections where restricted or limited visibility can hamper traffic flow and impact traffic safety. Accordingly, stop line sight distances were evaluated at the two unsig- nalized study intersections. At the four-way intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane, a field check of the existing sight distances revealed excellent visi- bility in all directions. It was noted, however, that in the future some tree trimming may be necessary in the southwest corner of the intersection in order to maintain good visibility for the ftorthbound Depot Lane approach. -5- ti ROUTE 48 40� P.M. 4-320 J SAT. r.347) 35 (SAT.) rob I-_ (56) ro2� O W 0 SCHOOL HOUSE LA. z U. is ROUTE 25 G 391 X42 —J 637_.,,. P.M. 8i9 U. 555 P.M. 429 (SAT.) C 4) ? Cro3�>♦ (SAT.) (//,e� 53 //8 Z GrNnmen•Peft— HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE CON•Y�11M0.NOIN°.N° 9p* 1990 NO-BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 321 DRAWING ND. SCALE DATE 87398 N.T.S. JOCT.'881 FIG. 2 -6- At the intersection of SR 25 and Griffing Street, the latter roadway "T"'s into SR 25. The sight distance from southbound Griffing Street to the west is excellent. To the east, however, the sight distance is approximately 200 feet, which is limited for the posted speed of 35 mph. The sight distance in this direction is restricted by the existing on-street parking along the north side of SR 25. Visual observations indicate, however, that most vehi- cles travelling along SR 25 cannot attain the posted speed of 35 mph due to the side friction in the area generated by the parked vehicles, parking maneu- vers and pedestrian activity. In addition, the proximity of the traffic sig- nal at the intersection of SR 25 and New Suffolk Road helps to reduce vehicu- lar speeds in the area. -7- STUDY FACTORS In order to estimate the traffic generated by the proposed development and to predict the routes taken by these vehicles, the following tasks were performed. o Trip Generation The trips generated by the proposed development were estimated based upon data contained in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (1987). As noted previous- ly, since the weekday midday peak hour is generally not the critical period, the trips were developed for the weekday PM peak and Saturday midday periods only. Based upon the proposed residential use of 160 units (Land Use Code 230) , the estimated trips are as follows: PM PERIOD Residential Units: Fitted Curve: Ln (T) = 0.84 Ln (X) + 0.27 X = 160 units T = 93 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 67% enter, 33% exit Trips: Entering 62 Exiting = 31 SATURDAY PERIOD Residential Units: Fitted Curve: T = 0.29 (X) + 43 X = 160 units T = 89 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 54% enter, 46% exit Trips: Entering 48 Exiting 41 As stated previously, the Town of Southold requested that this study con- sider the development of a Colonial Shopping Plaza on an adjacent parcel. Current zoning would permit a center of 33,000 SF to be built on the site; however, the proposed center is smaller in size at 22,000 SF. The estimated trips for this Colonial Shopping Plaza (Land Use Code 820) are as follows: -8- PM PERIOD Retail: Fitted Curve: Ln (T) - 0.52 Ln (X) + 4.04 X - 22.0KSF T - 284 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 49% enter, 51% exit Trips: Entering 139 Exiting 145 SATURDAY PERIOD Retail: Fitted Curve: Ln (T) - 0.62 Ln (X) + 3.97 X - 22.0 KSF T - 360 vehicle trips Directional Distribution: 51% enter, 49% exit Trips: Entering - 184 Exiting - 176 The following table compares the estimated trips generated by each of the two scenarios for both of the peak periods. WEEKDAY PM SATURDAY SCENARIO LAND USE ENTER EXIT ENTER EXIT I - Proposed Project Resid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 II - Proposed Project Resid. - 160 units 62 31 48 41 with Colonial Retail - 22,000 SF 139 145 184 176 Shopping Plaza TOTAL: 201 176 232 217 o Trip Distribution and Assignment The assignment of the generated traffic volumes among the various road- ways was based upon the existing trip patterns determined from the manual turning movement counts at the study intersections. The directional trip distribution used was: 43% utilizing CR 48 via Depot Lane, 27% from the east on SR 25, and 30% from the west on SR 25. The resulting entering and exiting trip assignment percentages for the proposed project are shown in Figure 3, Trip Distribution (Percentages). -9- 23_% 20% ROUTE 48 PROJECT SITE N N d J O W O 0 1; SCHOOL HOUSE LA-. 43% cq 70% 209'° � ---- ° (3 1 N LL o O o 0 c") r" N ROUTE 25 R---- 30% 79'a G 7% 27% Y J LEGEND OU. U. m ► LEAVING SITE N 3 ----► ARRIVING SITE W 2 corw�nww.wwuUlww HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE TRIP 9DISTRIBUTION (PERCENTAGES) 326 r•u ru.tv••r lwer398 NO. SCALE DATE w' "'°' N.T.S. OCT.'88 FiG. 3 -lU- CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection capacity analysis is an analytical tool which gives an ap- proximation of traffic conditions based on traffic volumes, roadway geometry, and signal phasing. Because of all the variables involved and other field conditions peculiar to a particular intersection, capacity analysis serves as a guide to the ability of an intersection to handle a given volume of traf- fic. Although not a precise science, this empirical method is useful in pre- dicting traffic conditions and quality of operation. Intersection capacity was developed using the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) Method for both signalized and unsignalized intersections. The methodology of the manual addresses two concepts to evaluate the traffic flow conditions at a particular intersection. The first is capacity, which results in computation of volume to capacity (V/C) ratios. This ratio relates existing or projected intersection traffic volumes to the volume at capacity. V/C ratios for individual movements and a composite V/C ratio (Xc) for the sum of critical movements or lane groups within the intersection are calculated under the manual procedures. The threshold capacity of V/C ratios is 1.0. The second concept is level of service which is based upon the aver- age stopped delay per vehicle for various movements within the intersection. Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time and is dependent upon a number of variables. These variables include the quality of signal progression, cycle lengths, the green/cycle ratio, and the V/C ratio for the lane group or approach in question. Descrip- tions of the various levels of service are presented in Tables 1 and 2 for unsignalized and signalized intersections, respectively. -11- TABLE 1 1985 RCM LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR DNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS The levels of service for an unsignalized intersection are given in terms of reserve capacity, in vehicles per hour for individual approaches, and general delay criteria. EXPECTED DELAY TO MINOR RESERVE CAPACITY LEVEL OF SERVICE STREET TRAFFIC Equal to or A Little or no delay more than 400 300 to 399 B Short traffic delay 200 to 299 C Average traffic delays 100 to 199 D Long traffic delays 0 to 99 E Very long traffic delays Reserve Capacity: Reserve or unused capacity of a lane in passenger cars per hour. =12- TABLE 2 1985 BCM LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS LEVEL-OF-SERVICE A describes operations with very low delay, A i.e., less than 5.0 sec per vehicle. Thin occurs when progres- sion is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE B describes operations with delay in the range B of 5.1 to 15.0 sec per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE C describes operations with delay in the range of 15.1 to 25.0 sec - per vehicle. These higher delays may C result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stop- ping. , LEVEL-OF-SERVICE D describes operations with delay in the range of 25.1 to 40.0 sec per vehicle: At level D, the influence of D congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high We ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the pro- portion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable. , LEVEL-OF-SERVICE E describes operations with delay in the range E of 40.1 to 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high We ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. LEVEL-OF-SERVICE F describes operations with delay in excess of 60.0 sec per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to F most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, ie., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the inter- section. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. -13- The three study intersections were analyzed for the weekday PM peak and Saturday midday peak periods for the year 1990 under the following conditions: without the proposed development (1990 No Build), with the proposed develop- ment (1990 Build), and with the proposed development and a Colonial Shopping Plaza (1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza). The 1990 No-Build volumes for the study intersections were shown previously in Figure 2. Figures 4 and 5 show the 1990 Build and 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza volumes, respectively. The results of the capacity analyses are presented in Tables B-1, B-2 and B-3 in Appendix B. A summary of the overall level of service for each of the intersections is shown in Table 3 on the following page. It can be seen from the table that the overall levels of service for the study intersections under the 1990 No Build condition are good, except for the intersection of SR 25 at Griffing Street, where the southbound left turn move- ment from Griffing Street will operate at a level of service E during both peak periods. A comparison of the overall levels of service experienced by the study intersections under the 1990 No Build condition and the 1990 Build condition indicates the impact of the proposed development will be minimal, with the overall intersection levels of service identical for both conditions: As requested by the Town of Southold, the 1990 Build with Colonial Shop- ping Plaza condition was then compared to the 1990 No Build condition. Again, the levels of service will remain the same as those of the 1990 No Build cond- ition for the intersections of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road and SR 25 at Griffing Street. At the intersection of CR 48 and Depot Lane, however, the PM peak period level of service drops from a C to a D, and for Saturday, from a D to an E. These results indicate that the impact of the proposed development with the Colonial Shopping Plaza would be minor at the intersections of Route 25 at New Suffolk Road and Griffing Street, as no changes in level of service would occur. Some impact will be experienced at the Route 48 intersection with Depot Lane as a one level drop in service will occur. -14- ti ROUTE 48 PROJECT SITE •r 11` <s� yrs . 