Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Jem Realty Co. Amend.#136
JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197 I Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 October 30, 1990 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: DEIS - Jem Commons Dear Chick: Transmitted herewith is the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the petition of Jem Realty Company for the Jem Commons, $outhold, change of zone proposal. Please review said DEIS for completeness. The November Town Board meetings will be held on November 13th and November 27th. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure MIDDLETON f!NVIRONMENTAL INC. [~C)HA[ i) ,I MiDDL[.T:2,~J October 29, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road OCT Southold, NY 11971 · Re: DEIS For Jem Commons, "-' Jem Realty Company Dear Ms. Terry: Per our conversation of October 25, 1990, enclosed please find nine (9) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons. If additional copies are necessary, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Catherine Russell En cl . cc: Jem Realty Company M MIDDt_E'TON ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NY OCTOBER 1gDO APPLICANT: JEM REALTY COMPANY DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOCATION: North of Route 48 (Main Road) East of Sound Drive Town of Southold, Suffolk County APPLICANT: Jem Realty Company 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 PREPARER: Middleton Environmental, Inc. 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, New York 11725 Donald J. Middleton, Catherine Russell (516) 462-2222 President DATE OF PREPARATION: October 1990 DATE ACCEPTED: COMMENT PERIOD: Copies of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Written comments should be submitted by *********4** to be in the public record. JEM COMMONS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER SHEET II. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Executive Summary ................................... 1 a. Description of Proposed Action .................. 1 b. Significant, Beneficial & Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......................... 1 i. Groundwater Quantity & Quality .............. 1 2. Archaeological Resources .................... 2 3. Transportation (Traffic) .................... 2 4. Cumulative Impacts .......................... 2 c. Alternatives Considered ......................... 3 1. Alternative Size ............................ 3 2. No Action ................................... 3 d. Permits & Approvals Required .................... 5 III. Page No. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................. A. Project Purpose & Benefits ...................... 1. Background & History ............................ 2. Public Need For Project ......................... 3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor ............... 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action ................. a. Social ...................................... b, Economic .................................... B. Location ........................................ 1. Regional & Local Location ................... 2. Description of Access to Site ............... 3. Description of Existing Zoning .............. C. Design & Layout ................................. 1. Total Site Area ............................. a. Proposed Impervious Surface Areas ....... b. Land To Be Cleared ...................... c. Open Space .............................. D. Construction & Operation ........................ E. Approvals ....................................... 6 6 7 8 11 11 11 12 13 13 13 14 15 15 15 16 16 16 17 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................... Natural Resources ................................... A. Geology ......................................... 1. Subsurface & Surface ........................ 2. Topography .................................. Water Resources ................................. 1. Page No. 18 18 18 18 22 23 Groundwater ................................. 23 a. Location & Description of Aquifers & Recharge Areas ................................... 23 b. Identification of Present Uses & Level of Use of Groundwater .......................... 24 Air Resources ................................... 26 1. Climate ..................................... 26 2. Air Quality ................................. 26 Terrestrial & Ecology ........................... 29 1. Vegetation .................................. 29 2. Wildlife .................................... 30 E. Agricultural Resources ......................... 1. Soils ....................................... Human Resources ..................................... A. Transportation .................................. 1. Transportation Services ..................... 2. Public Transportation ....................... 3. Pedestrian Environment ...................... B. Land Use & Zoning ............................... 1. Existing Land Use & Zoning .................. Description of Existing Land Use of Project Site and Surrounding Area ....... Affected Agricultural District ......... 2. Land Use Plans ............................ C. Community Services ............................ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Education ................................. Police Protection ........................... Fire Protection ........................... Health Care Facilities ...................... Social Services ........................... Recreational Facilities ..................... Utilities ................................. Public Water Supply ......................... Page No. 33 33 34 34 34 35 35 36 36 36 36 37 37 37 38 38 38 39 39 39 40 Page No. D. Demography ...................................... 