40& _ P.M. 320 <549 {SAT.) <3 7) (67) C�2) H O a o SCHOOL HOUSE LA. w U. 0 ROUTE 25 �.I G 561 X42(49) 85 J 637 P.M. 1347 0 557 _ P.M. 429 (�i5� (SAT.) X554) ? «ao) (SAT.) X59°) 53 � (40) --4 w w Z GmenmAn•Pedsom HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE co..wu.wo.ro.wuwo • 1990 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES gp , (WITHOUT CPL ONIIAL SHOPPING Ot•Wn r...sv••. DNAWMG NO. SCALE DATE .1 "'°= 87'398 N.T.S. OCT.'88 FIG. 4 -15- y ROUTE 48 ` PROJECT SITE rrrrJJ 11` 406 P.M. azo Q 157 (SAI.) r 4) .� 81 /08 � (L SCHOOL HOUSE LA. 0 COLONIAL u- SHOPPING M PLAZA ROUTE 25 ) (8 .6337P.M. 4759 U- 567 P.M. 429 (SAT.) �1s5¢) = (65 2 (SAT.) d(5?80) r40>1, LLJ 3 0� Z Greenman•Peftrsen HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE cDw°uinwa aww�wuww • 1998 BUILD TRAFFIC VOLUMES 9p (WITH COLONIAL SHOPPING 726 W.91 Ypn°uw DRAW Rq NO. SCALE DATE 87398 N.T.S. OCT7 8 FIG. 5 -16- TABLE 3 OVERALL LEVELS OF SERVICE THE HAMLET AT CUTCHOGUE GPI JOB NO. 87398 WEEKDAY PM SATURDAY INTERSECTION CONDITION LOS Xc LOS Xc State Route 25 at 1990 No-Build B 0.70 C 0.88 New Suffolk Road 1990 Build B 0.70 C 0.88 1990 Build (with Colonial B 0.70 C 0.88 Shopping Plaza) State Route 25 at 1990 No-Build E -- E -- Griffing Street 1990 Build E -- E -- 1990 Build (with Colonial E -- E -- Shopping Plaza) County Road 48 at 1990•No-Build C -- -- Depot Lane 1990 Build C -- D -- 1990 Build (with Colonial D -- E -- Shopping Plaza) Key: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to capacity ratio of the critical lane group. Note: All "Build" capacity runs were performed by optimizing the signal tim- ing at these locations. -17- RECOMMBNOATIONS As illustrated in Table 3, the signalized intersection of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road and the unsignalized intersection of SR 25 at Griffing Street will not suffer any significant negative impacts under either of the 1990 Build conditions. The remaining unsignalized intersection of CR 48 at Depot Lane, however, will experience a reduction in level of service under the 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza condition. An examination of the levels of service in Table 3 shows that the signal- ized intersection of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road will experience the same level of service (B) for all three conditions during the PM peak period and a level of service (C) for all three conditions during the Saturday peak period. Similarly, the unsignalized intersection of SR 25 at New Suffolk Road experi- ences the same level of service (E) for all three conditions during both the PM and Saturday peak periods. In other words, the proposed development, both- with -and oth-with •and without the Colonial Shopping Plaza, will not significantly impact the future operation of these intersections. It should be noted that field observations indicate queuing vehicles eastbound on SR 25 at the nearby inter section of New Suffolk Road often extend westward beyond the intersection with Griffing Street. These queuing vehicles frequently create gaps to allow left turning vehicles from Griffing Street to enter the traffic stream on SR 25. The unsignalized intersection of CR 48 at Depot Lane will also experience no change in level of service from the 1990 No-Build to the 1990 Build condi- tion. For the 1990 Build with Colonial Shopping Plaza condition, however, the overall intersection level of service during the PM peak period will drop from a C to a D, while during the Saturday peak period the overall intersection level of service drops from a D to an E. -18- CONCLUSIONS The following key statements summarize this study: o The project site is on a 46.16 acre site extending off of Griffing Street north of SR 25 (Main Street) and west of Depot Lane. The pro- posed site consists of 160 residential units with a single access driveway to Griffing Street. o Turning movement counts were taken at the intersections of SR 25 at Griffing Street, SR 25 at New Suffolk Road, and CR 48 at Depot Lane f rom 11 AM-12 PM and 4 PM-5 PM on a weekday and from 11 AM-12 PM on a Saturday. The two peak periods selected for analysis were the weekday PM (4-5 PM) and the Saturday midday (11 AM-12 PM) intervals. These volumes were then expanded to the design year of 1990 by the applica- tion of a growth rate factor of two and one half percent per year. o The vehicle trips were distributed on the roadway network based upon the existing trip patterns from the manual turning movement counts at ~ the study intersections. o Although the existing stop line sight distance to the east at the intersection of SR 25 and Griffing Street is considered to be re- stricted for the posted speed limit of 35 mph, visual observations indicate that vehicles travelling on SR 25 frequently cannot attain the posted speed limit due to the occurrence of on-street parking maneuvers. Since vehicle speeds are directly related to the sight distance classifications, it is possible that the measured sight dis- tances may not be restrictive for the actual vehicle speeds along SR 25. -19- o The construction of either the proposed development or the proposed development with the Colonial Shopping Plaza will not significantly affect the future operation of any of the three intersections analyzed in this study. -20- APPENDIX A TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT DATA Tom° �noo�000�oo ,.�e����maai�nmmer��veoe �e��eeoee���e�e�oeevo� �v�■���e��ee��e�aevee� �a�aoaome��m�o�0veo■e� Greenman - Pederson, Inc. CONSULTING 114GINGERS 100 West Mew Street.VMvion. L I Now Yw% 11 702 �noo000oon�mmm�� �o�e�onA��mo�oso�� x�a����Am�mmeoosa0� MEM Moo Eno=� e v' �ot�Talr �l7V� Z� A rlE btu�tF�oG r Greenman-Pedersen, Associates, P.C. CONSULTING ENGINEERS Cowry Si�Ff�'LK 100 Wtst Main Street. Babylon, L.I . New York 11702 oaT• JbL y ��Y f II T r T • TITS �AOr��� r TONT (eeman saw) SUMMARY �T e N 4 s 3 7 ME TOTAL TO TITAL TOTALI ITOTAL AMo I 2 s 1-2-3 4 s a 4-s_6 7 0 9 7-a-!L 10 I I I l 12 L10�11_QTAL 4� ��S5 - M Y11PNIZ 1 9 II338�6 415 —'. 11041 )-3_t/37j-3[-5 4.v us i► 176 , ?4 C 37. 109 - 14lz - - - - iz 40 SW 1 Z41 6S' 9 _LZ_ � -47 O 70 to 6 32 1-0 379 37 104 16? 4 11.2 409 _ 6 — — — = – 126; i9 F I : 4,y 3E; - L - - oJ.CONSU:LTING ENGINEERS r�aon�000�oop�mmm�� ..MAMemmommmommmmm- Mon � " Man= mommomm mom= mmmommommomm Mon�� momm mmm mmmmmmmmm mommmommmommmmmmm mmmmmmmommmommomm mommmmommmmmmmmom mmommmmmmommmmmom mmmommommommmommm 110mmommommmmommmom mommmmommommmommm mommmmmmmommmom mmommmommmmmmom m mmommmmmmmommmomm 10 tea �000�oo��oo��mmm�e� �e�omonv�mmsosso�� �sos�oso�se�oomnnso� �em��s���mmemeoeo� �ema�=mom mommoommmmomm sea��m��emov� mmommom mom mommomommoommoommmom mr =mom mom mmommoom mmmmmoommoommomomm momommmmmmoommmmmm mmommomommoommomm mi�i�iiiiiiiiiiiii LOCATION PM r/TF 2'S 0 XfW St b41�' Greenman-Pedersen, Associates, P.C. MUNICI.ALTTT if(.T'ObAg e CONSULTING EN GINEERS COUNT 100 West Main Street. Babylon, L 1 , New York 11702 OATS 7-2 9 rime J' A Y TO_ LZ gr 1 Y T T (IIIOICATt DAY) SUMMARY g i 4 2 g w o TIMETOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 1 2 3 1-2-3 + s 8 4-3-8 7 8.. 9 748-9 10 II 12 10-11-Q TOT 11 15] s 15- — 57 o 30 1 -- Z 4 1,51 _' /,�,� — —— 1431- 17 1x5 — X47 S 152 ' S 2S 3 124 IZI — i 0 — = I -t M-100 — / 7A ,o le !I 14 — Z7 41 6 31 140 — 171 J 7arAL — 607 3 a 164,5147 — II 16 113 562 — 6�5 ] — — — — 14e61 P/r� 1486 F4y407 Greenman-Pedersen. Associates, P.C. CONSULTING EN GIN EERS 100 West main Street. Babylom. L I Now York 11702 irk;- h MAA �000�000�ooia�mmm�� MOM u���ne�ooeeersnn�anom MEMagnrme�eeeoennmm- mmm": � sMM" MMMMLM Mon=MEMOMMEEMOMEMEMEMM� Mon r�eeeeeMrnrAMMemm� mommmmmmmommmmmmmm rmmmm mmmw-rlmmmmmmmm MEMOMMEMMOMMMEMMMM MOMEMMEEMMEEMEMEM MEMOMMEEMMMEMEMEMM MEMMMMEMMMMEMEMOM MEMOMMEMMMMMMEMOMM MEMOMMEMMMMEMEMEM MEMEMMEEMOMEMEMEMii �000�000�000�m0m�� MMMMMMW MMMM- � APPENDIX B LEVEL OF SERVICE TABLES AND PRINTOUTS TABLE B-1 1990 NO-BUILD INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL LOS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 PM C -- C -- -- -- -- B B B B -- (B/0.70) at Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT D D -- -- -- B B B B (C/0.88) State Route 25 PM -- -- -- E -- A A A -- -- A A E at Unsignalized* Griffing Street SAT -- -- -- E -- A A A -- -- A A E CR 48 PM BB B C C C A A A A A A C at Unsignalized* De po t Lane SAT C C C D D D 11 A A A B B B D * The capacity of this unsignalized intersection was determined by utilizing the 1985 HCM method for unsignalized locations. The movements typically examined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road, and the left, thru and right turns from the side street. The thru movements on the major road would theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. TABLE B-2 1990 BUILD (WITHOUT COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA) INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL LOS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 PM C -- C -- -- -- -- B B B B -- (B/0.70) at Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT D -- D -- -- -- -- B B B B -- (C/0.88) State Route 25 PM -- -- -- E -- A A A -- -- A A E at Unsignalized* Griffing Street SAT -- -- -- E -- A A A -- -- A A E CR 48 PM C C C C C C A A A A A A C at Unsignalized* De po t Lane SAT D D D D D D A A A B B B D * The capacity of this unsignalized intersection was determined by utilizing the 1985 HCM method for unsignalized locations. The movements typically examined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road, and the left, thru and right turns from the side street. The thru movements on the major road would theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service — based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. I TABLE -B 3 1990 BUILD (WITH COLONIAL SHOPPING PLAZA) INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE INTERSECTION PEAK NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND OVERALL LOS INTERSECTION CONTROL HOUR qD THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT LEFT THRU RIGHT (LOS/Xc) State Route 25 PM -- C -- -- -- -- B B B B -- (B/0.70) at Signalized New Suffolk Road SAT -- D -- -- -- -- B B B B -- (C/0.88) State Route 25 PM -- -- E A A A -- A A E at Unsignalized* Griffing Street SAT -- -- -- E -- A A A -- -- A A E CR 48 PM C C C D D D A A A A A A D at Unsignalized* Depot Lane SAT E FE E E E E 11 A FF A I C C C E * The capacity of this unsignalized intersection was determined. by utilizing the 1985 HCM method for unsignalized locations. The movements typically examined in these analyses are the left turns from the major road, and the left, thru and right turns from the side street. The thru movements on the major road would theoretically operate at LOS A. KEY: LOS: Level of Service - based upon the average stopped delay per vehicle. Xc: Volume to Capacity ratio of the critical lane groups. 1 9 8 5 H C M : S 2 GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=ON S 1 P O LYT E C HN=C UN 2 V E R S =TY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBSUFPM A ) C A P AC =TY AND L EVE L (:)F" S ERV 2 C E - -- - - - - ---- ---- - -- - ----- - -- - - BY -- - - - - ---- ---- - -- - ----- - -- - -BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS ------ ----- ----- ---- ----- --------- --- -------- --------- --- EB TR .47 934 .7 6.5 B EB 6.5 B WB LT * .49 840 .7 6 B` WB 6 B NB LR * .15 263' '.7 23.4 C NB 23.4 C S U'M =NT E R S E C T=ON : ( V/ S ) c X c D E L AY L O S --- - ---- ---- ----- - - --- --- - - - - - 64 - 7 8 - 5 B B ) =NPUT VOLUMES -- - - - ------- - MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT 0 118 41 0 THRU 555 429 0 0 RIGHT 53 0 130 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. 1 9 8 5 H C M z S 2 GNAL= Z E D Z NT E R S E C T 2 ON S C ) GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 D ) T RA F F=C AND ROAD WAY C OND 2 T=ON S --- -- --- ---- --- - - - - - --- -- - - - -- APPROACH: -- -- --- ---- --- - - - - - --- -- - - - --APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES STOPPING (#/HR) : 0 0 0 0 --------------- PEAK --------------PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .93 .93 .93 .93 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR) : 9 6 4 0 PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y Y Y N MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 5.9 14.3 14.3 ----------------- ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 3 ------------ E ) S =GNAL T Z M 2 NG AND P HAS =NG ----- ----- -- ------------- INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA - ---- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 1 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X 3 0 0 X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR - YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE 3- S85 H C M . S Z GNAL= Z E D =NT E R S E C T=ON S 3 F ) C O R R E C T=ON FA C TOR S SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW ------- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- EB TR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 . 88 1 .9 . 89 1 1382 WB LT 1800 1 .97 . 99 1 . 88 1 .9 1 .87 1191 NB LR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 1 1 .9 . 8 . 87 1228 DEMAND VOLUME GROUP LANE ADJ. , APPR. MVT. FLOW LANE FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- EB L 0 .93 0 EB T 555 .93 597 TR 654 1 1 1 654 EB R 53 .93 57 WB L 118 .93 127 WB T 429 .93 461 LT 588 1 1 1 588 WB R 0 .93 0 NB L 41 .93 44 NB T 0 .93 0 LR 184 1 1 1 184 NB R 130 .93 140 SB L 0 .93 0 SB T 0 .93 0 SB R 0 .93 0 1 9 8 5 H C M : S =GNA L 2 Z E D Z NT E R S E C T 2 ON S -jAc 7Ae lie 20C � 'At lk vie :ow 7Ae lxv 3Ae 2k 3Ae VAC !Ac -Ac VAC 'Ac *c 'Ac zic *c 7Ae 'Ac 'Ac 'At ift me 3k lAc *c *c G ) EFFECT=VE orxmmwG BY LANE GROUP COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C ------- ----- --------- ----- EB TR 54.08 .68 WB LT * 56.42 .71 NB LR * 17.12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. ` 1 9 8 5 H C M : S =GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=ON S 1 P O LYT E C HN 2 C UN 2 V E R S =TY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM TAME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBSUFSA A ) C A P A C =TY AND L E V E L O F S E RV= C E - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS ------ ----- ----- ---- ----- --------- --- -------- --------- --- EB TR .54 845 . 88 14.9 B EB 14.9 B WB LT * .65 885 . 88 11.1 B ` WB 11.1 B NB LR * .16 217 . 88 39.1 * - D NB 39. 1 D S UM 2 NT E R S E C T=ON s ( V/ S ) c X c D E L AY L O S - -- - - -- - - - -- - - -- -- - - - - -- -- - -- - 81 - 88 1. 5 9 C B ) =N P UT VOLUMES - - - - - -- - -- - - - MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT 0 119 49 0 THRU 637 590 0 0 RIGHT 40 0 125 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. 3- 98S H C M - S =GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T S ON S C ) GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 D ) T R A F F = C AND R OAD WAY C OND =T 2 ON S - - - - - - -- - - - ---- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE M : 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES STOPPING (#/HR) : 0 0 0 0 --------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 .91 .91 .91 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR) : 23 7 9 0 ------------------ PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y �_ Y N MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 5.9 14. 3 14 . 3 ----------------- ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 3 ------------ E ) S S GNA L T 2 M 2 NG AND P HA S =NG -- - - - - - ----- - --- -- -- - --- - INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ************ ************* ************* ************* ************* # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA - ---- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 1 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X 3 0 0 X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS . GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS . P PEDESTRIAN PHASE 1 9 8 5 H C M s S 2 GNA L 2 Z E D =NT E R S E C T=ON S 3 -Ac � Ift 249 lk F ) C O R R E C T=ON F A C T O R S SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW ------- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- EB TR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 . 88 1 .9 . 89 1 1382 WB LT 1800 1 .97 .99 1 . 88 1 . 9 1 . 87 1191 NB LR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 1 1 .9 . 8 . 86 1214 DEMAND VOLUME GROUP. LANE ADJ. APPR. MVT. FLOW LANE FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- EB L 0 .91 0 EB T 637 .91 700 TR 744 1 1 1 744 EB R 40 .91 44 WB L 119 .91 131 WB T 590 .91 648 LT 779 1 1 1 779 WB R 0 .91 0 NB L 49 .91 54 NB T 0 .91 0 LR 191 1 1 1 191 NB R 125 .91 137 SB L 0 .91 0 SB T 0 .91 0 SB R 0 .91 0 1 9 8 5 H C M : S =GNAL= Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=ON S 11 -At 24C 2k -At 31C -At 3k 3k � � -AV � -jok � -Ac Zoe � -Ar 2k lk 2k � lk � 3ft -At 3k � Ift 34C lAr � G ) E F F E C T 2 V E T=M=NG B Y LAN E G R OU P - -- - ---- --- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - COMPUTED: -- - ---- --- -- - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - -COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C ------- ----- --------- ----- EB TR 48.94 .61 WB LT * 59.46 .74 NB LR * 14. 3 .18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. ` 1 9 8 5' H C M : UN S 2 GNA L = Z E D =NT E R S E C T=ON S P O L YT E C HN 2 C UN 2 V E R S 2 TY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 @ GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FNBGR25P A ) =N P UT VOLUME S - - - - -- - - --- - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ******** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 0 39 42 THRU 479 637 0 RIGHT 42 0 40 B ) G E O M E T ft WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES. - 1. 1 2 % GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) AD JU S TME NT F A C TOR S - - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - - VEHICLE - - - - - - --- - - - - -- - -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: . 85 1. 985 H C M : UN S 2 GNA L 2 Z E D Z NT E R S ECT 2 0 N S D ) C R =T 2 C A L GA P AD.T U S TM E NT TA B L E - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR SB LT 6. 8 0 6 . 8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 MAJOR EB LT 5. 1 0 5 .1 E ) L E V E L O F S E RV 2 C E R E S U L T S - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR SB LT ONLY 54 128 N.A. 74 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 52 626 N.A. 574 A MAJQR .EB LEFT TURN 50 703 N.A. 653 A 'L985 P O L YT E C HN 2 C UN=VERS 2 TY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 Q GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE NO BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS : 8/16/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: FNBGR25S A ) =N P UT VOLUME S - - - - - - - - - - - -- FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ******** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 0 35 62 THRU 554 615 0 RIGHT 85 0 37 B ) G E OM E T R Y WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES ' 1 1 2 GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) AD J U S TM E NT F ACTOR S -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - VEHICLE - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .92 1 9 8 5 H C M : UN S 2 GNA L = Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=O N S D ) C R 2 T=C A L GA P AD.T U S TM ENT TA B L E - - -- - - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR SB LT 6 . 8 0 6. 8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 MAJOR EB LT 5.1 0 5. 1 E ) LEVEL OF' SIE:RV= CIE: RESULTS - - - - - -- - --- -- -- - - - - - - - -- MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS *********************** ****** ******** ******** ******** ***** MINOR SB LT ONLY 74 116 N.A. 42 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 44 552 N.A. 508 A MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 42 617 N.A. 575 ' A 1 9 8 5 H C M : UN S =G NA L S Z E D =N T E R S E C T=O N S P'O L Y T E C H N 2 C UN 2 V E R S =T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 Q DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FNB DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P4 A ) INPUT VOLUME S - - - - - - -- - - -- - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 68 21 0 THRU 0 320 13 15 RIGHT 0 5 0 5 B ) G E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ********** ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0' 0 RT ANGLE 90 , 90 90 90 C ) AID..7TJSTMIE:NT FACTORS - -- - - - -- -- ----- - -- VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 - AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 1 9 8 5 H C M : UN S 2 G NA L 2 Z E D 2 N T E R S E C T 2 c)w S D ) C R=T= C A L G A P AD J U S TM E N T T A B L E - - - - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 .5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) LEVEL OF' SERV= CE RESULTS — — — — — — ———— — — — — — — — —— — — — — — MOW T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED DANE 41 N.A. 353 312 B MINOR SB SHARED LANE 24 N.A. 446 422 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 692 N.A. 681 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 1000 N.A. 918 A -L985 H C M : UN S I G NA L = Z E D =N T E R S E C T=O N S P O L Y T E C HN 2 C UN 2 V E R S S T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 @ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS : PM FNB DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P3 A ) I N P U T V(DL UM E S - - - - - - - - - --- - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 68 0 6 THRU 406 0 34 9 RIGHT 35 0 35 0 B ) G E O M E T R Y EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF -LANES 3 3 1 1 `k GRADE. 0 ••0 0. 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 .90 - --- - - --- - - --- - - - - - C ) ADJUSTMENT F ACTOR S - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 3- 985 H C M - UN S =G NA L 2 Z E D =N T E R S E C T=O N S : D ) CRIT= CAL GAP AD.3USTMENT' TABLE - - - - --- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S E RV I C E R E S U L T S - - - - - --- - - --- -- - - - - -- - -- MOW T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY' CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 83 N.A. 449 366 B MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 258 240 C MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 593 N.A. 511 A 1- 985 H C M : UN S =GNA L = Z E D 2 N T E R S E C T=O N S v O L YT E C H N 2 C UN 2 V E R S 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 0 DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FNB DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S3 A ) 2 N P UT V O L UM E S - -- - - - - - - - - -- FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 15 62 0 7 THRU 576 0 61 13 RIGHT 56 0 78 0 B ) G E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 . 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) A D J U S T M E NT . F A C T O R S - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 D ) C R I T=CAL G A P AD J U S T M E N T T A B L E - - - ---- -- --- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - ---- -- --- - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 .5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S E RV I C E R E S U L T S - - -- - - ---- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND, LANE USAGE -VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 157 N.A. 365 208 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 23 N.A. 150 127 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 1000 N.A. 983 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 70 451 N.A. 381 B 3- 985 H C M : UN S 2 G NA L= Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T 2 0 N S POLY T E C HN 2 C UN S V E R S 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 0 DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FNB DkTE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S4 A ) =NPUT VOLUME S - - - - - - - - - -- - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 15 62 44 0 THRU 0 348 17 20 RIGHT 0 5 0 11 B ) G E OM E T R Y EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE ' 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) ADJUSTMENT FACTORS' -- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- VEHICLE - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - --VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 3- 985 HCM : UlVS =GNAL2ZED 2NTERSECrrxc)mS yt 7Ae -Ae 'Ac 24e ie 7Ae 3Ae -Ac vk iAe -Ac -Ae 2Ae 'At zlc �Ae "Ae 'Ac 'Ac 'Ac 7Ae *c *9 'JAC �Ae yk Ac -Ac -jAe 'Ac -Ae -Yc ytr D ) C R 2 T=C A L GA P AD J U S TM E NT TA B L E TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8.5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L E V E L CD F S E RV I C E R E S U L T S - - - -- - - -- -- --- - - -- - - - -- - 4 MOV'T SHARED, RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 69 N.A. 321 252 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 35 N.A. 455 420 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 668 N.A. 651 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 70 1000 N.A. 930 A 1 9 8 5 H C M : S =GNA L= Z E D Z NT E R S E C T---- -- ---- -- - -- - - --- - - =ON S 1 P O LYT E C HN= C UN 2 V E R S =TY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FSUFFPM A ) C A P A C 2 TY AND L EVE L O F S ERV= C E - - - - ---- --- ---- - ---- --- - - -- - - BY - - - ---- --- ---- - ---- --- - - -- - -BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS ------ ----- ----- ---- ----- --------- --- -------- --------- --- EB TR . 47 937 .7 6.5 B EB 6.5 B WB LT * . 49 840 .7 6 B` WB 6 B NB ' LR * . 15 263 23.4 C NB 23.4 C S UM I NT E R S E C T=ON : ( ,%r/ S ) c X c D E LAY L O S --- - - --- ---- -- -- - - --- - -- - - - -- - _ 64 . 7 8 _ 5 B B ) S N P UT VOLUMES -- -- -------- - MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT 0 118 41 0 THRU 557 429 0 0 RIGHT 53 0 130 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. 3- S85 H C M s S =GNA L= Z E D =NT E R S E C T=ON S v vic Ac � c-- E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 D ) T RAF F I C AND R OAD WAY C OND 2 T 2 ON S - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - --- APPROACH: - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - ---APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES STOPPING (#/HR) : 0 0 0 0 --------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .93 .93 .93 .93 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR) : 9• 6 4 0 ------------------ PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y Y Y N MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 5.9 14.3 14 .3 ----------------- ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 3 ------------ E ) S =GNA L T=M 2 NG AND P HAS =NG —— — —— — ——— ——— ———— ——— — ————— INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ************ ************* ************* ************* ************* # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA - ---- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 1 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X 3 0 0 X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE 3- 98S H C M : S =GNA L 2 Z E D =NT E R S E C T=ON S F ) C OR R E C T=ON F A C TO R S --- - - ---- -- ---- -- - SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW ------- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- EB TR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 . 88 1 .9 .89 1 1382 WB LT 1800 1 .97 . 99 1 .88 1 . 9 1 . 87 1191 NB LR 1800 1 1.1 . 99 1 1 1 .9 .8 . 87 1228 DEMAND VOLUME GROUP LANE• ADJ. AP-PR. MVT.: FLOW LANE . FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL• . PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR- FACTOR RATE ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ EB L 0 .93 0 EB T 557 .93 599 TR 656 1 1 1 656 EB R 53 .93 57 WB L 118 .93 127 WB T 429 .93 461 LT 588 1 1 1 588 WB R 0 .93 0 NB L 41 .93 44 NB T 0 .93 0 LR 184 1 1 1 184 NB R 130 .93 140 SB L 0 .93 0 SB T 0 .93 0 SB R 0 .93 0 1 9 8 5 H M : S 2 GNAL 2 Z E D =NT E R SECT 2 ON S 'At lAc IAe ik 3Ae lac 30e 3k -At 3Ae IAe 3Ae ik lk 3Ae 3k 7Ae 3k oc lAc IAe 34e aft lAe lAc 3k lot lAc INC 3k zu 3k 3Ae G ) E F F E C T=VE T I M I NG B Y L ANE G R OU p - - - - - ------- - - ------ -- - - - - - --- COMPUTED: - - - - ------- - - ------ -- - - - - - ---COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C EB TR 54.25 .68 WB LT * 56.42 .71 NB LR * 17.12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. 1 9 8 5 H C M s S 2 GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T 2 ON S 1 aAe aAe aAe aAe aAe aAe aAe aAe aAc aAe lk 24e ift At 'At 2k toe aAc *9 aAe Vic -Ae aAe aAe aAe aAe P O LYT E C HN= C UN=VERS 2 TY INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FSUFFSAT A ) C A P A C 2 TY AND L EVE L CDP" S ERV=C E --- - - ---- --- - - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- - BY -- - - ---- --- - - - - -- -- -- - -- - -- -BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH ************************************************* ************************ V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS ------ ----- ----- ---- ------ --------- --- -------- --------- --- EB TR .54 849 . 88 14.7 B EB 14.7 B WB LT * .65 885 . 88 11.1 B` WB 11.1 B NB LR * .16 217 . 88 39.1 D NB 39.1 D S UM Z NT E R S E C T=ON z ( V/ S ) c X c D E LAY L O S --- - --- - - - -- - - --- - — ——— ---- - --- 81. - as 3- S - 8 C E3 ) 2 N P UT VOLUMES -- - - -- - --- --- MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT 0 119 49 0 THRU 640 590 0 0 RIGHT 40 0 125 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. 1 9 8 5 H C M s S =GNA L 2 Z E D Z NT E R S E C T=ON S C ) GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 D ) T RA F F=C AND ROAD WAY C OND 2 T 2 ON S - -- -- - - - --- --- - - - - - - - --- -- -- -- APPROACH: -- -- - - - --- --- - - - - - - - --- -- -- --APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE M : 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES STOPPING (#/HR) : 0 0 0 0 --------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 . 91 .91 .91 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR) : 23 7 9 0 ------------------ PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y Y Y N MIN._ GREENTIME: _— 5.9 5.9 14.3 14 . 3 — — ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 3 E ) S 2 GNA L T=MXNG AND P HA S =NG ——— — ————————— — —— — ———— ———— INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA — ---- ----- — — — — -- — — — — -- — — — — -- — — — — -- 1 0 0 X X 2 0 0 X X X X 3 0 0 X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS . RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS . P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE 1 9 8 5 H C M s S S GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=ON S -_ F C O R R E C T=ON F A C T O R S -- - -- - ----- - - -- - - - SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ******************** ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW ------- ----- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- EB TR 1800 1 1.1 . 99 1 . 88 1 .9 . 89 1 1382 WB LT 1800 1 .97 . 99 1 .88 1 .9 1 . 87 1191 NB LR 1800 1 1.1 .99 1 1 1 .9 . 8 .86 1214 DEMAND VOLUME ************* GROUP LANE ADJ. APPR. MVT. FLOW LANE FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ ---- EB L 0 .91 0 EB T 640 .91 703 TR 747 1 1 1 747 EB R 40 .91 44 WB L 119 .91 131 WB T 590 .91 648 LT 779 1 1 1 779 WB R 0 .91 0 NB L 49 .91 54 NB T 0 .91 0 LR 191 1 1 1 191 NB R 125 .91 137 SB L 0 .91 0 SB T 0 .91 0 SB R 0 .91 0 S =GNA L= Z E D 2 NT E R SM C T 2 ON S a- G ) E F F E C T I V E T 2 M 2 NG B Y L AN E G ROU P - - - ---- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - -- COMPUTED: - - ---- -- -- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - --COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP **************************************** EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME(SEC) G/C ------- ----- --------- ----- EB TR 49.14 .61 WB LT * 59.46 .74 NB LR * 14.3 .18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. 1 1- 98s H C M : UN S =GNA L = Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T=ON S P O LYT E C HN=C UN=VERS =TY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 0 GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FGRIFPM A ) 2NPUT VOLUME 3 -- - - - -- ----- - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 58 44 THRU 479 637 0 RIGHT 42 0 49 E3 ) G E OM E T RY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES 1 1 2 - % GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) AD JU S TMENT F A C TO R S -- - - - - - --- -- - -- -- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: . 85 1 9 8 5 H C M - UN S =GNA L 2 Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T 2 ON S -At � 2ft Zoe 2k 2k 249 249 � lk 2ft Ift lk lk 209 � 'Ar 2AC � VIC Inc VAC 2AC 249 lk � at 3k lk � -Joe -Ac *9 � � D ) C R=T 2 C A L GA P AD.J U S TMENT TA B L E — —— —— ———— — — — — —— — —— —— — — — — — — — — — TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR SB LT 6. 8 0 6. 8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 MAJOR EB LT 5.1 0 5.1 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV=C E R E S U L T S —— — —— ——————— — —— ——— ——— — —— MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR SB LT ONLY 57 119 N.A. 62 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 63 626 N.A. 563 A MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 75 703 N.A. 628 A 3- 98s H C M s UN S 2 GNA L = Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T 2 ON S P O LYT E C HN= C UN=V E R S =TY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 9 GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FUTURE BUILD DATE OF ANALYSIS: 8/16/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: FGRIFSAT A ) =N P UT VOLUME S - - - - -- ----- - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT 0 49 65 THRU 554 615 0 RIGHT 85 0 49 B ) G E OME TRY WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES 1 1 2 % GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 C ) AD JU S TMENT FAC TOR S - - - - - -- ---- ------ - VEHICLE - - - - -- ---- ------ -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .92 D ) C R 2 T 2 C AL GA P AD JU S TM E NT TA B L E -- - --- ------ - --- ----- - -- - - - -- TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR SB LT 6. 8 0 6.8 RT 5.7 0 5.7 MAJOR EB LT 5.1 0 5. 1 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV= C E R E S UL T S -- - -- --- ---- - -- - - ------ - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR SB LT ONLY 78 111 N.A. 33 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 59 552 N.A. 493 A MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 59 617 N.A. 558 A P O L YT E C HN 2 C UN=VERS 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 0 DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P7 A =NPUT VOLUMES - - - - - --- - - - -- FULL HOUR VOLUMES (Vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 80 0 6 THRU 406 0 41 9 RIGHT 49 0 42 0 B ) G E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ********** ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 c-- - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - - VEHICLE - - - - - - -- -- - -- - - - - -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 3- 985 H C M : UN S =G NA L = Z E D =N T E R S E C T 2 O1V S D ) C R=T 2 C A L G A P AD J U S TM E N T T A B L E - - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) LEVEL OF' SERV2CE RESULTS - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - it MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 101 N.A. 429 328 B MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 232 214 C MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 97 583 N.A. 486 A 1 9 8 5 � 'Ac lift � -Ac "Ac � � -icIZk � aft lift, � � JAC Ac Ar � vkIft ArAcAVlklk ilk vk � -Ac *c � -Ac -Ac P'OLYTECHN2C UN=VERS2TY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 @ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NB4822P8 A ) 2 N P U T V O L UM E S - - - - - - - - - - - - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 80 28 0 THRU 0 320 13 15 RIGHT 0 5 0 5 B ) GEOMETRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ********** ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE- 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 T/1 G+ �� / tiLV V V i i'1 -_.iV i r i1\r i Vit L7 - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 -1- 985 H C M : UN S I G NA L 2 Z E D =N T E R S E C T =0pw S D ) C R 2 T= CAL GA P A D J U S TM E NT TA B L E - - - - - --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR -- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L (DIF S E R V S C E R E S U L T S - - - - - - ----- --- - - - - - --- - - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 50 N.A. 338 288 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 24 N.A. 435 411 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 692 N.A. 681 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 97 1000 N.A. 903 A P O L YT E C HN 2 C UN=VERS 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 ® DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS : SAT FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S8 - - - - - - - -- - - - - A ) 2NPUT VOLUME S FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** . LEFT 15 72 56 0 THRU 0 348 17 20 RIGHT 0 5 0 11 B ) G E O M E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ********** ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) AD.TU S TMENT FACTOR S - - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - - VEHICLE - - - - -- -- -- - - - - - - -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 3- 985 H C M : UN S I G NA L 2 Z E D 2 N T E R S E C T 2 ON S ' 'Ac 'Ac ik 'Ac ik *c ire ace 'At 'Ac Ac *c 3k -Ac -At Ac �e *c Ac zc .3k jk Ac Ac Ac 3nc ale �Ac ire *c iac -Ac -Ac 'k -Ac D ) C R 2 T=C A L G A P A D J U S T M m w T T A B L E - - - - - ---- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES MINOR NB LT 8 .5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) LEVEL OF' SERVICE RESULTS - - - -- ----- - --- - - - - - - - -- - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 83 N.A. 309 226 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 35 N.A. 445 410 A MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 668 N.A. 651 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 1000 N.A. 918 A P'O L Y T E C H N 2 C UN=VERS =T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 0 DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB COND DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: NB4822S7 A ) 2NPUT VOLUME S - - - - - - - - - - - - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 15 72 0 7 THRU 576 0 73 13 RIGHT 67 0 86 0 B ) G E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) AD.TU S TMENT FACTOR S -- -- -- - - - - -- - - -- -- VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAR HOUR FACTOR: .97 1 9 8 5 M C M : W S =GNA L 2 Z E D =M T E R S E C T 2 0 N S D ) C R =T 2 CAL GA P ADJ U S TM E NT TA B L E - - - - ------ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - - ------ - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV 2 C E R E S U L T S - - - - - - - - --- --- -- - - - - - - - - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS 1 MINOR NB SHARED LANE 181 N.A. 344 163 D MINOR SB SHARED LANE 23 N.A. 130 107 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 1000 N.A. 983 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 82 444 N.A. 362 B I 98! HOf'-'i - E3 I (Dt�JAL I Z ED I IVTEFRE;EiCT I OIVS -m--N--w-X--w-I*-4c--w-m--art--X----)*-m---p(--art--X--31�-w-w-m--Ac--m--30�-b*- - art- , �OLVTEOHh! I C iL.1hJ I '�IEF~:S ITV INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK. RD. ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC. INFO: FILENAME: NS2522PM ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 44 (--AF='AiC I TY 0:4P41E) L-E'vPEL. OF= 'El FEE F;:W I GE -------------------------------- BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS EB TR . 48 953 .7 6.2 B EB 6.2 B WB LT .49 840 . 7 6 B WB 6 B NH LR * . 15 263 . 7 23. 4 C NB 23.4 C s;um I ttiJTEF:;ZSSEiCT I C3 = C V..r E3 } c X c DELAY 1—OS -7 C3 _ = - F, I P4F=>UT "JOL—UF"FES ------------- MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT 0 lie 41 0 THRU 567 429 o 0 RIGHT 53 0 130 0 R-O-R 0 0 0 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. I 9 E3!fi H C M = ', 3 I (3 hJ iA L I Z E D I M-r E f::Z 1B r "[✓T I C3 I'q!_r- jrt--)*-31�-3f• -We art--w-w-w--3F-X--3E-art- iE- �-iE-3t--3E -art-�-3f-jrt- }F�•E �-iE- 3F-�E--3E-�4- �C ) 13EUMIETF:.Y EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WID"TH ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 D } TF4ick FF I At%JD F-CCIADtJi=t Y C;Mtgn I T I CIMS ------------------------------- APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE i%) : 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES SSTOPPING (#/HR) : 0 O 0 O --------------- _ PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .93 . 93 . 93 . 93 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR): 9 6 • 4 0 ------------------ PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y Y Y N MIN. GREEN TIME: 5. 9 5.9 14.3 14.3 ----------------- ARRIVAL TYPE: 3 3 3 3 ------------ E S I GhJALL T I M I P4 C3 ANI} F-Hink S I NG ------------------------- INTERVAL ------------------------INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA - ---- ----- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- - - - - -- 1 0 0 x x 2 0 4 x x x x 0 o x x SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: 3 SECS. RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE 1- 'S'SE5 1—iCiM e S I G1%JNON L I ZEI? I hJ?"EF;tSEC---r I QME3 -t-�-w-art--w�-w-3f--3[--w-)c--art--w iE-w#-X--I*--art--w-m-art--m-iE-3--3f-1*-w-w--w-art--3*--3f F ? iCC)F<FtIE( T I C)h# FfC�kC:TC)RS SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL x ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. -GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G P BB A RT LT FLOW ES TR 1800 1 1 . 1 .99 1 . 86 1 . 9 . 89 1 1=82 WB LT 1800 1 . 97 .99 1 .88 1 .9 1 .87 1191 NB LR 1800 1 1 . 1 .99 1 1 1 .9 . 8 .67 1228 DEMAND VOLUME " GROUP LANE ADJ. APPR. MVT. FLOW LANE FLOW # OF UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE EH L 0 . 93 -0 EH T 567 . 93 610 TR 667 1 1 1 667 EB R 53 .9.3 57 WB L 118 . 93 127 WB T 429 . 93 461 LT 588 1 1 1 588 WB R O .93 0 NB L 41 . 93 44 NP T 0 .93 0 LR 184 1 1 1 184 NB R 130 .93 140 SB L 0 .93 0 SB 'T 0 .93 0 SB R 0 .93 0 I 98..x, HCM = S I G14AL I Z ED I hITEF�<SECT I MrgS;�- -_ -34--X--J'E--rt--*--:rt-Ort--W-art--:rt--rt--X--rt-s--X--X--X--W-W-m--art-tet--jc--m-art--*--m--X--4--ir G ) EFFECT I '.oE T I M I Mc-; 8Y LAP4FEE CGFiOUF' -------------------------------- COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP EFFECTIVE LANE CRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME (SEC) G/C ------- ----- --------- ----- EB TR 55. 16 . 69 WB L*r * 56. 42 .'71 NB LR 17. 12 .21 CYCLE LENGTH: SO SECS. I 98Z HC e S I Gh1AL_ I Z ED I hITEFtSEr-CT I OhiS -IIE--X--X--*E--W-X--INC--s--1*--3*-4*49[-4& 46-4*-. - F•O t—')r-r E= t%4 I O U h1 I V E F--<3 I T Y INTERSECTION: STATE ROUTE 25 AND NEW SUFFOLK RD. — ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 AREA TYPE: CBD MISC. INFO: FILF_NAME: NS2522SA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ A ) (:-,AF'AC I 'T'Y 04ME) LIE VEL OF" -:3E1r<'V I GIE ----------------------------- BY LANE GROUP BY APPROACH V/S X STOPPED STOPPED LANE CRIT. FLOW V/C DELAY DELAY GROUP MVMT. RATIO CAP. RATIO (SEC/VEH) LOS APPROACH (SEC/VEH) LOS ------ ----- ----- ---- ----- --------- --- -------- --------- --- EB TR .55 864 .88 14. 3 8 EB 14.3 B WB LT * .65 885 . 88 11. 1 B WB 11. 1 B NB LR . 16 217 . $8 39. 1 D NB 39. 1 D S U M I hITEF:SET' 'I Ohl ( V ' S ) c X DELAY LOS ------------ ------ ---- ----- --- - S1 _ 88 +S C E3 ) I hlF•UT VOI_UMIEE3 ------------- MVMT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ---- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- LEFT O 119 49 0 THRU 652 590 0 0 RIGHT 40 0 125 0 R-O-R = RIGHT-ON-RED VOLUMES DO NOT REFLECT GROWTH FACTOR. SEE SECTION F. I c?Fat5.r HOCM a S I C3M0=A _ I Z ED I tv-F-EFc t=CT I Q miB iE art-art-art-art--if-art•art-_X_art-art- a#-art-art- art-art- a•F art- art-art- art #art-art art-a{--art-art--art•art-art-art- 1�` C-3EC3t"iEi.rF V EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LANE MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH MOV WIDTH ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- 1 TR 15 LT 11 LR 15 I? )l TF--:AFF I C tc IN1 F:C7ADwAV CCC)QyD I T' Z C3 P4_c3 --------------------------------- APPROACH: EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND GRADE (%) : 0 0 0 0 PERCENT HV: 2 2 2 PARKING: Y Y N N MANEUVERS (#/HR) : 5 5 0 0 ---------------- BUSES STOPPING (#/HR) : 0 0 p 0 --------------- PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .91 . 91 . 91 . 91 ---------------- CONFLICTING PEDESTRIANS (#/HR) : .3 � 7 9 0 -------------- PEDESTRIAN BUTTON: Y Y Y N MIN. GREEN TIME: 5.9 5.9 14..E 14. 3 ----------------- ARRIVAL ---------------- ARRIVAL_ TYPE: 1 3 _ - ------------- E ) 8 I C3t'4AL T I M I fes( P4 1> F='HAS I t-4(B -------------------------- INTERVAL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # Y+AR GREEN L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA L T R P RA 1 t-' D X X - - - - -- �? 0 X X X X 3 0 4 X X SIGNAL TYPE: ACTUATED Y+AR = YELLOW + ALL RED CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. GREEN = GREEN TIME LOST TIME PER PHASE: •_• SECS. RA = RIGHT TURN ARROW LOST TIME PER CYCLE: 6 SECS. P = PEDESTRIAN PHASE I 9S5 HC3 S I (3Mtc i_ I TIED I t'%JTEFRE3FE r I C3 P4 E3 _--4*--w-w- - _X__)*_ -X_4c--N�4p�-N--m--art--m--w-X--3 --w-w-X--K-art-_w-m-�-*-4*.-*-4*. F ? C01=iF:;Zt=(--T I Ohl t=dobC-jr QIFRS SATURATION FLOW RATE IDEAL ADJ. LANE SAT. # OF f f f f f f f f SAT. -GROUP FLOW LANES W HV G F' BB A RT LT FLOW EB TR 1800 1 1 . 1 .99 1 . 88 1 . 9 . $9 1 1382 WB LT 1844 1 .97 .99 1 . 88 1 .9 1 . 87 1191 NB LR 1844 1 1. 1 .99 1 1 1 . 9 . 8 . 86 114 DEMAND VOLUME GROUP LANE ADJ. APPR. MVT. FLOW LANE' FLOW # OF , UTILZN GROWTH FLOW MVMT. VOL. PHF RATE GROUP RATE LANES FACTOR FACTOR RATE ----- ---- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ------ ------ --=— E5 L i> . 91 C) EB T 652 . 91 716 TR 764 1 1 1 760 EB R 44 .91 44 WB L 119 .91 131 WB T 594 .91 648 LT 779 1 1 1 779 WP R 4 .91 s_i NB L 49 .91 54 NB T 4 . 91 0 LR 191 1 1 1 191 NB R 125 .91 137 SB L 4 .91 4 SB T 0 .91 0 SEs R 0 .91 0 w 1 9E HCI`1 - S I C3 P4 I ZED I "TEFiEECT I OhIS #c- irt--3E if �E -SFE-if-�[-art-if- art-�[- 3F•}E �E- 3E-W-K-art--Jrt--X-X--W-W-iE-•E 3E 4E 4& SE E-iE +C� 7 EFFECT I VE T I M I rgCC EKY LAPIE C-3S<C3Ur COMPUTED: EFFECTIVE TIMING BY LANE GROUP EFFECTIVE LANE GRIT. GREEN GROUP MVMT. TIME (SEC) G/C ------- ----- --------- ----- EB TR 49. 99 . 62 WB L-f * 59. 46 . 74 NB LR * 14.3 . 18 CYCLE LENGTH: 80 SECS. U NJ S3 X C3 1`4 1�4 t— X Z E7-lDk -r a F�E3 C�-r I C3 M---3 F=*C3 L-Ne-1-F= VA Ni I C-- u NJ I w F—=1JR S; I -r N-1 INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 @ GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22TSF 'bATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: GS2522PM ______________________________________________________________________________ 4=0 3 31 P4 F="t-J-17 W Cl I_Li M F=c3 ------------- FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ******** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 0 100 54 THRU 479 637 0 RIGHT 42 0 93 ��FE C3 M E=-1-FR Ne ' WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 1 �^ 1 2 ' % GRADE 0 0 0 RT TURN 90 90 90 *ck'E)-L.T LJ�-Ir M C--=tl%l-r F--o=k -r C3 F:Z 13 ------------------ VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN _ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .85 :L c?El 5 F4 C:M m U 1\1!S I C-3 INJ#=t I— I Z E=—:ID I M—r F-*:-FR S;IE C—r art -W-w--X--X--m--K--art--1*-1*--m--X--m---w--X--w--X--W--m--X--K--m-art- F;: I -r I fl'�L- (S ock F' d�ID a U E3-F M a:1\1-F '-F#C4 E-9 L-E: TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES 111 NOR SB LT 6. 8 C> 6. 8 RT 5. 7 0 5. 7 MAJOR EB LT 5. 1 0 5. 1 E L-1—= l EZ L- CJ F=' !B E---F<W 1 (--E=- F:Z FEE E3 U L--r-S3 ------------------------ MOWT SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR SB LT ONLY 70 106 N. A. 36 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 120 626 N.A. 506 A MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 129 703 N. A. 574 A 1 '4ElZ5 i-IGM UP41B I4:3flJAL I ZE'o I RlTEFRE3EGT I GtwJE; -34- -X--3•E-X- 3f -art--XE-X--art--W-art--X--W art--w-W-4-art--XE-art-iE l•E #i- F—C3L'1r''TEGHP4 1C-- LJ P4 I ELFRS3 I TY INTERSECTION NAME: STATE ROUTE 25 @ GRIFFING ST ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FH SC 22TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/19/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: GS2522SA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ink I MF='UT GILUME:S FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) LEFT t i 104 i4 77 THRU 554 bis 0 RIGHT 85 0 102 EEO > CEOMF=TFRle WESTBOUND EASTBOUND MINOR (SB) # OF LANES 1 1 GRADE Ct 0 C) RT TURN 90 90 90 G > dnk:E) ,J USTMEh1T F=Fi 4--TOFZ�B ------------------ VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 35 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .92 1 * 851 "(!:iM = UM!B 10M#=vI_ I ZE:n I M-raFRSICCT I QM--3 .�.F�.E.•�••-�-�-art-•art--�-a�•�--art-�--�•�•-�•�-•�-�••�••#••�a��--�•�-�-art-�•E r�-�-�-art-�•�-�- D iCr'Fw; I -(' I ICAC iCAF=' ADt� UT1�'IEt�I-C' TAt _E TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES MINOR SD LT 6. 8 0 6. 9 RT 5. 7 0 5. 7 MAJOR EB LT 5. 1 4 5. 1 E 3 1_E' .-P F—= CG F= '�EF-e.",! I Lr.E F=<ESULTS ------------------------- MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR SP LT ONLY 92 95 N. A. 3 E MINOR SB RT ONLY 1 212 552 N.A. 430 A -- MAJOR -MAJOR EB LEFT TURN 1�4 617 N. A. 493 A Ae 'Ac ir !Ac 'JAc 'Ac it 7Ae *e -Ar -Ac -Ac 7Ae -AV Ac it is Ac it aft ]Ac *c 2Ac JAe *c JAe JAC 20c ZAc 7k wk -Ac -JAc -.Ac P O L YT E C H N= C UN=VERS 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 @ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22 TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 -MISC. INFO: FILENAME: 1 A ) 2NED,LTT VOLUMES - - - - - - - - - - - - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 108 0 6 THRU 406 0 74 9 RIGHT 81 0 70 0 B ) G E OM E T RY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90- 90 90 90 C ) A D J U S TM E NT F A C T O R S - - - - - - - -- ---- - - - - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: . 91 3- 985 D ) C R 2 T 2 C A L G A P AD J U S T M E N T T A B L E - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6. 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV= C E R E SLY L T S - - -- - - - - - --- ---- - - -- - - - - MOV'T SHARED . RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LQS *********************** ****** ******** ******** ******** ***** MINOR NB SHARED LANE 174 N.A. 378 204 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 18 N.A. 165 147 D MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 1000 N.A. 989 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 131 558 N.A. 427 A 1- 985 H C M : UN S =G NA L 2 Z E D 2 N T E R S E C T=O N S 1=1 C)L Y T E C H N= C UN=V E R S 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 @ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: PM FB SC 22 TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS : 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - A ) 2NPUT VOLUMES FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) *********************** MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ******** ********** ********** ********** ********** LEFT 9 108 61 0 THRU 0 320 13 15 RIGHT 0 5 0 5 B ) G E O M E T R Y EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE . 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) An -7 XJ S TMENT FACTOR S - - - - - -- -- -- -- -- - - - VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: . 91 w 3- 985 H C M : UN S =GNA L = Z E D I N T E R S E C T I O N S - D ) CR2T= CAL GAP AD.TUSTMEI�TT TABLE - - - - - ----- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - - - ----- --- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV 2 C E R E S U L T S - - - - ---------- - - -- - - - - - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACI'T`Y CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 90 N.A. 309 219 C MINOR SB SHARED LANE 24 N.A. 410 386 B MAJOR EB LEFTS 11 692 N.A. 681 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 131 1000 N.A. 869 A 1 9 8 5 H C M : UN S 2 G NA L S Z E D 2 NT E R S E C T 2 0 N S P O L YT E C HN 2 C UN S V E R S 2 T Y INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 @ DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC. INFO: FILENAME: 2 A ) INPUT VOLUMES - - - - - -- - - - - - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (Vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 15 109 0 7 THRU 576 0 110 13 RIGHT 109 0 121 0 B ) G E OME TRY EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ********** ********** ********** ********** # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 C ) AD.TLJSTMENT FACTORS - - - - - - ------ - - -- - - VEHICLE - - - - - ------ - - -- - -VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: . 97 3- 985 H C M s UN S =G NA L= Z E D =NT E R S E C'T=O N S AC -JAC lik At iie 2k 'Ac 2k At 'At 'Ac vk -At -jAe -Ae -jAc 20e jk lk -JAc 7k lk -Ae lk Ac -Ae SAc *c ,k 'k aAc 'k IJ ) C R 2 T= C A L G A P A D J U S T M E N T T A B L E - - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TABULAR - - - - ----- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6 . 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L CDP, S E RV S C E R E S U L T S — — — — — ——— —— —— — ——— — ——— —— —— MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 262 N.A. 278 16 E MINOR SB SHARED LANE 23 N.A. 65 42 E MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 1000 N.A. 983 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 124 419 N.A. 295 C 1.. 9 8 5 H C M z UN S 2 G NA L = Z E D =NT E R S E C T 2 0 N S P'O L YT E C HN= C UN 2 V E R S =TY INTERSECTION NAME: CR 48 0 DEPOT LANE ANALYST: JIM TIME OF ANALYSIS: SAT FB SC 22 TSF DATE OF ANALYSIS: 10/21/88 MISC.INFO: FILENAME: 4 A ) =NPLJT VOLUME S - - - - - - -- -- - - - FULL HOUR VOLUMES (vph) MOVEMENT EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND LEFT 15 109 93 0 THRU 0 348 17 20 RIGHT 0 5 0 11 B ) G E OM E T 1:;?-IV" EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ' # OF LANES 3 3 1 1 % GRADE 0 0 0 0 RT ANGLE 90 90 90 90 - - - - - --- -- -- --- -- - C ) AD.TU S TMENT FACTOR S VEHICLE COMPOSITION: UNKNOWN AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED ON MAJOR ROAD (mph) : 55 - AREA POPULATION: 100000 CONTROL ON NB APPROACH: STOP SIGN CONTROL ON SB APPROACH: STOP SIGN PEAK HOUR FACTOR: .97 1 9 8 5 H C M z UN S 2 G NA L 2 Z E D S N T E R S E C T=O N S D ) CR =T2CAL GAP AD,7USTMENT TABLE - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- TABULAR - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --TABULAR ADJUSTED ACTUAL VALUES BY VALUES ******* ******** ****** MINOR NB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MINOR SB LT 8 . 5 0 8 . 5 TH 8 0 8 RT 6. 5 0 6 . 5 MAJOR EB LT 6 0 6 MAJOR WB LT 6 0 6 E ) L EVE L O F S ERV= C E R E S U L T S - - - - - - - - ------- - - - - ---- - MOV'T SHARED RESERVE MOVEMENT AND LANE USAGE VOLUME CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY -LOS MINOR NB SHARED LANE 124 N.A. 274 150 D MINOR SB SHARED LANE 35 N.A. 412 377 B MAJOR EB LEFTS 17 668 N.A. 651 A MAJOR WB LEFTS 124 1000 N.A. 876 A A f CRAMER, OCIATES E TANTS NVIRONMEN (3 CONSUL May 22 , 1989 Bennett 0 -.Iowski , Jr. , Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board JU MAY 2 2 1989 Town Hall , 53095 Main Road 0outhold, New York 11971 SOUTHOILD TO',',`N PLANNING BOARD Re : Draft EIS Review The Hamlet at Cutchogue SCUM #1000-102-1--33 . 3 Dear Benny: The attached document constitutes our review of the Draft EILSE for the Hamlet at Cutchogue. We have 11tiliz?,_'-d ti-,e Lont", EAF Part H , and the SEAR Draft EIS --contairied ipor Part 617 . 14 , as a basis f determi.nin.cr, Compliance with Scope , content and adequacy requirements . aTed ti ort -ir review, we feel. that the Draft EIS in Ir ' s -p-. esen4 form, is not satisfactory in terms of scope , content and ade(auacy Accordingly, we recoy.,imend that the Board this review, and if you are in agreement please fforwar,i same to the applicant in order to have the Draft EIS revised to 2 form which will provide the basic inti,_--rination necessary to begin the inter-agency and public review of the project. We will be meeting with the appli-canz- 2 al_;,rig with 'town staff , on May 24,1h to discuss the contents of this review. T-11 you have any questions with regard to this review or the antic }gatedcourse r)f the SLQR. process , please do not hesitate to call . Very I o LVoorhis ries Enclosure ; ;714 "�10R`H COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (5,6) 331-1455 OCIATES -N V1R0NM5NT ;.�1�aNG CONSULTANTS TO: Bennett Orlowski., Jr. , Chairman "'owes of Southold Planning Board FROM: Cram^ r, Voorhis and dissociates, Inc. DATE: May 22, 1989 RE: Draft EIS Review The Hamlet at Cutehogue SCT '[ #1000-102-1-33 . 3 .:r-y �uct,ion Yixe _pi;_ ial review of a Draft Environmental Impact S,tate�mer'. _ ; z r==f t_ EIS y , i8 intended to detern.,!tie if the irccume nt is " . . . satisfactory with respect to scope , content and araequzacy for the purpose of commencing public. review" . Pert _s ? ( b) f 1 j ] . A Draft; EIS 'uh-, been submitted to the Town of oi.t:; ld Planning Board , for the prcjact The Hamlet at Ct:tc_hi obil,;E� , t l.ereby necessitating a response as to the adeq€.1aCY Of the document . Under the regulation , the lead agenev -- is-11 :;se the wrAtterr scope of issues , and the standards i:_r Draft US preparation contained in part 61 i . I4 , �.o de ei w (:e the adeque-cy of the document , FS.r _ire !object application, the consultant to the i'ian�-r� ^ori fat tyre time of the Posi-tive Deelaratiori) had :;or::p.leted a Part II Long EAF, which provides a record of some of the issues of concern to the Town, which resulted in the 133sit i; e Der-lavation, The review contained herein, provides _;.,gut from.- ar; independent consultant regarding the scope, cUntent and adequacy of the docuinant which h!ls been submitted. At this ti�ime it is our recommendation that the Draft EIS not be ac-ctpLetl , but rather that it be returned to the applicant for revisit.?rt of a number of relevant issues . It is sl.rgb`-'..s3Zei] that the rc= ,,ised ztubm.i5as?-on incorporate. the a dotion1il tiff rtria. it;n into the text of the aCCLlTilent. , not as an «_:ccr.c? ., t:. .,rider to simplify the inter-agency and public review Page 1 of 7 `Si '1( FRTH CO'UNITIA'r ROAD, MILER PLACE NY 11764 {516} 331-1455 Hamlet @ Cutchogue Draft EIS Review R.:,aEt El.5 Review Th s review is intended to Provide the Town of Southold lanrtiri fj:,?r?ra with a review of only those issue4. which _!lQU1 t,e ,rev i.sed in order to Provide an acceptable document ,i ixccc{i;3l nce :pith the law. The following items should be tctdresatii in ,i revised Drift EIS submission: Z . REFERRNCES Not Included The �011rce of material used in the preparaCion of tiie xiraft f , iS nat included . This is ars item required in the SEAR regulations Part 617 - 1-4 ( f) ( 11 ) . 1I . DES{`.i�7,TPTION OF ACTION Background :+U F{i.story PDQ 2-2 Ti:- hist,�)ry of tlhf: nrojert site ilii terws of agricultural Or of tc r ase sh tlid be d] sc'Lzssed. Loct ion Page 2-6 u i f ask Cotinty map Numbf� ra should be included in Drat— E The survey indicates icates that the subject site does _lut have 'direct on Schoolho-use Lane or Griffins Street . i'he Town rl.ght-of-way width or tax parce.3 confer.- r'a:.i'. rt :should be presented to clarify Che acce�_,S potentia.' of the site . e5ip and Layout Page 2--9 =ojdt,_s-r-_Y r101-1 should provide sufficient ir: [Jr.,ii3+ 3i.r? to under' tand the natures of the f,rop ce�? project . A more c: ..ttf{.it to pro-Jec.t description is neoes9ary in Order to Urici :Y•:3t,'Ilii at:+� eValt:ate the. impac_.t.s cf the , c?:i.cn. Thi. d.,scussio.-i should ?ns iude - totai nUM'Der of units ; ort-site Yftf'ilil +t_' ( f'Or(MILinity center , recreation, etc . ) i method of Salt."it. r3 ` ?�iCl cll pr:opo`..'ed water Supply; and site data Cji=ants :-u;}: as G,:r: lans_t : z , apel and Yttrfed l ni t1.al re"' ew Of the proposed sanitary system raises ,tue=,r- ;.. r ,r�,3raino ;:he f€asibility of thy tlse of a ;i:odified trt:�dli''y °cF<s�p ctisp:i a1 systr�111 ( denitrification s�rsiem) . ted to no store than 15--, , 000 g a :lc.1)s :Yy. Irl addition , the Suffolic County Department of }ie�clt}; :'er., ices { aCi3iIS } i5 C_urrerltly using a new set of Y•e<?;i'i' .._..� .� , > tic•ltldi ig but riot Iiinited to ; increased s .r t�j�1 Page 2 of 7 ... TES QR t�11,{r,cwt%j°•jiENTkAt_� .tr:4� u (.s�'+,V=.1 It TANTS Hamlet @ Cutchogue Draft. FIS Review initoring , bonding , etc . __eachin,g c-1pansion ar,�--a , mc P a g A constructicyn schedule i',_s referred to in the The tiiriing and the number of units pe-Ir pFasesho uld be t:)utlined. 1 -le _;permtionand iiiariagetrient of the facility upon show be stated ( i . e . fionleowners Association, site maintenance, etc . ) . ENVTRONMENTAL CONDITIONS 0 Page 3-1 a-,iaj- lable , a test hole or characterization of the qu'o-o-ils f-.:-,r nrorner functioning of sanitary systems should be provided. _Pag_e 3-13 _ -ht� !ot "'zontal oi-rection of groundwater flow, and the oc J_ :n f i he nea t�-,3' private Wells show d 'e stated in or,c�er to pr*vide. baselino inflo1riiation fox' ,Dupact atssessruent - ans page 3-18 !-Jorflh Fort- Water --,uDp.ly Plan ie a relevant. plan with I an d t4 e T-- _'ojrnendatilons which should be discussed in the Land TUT se Pl?ins section. in u 11 e r N.,i C R_C E"e 3-20 '.CVE�Ltional ?a.cilities available in the nearby area &-zhoui' d, i2'e 01Ctlssf-d , iln nrd(-:-r to determine impact upon coimmutrii_L,,: S•&cIVICes in uhsecjuent Kect_iowe . page le ire C ti I ­n-_igraphy providc-2- only countY wide -roT,,,th and trendr-1 Th,,:� populatl speicliiC t he T 0 w,') <1L Southold should be included. ultor,aj E.'­-sour-ceL;; page 12 -23 -Lisror.jc. resource potent ia.'(1- of the .site Lt;, i1\1 ER., V ATES Page 3 of 7 E N1 V I IR 0 iN ME N 0"J'St!LTANTS (V Hamlet @ Cutchogue Draft EIS Review houl;a e- de:rerr!in( cl , +.i,.ili1izing ar, archival Search. IJ, l.-GNI,IVi€,AWJ.' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Ce�l.c�rzy Page 4-1 The gr'aJing plan submiLte(i with the Draft EIS is i1lr�ga :i_e , thereby making it. impossible to determine the g r .rl t ng upon erosion potential and/or site Uisc:u b r. The potenLiztl for erosion, and the maximum c,_lt and f-j_,_l he d s(:ussed , as was out.lihed in the Long EAF Part. If . may._=iw,,ts�ranr? aer:dix L� Pry e 4-6 T.f:-=; ? i±`_- ibi l i t f c-,T the denitrification .system. uioii�t be 't• r'I' €i'.="' f r'+', c ? C'.�'.?�i?l3 abo\Je . Areference $�k�?llld be 1„roe; i a,ed Irv,, the 3510' .nitrogen ren!o\•al efficiency, of the S;jSt (11: The Il2trof,�en loadingh«1.11d be ; L ���Bntlt � for nitrogen t -t. ; ( c't'i"tatZ _o f'XC 'P+=i the dt'ITlklilbwater 1imitat iion of .10 s i.ni'ormation is conta.i.n(-d in tl.e r-ork performed by ,;at.pr Resources Program. and zor,infr 4-I I I.e +r:sistency of the project with the North Fork Water Plan hni-d.d !-)e discussed either in this section or the section .gin groundwater . r erer rk.:e�. sijo;t cl be provided for the sections which ;Ise and generation factors . The drupact t tb-- ;pfo ec •`,: upon ambulatory services, Intuit cipal Sol li.i �':i.:: _.- + `L lY L7 ,'_'�!�i''_��?.t?C.i:zal facilities rJ'ht'Old h! di-:+Oussed . � i11 1�2I-? "s i:': i�7+i :oat, r,t �queste-d i-n the Long >;�1F Part i I , til is>. . Z Re.y<>tir ,z page 4--16" 'i :�=� r�t7t•'Ci?;£l, _,cts of Site gerterated srhrJuLd be ss ri :it: tile II Long EAF. .L.Y,s_r ”;=suP Not Included jmv.-k •t of :moi construction Llj)on air f'e&oUrC<y , Page + 4 of 7 r \t !il c CRAN'.�:R V J �i 'i aCaG1Ix�TE Hamlet @ Cutchogue- Draft. EIS Review part Lr=ii=i-��' i�i;�i.t.t�i g` (�i<7✓? , ('iG tw 1.d C.7e d1 Sci_t s-rug eCI Ys Wc'3s r'equestethe 'Long EAF Part II . lire I-SC_71 impacts of the pro-JeeL should be inilude(J. Ta PI--nP''= Hamlet 0 Cutchogue Draft EIS Review 1 'ernatives be -t-Uscussed in request-- thethe full,7,,�ing a L sufficierj cietail to xllocw for comparison of the relative Cl-.Ange i-- as co-twp.,.:tred to the proposed proiec t . -11 Li l'!1-t�jv& Tr-ch 2CtGr ; rj ti-le dee3,4J1jjejjt of the SLII-IjeCt Site S tn f- Yype of S.Wage disposal system. In addition, the -Iisposal Systera has profoiind 4nfluerlce W, of the project . Therefore , rhe i;iounu ater .,ihich explore the feasibility and impacts O Plo I Ject --ons'Eruction using ; a sewage treatment plant , Cienitrificatiort system in accordance with mexximurn dail,y design flows and conventional sanitary disposal systerij-; , would be most informative . A I lit) a _Li�r tive Scale ail:,ws for 4 units/acre . The Draft EIS s Pcified reduced size E. i V e iix ni, specific alterrl& cjD,T.pF.-r� jj(� a pl-oj&ct of 3 units/acre with -the PrOP Se P r;,-i C'T I'd 1.ild be k t�5 e f u I . The corcept -;-houl(l geek to it4' openspa and natural ce for aesthetic expand pelrimeter buffer.ing -And e cptt e,-I i y o ? fertilizer depen--ient vegetation on site . A' t-r n a t i v e De s jt.gjr:i sit - -afiC ETF, (IiSCtjSSeS the desirahilitY of providing 3pacf between bni1JiYi.,- clusters and L-Isewhere on Ct S i ! e' . The poS s i b i I i t y of- ::. re acing the open pace thrcugh d2sign (more units per IOU.- - j -jin; , rni!Jri-tum bui' d-ing setbacks , etc . ) , should be 'L Cif site design and impacts . This -also seek to in(:rtase pc meter buffering - 1u�j?)tjty of fertilizer -lependent g c:, '.on on site . "JOPPING PLAZA VDDL C,1-0 N I A L h, the impact. Of -1 :Lc L -0 been reque.,, tt-d to A�,Sess t I-I t`', oi k�'J, pj-oje-ut in Con junction with a 7 . 1246 "B-Light Business" C 1 Page 6 of 7 CHIA-MiF-A, V0- H; ES i CONSULTANTS ?---r,*'ViRCA'q"MENT. .... C Hamlet @ Cutchogue Draft EIS Review a 11,01 _Y_1 E, E Ge k f th­ riatrilet at C1,itchogue site . Addendkim 1 mled by "he, appl. icant to assessif ,PPoz rtant witf-, th2 uItimate dievelopment of this therc- Is presently no site d -vej-opment proposal pt-,adijng f(-,,,r this s-lte . o,' tha Ad,ieridim,, in consideration of -O- �-oLong EAF T ?v liGZ N-ressE!c: the i.iitjirjate- construction of the findt-, that there are several isslues of 0 "laVP2 -�n addre5,--4ed in the Addendujr,. 1 1- be(: Theseare. as fo'Llows : X Co,structi(-.,n iiiiparte- associated with the shopping center. 4- r-- ugl '- i ,,,c- dust imp.acts., associated with --hopping center con-,tructiota . The iiipact of constr-uction of the szhoppingg center tcerlt, to an existing school playground. associated with the hopping center 1 �1 ,-Ofljunction *with the residential - project . This r1c)-uded in tree traf'f'ic --s-, ' e traic tudy , but b-faould be in AdLIo ' n ,-t 1da . Tn addition, the impact in non--driving resident,-, in 11 'Chool shcul.dl bi� tr, the 'rammor considered , noise aojacento thf, existilt-g School . lht i !ii-pact of the shoppi-lig cariter project on the growth ind fbaracter of the cominkinity .qhould be discussed , ' t � feeling that AS 1111di�-'a"'ed) L c; our tf-,te information ) s; T.portant ag a baseline from whior, to begin the cf th--2 i)ipa(­,3 of tic) proposed construct.- ion of, M L (711, -!og"ii�- 1� roject -tddi itinti,on -wing �Cf. V in in reviewing 7 -E. i, prudent to c ­nsi ser certain L. 1-ts t r _j,7 t 1 tilt Coioniai S t Upping Plan f r tete_ ­r­wth of the o­dtz t c!D t�ip f n ��re I Y area. Page 7 of 7 CRAA,fla-Al VC&Y-1RH-T, R SOCIATIE� E N V i R ON M F N �NG COINSULTANTS WV 7 V,X