1. Population Characteristics .................. E, Cultural Resources .............................. 1. Visual Resources ............................ 2. Historic & Archaeological Resources ......... 3, Noise ....................................... 44 44 45 45 45 46 VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................... 47 1. Groundwater Resources ........................... 47 2. Public Water Supply ............................. 47 3. Wildlife Habitat ................................ 48 4. Agricultural Resources .......................... 48 5. Archaeological Resources ........................ 48 6. Open Space ...................................... 49 7. Traffic ......................................... 49 8. Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) .......... 49 MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 51 Natural Resources ................................... 51 A. Geology ......................................... 51 B. Water Resources ................................. 51 1. Groundwater ................................. 51 VII. VIII. Page No. C. Air Resources ................................... 54 D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ................. 54 E. Agricultural Resources .......................... 55 Human Resources ..................................... 55 A. Transportation .................................. 56 B. Land Use and Zoning ............................. 56 C. Community Services .............................. 56 1. Public Water Supply ......................... 56 2. Other Community Services .................... 57 D. Cultural Resources .............................. 57 1. Visual Resources ............................ 57 2. Historic and Archaeological Resources ....... 57 3. Noise ....................................... 57 ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ..................... 58 Groundwater Resources ............................... 58 Public Water Supply ................................. 58 Open Space .......................................... 58 ALTERNATIVES ........................................ 59 A. Alternative Size (32 Units) ..................... 59 B. No Action ....................................... 59 Page No. IX. IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES 61 A. Population ...................................... 63 B. Support Facilities .............................. 63 C. Development Potential ........................... 64 D. Cumulative Impacts .............................. 64 REFERENCES .......................................... 65 XI. APPENDICES Site Plan Appendix A Comparison of Income vs. Housing Prices Appendix B Town of Southold Board of Assessors Appendix C County of Suffolk Letter Appendix D Traffic Study Appendix E Greenport Union Free School District Appendix F Southold Town Police Dept. Appendix G Greenport Fire Dept. Appendix H Social Services Appendix I Village of Greenport Letter Appendix J List of Illustrations & Tables Following Page Number Regional Location Map ............................... Specific Location Map ............................... Soils Map ........................................... Hydrogeologic Zone Map .............................. Ambient Air Quality Standards ....................... Air Quality (Babylon-Suffolk County) ................ Town of Southold Zoning Map ......................... Table 8-27 (Comparison of Alternatives) ............. 13 13 18 23 28 28 36 43 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a. Descriution of Promosed Action The proposed project calls for the construction of 171 detached single family dwellings (consisting of 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes), to be constructed on a 62 acre site located east of Sound Drive, north of Route 48 (Main Road), south of the Long Island Sound, within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. An application for a change in zone has been submitted to the Town of Southold. The application requests that the existing R-80 zoning (2 acre) De changed to Hamlet Density (HD) for the southerly (42 acre) portion of the parcel and a change in zone from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre) for the northerly (20 acre) portion of the parcel. b. Siqnificant, Beneficial and Adverse Impacts and Mitiqation Measures The following is a summary of the finding of the DEIS as it considered the potential impacts of primary concern (i.e. groundwater quantity and quality, archaeological resources, traffic and cumulative impacts). 1. Groundwater Quantity & Quality The proposed project will utilize approximately 27,104 gallons per day. If 171 units were constructed at 3.6 persons per unit, 616 persons x 44 gpd/person = 27,104 gpd. A request was sent to the Village of Greenport to ascertain the availability of water allocation for the subject site. On March 15, 1989 (see Appendix J), a response was received from the Village of Greenport stating that the "Village does not currently have efficient well pumping capacity to add additional customers.,, However, the Village Board of Trustees has committed to upgrade and improve the -1- system. "Subsequent to receiving funds the Village will complete the engineering required to activate three new water wells which will supply sufficient water for your client". A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's office and Gerry Hickson of the Greenport Water District on 8/31/90 indicates that two new wells are now being installed at the west end of Tuckers Lane, both rated for 500 gallons per minute. Upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. Treatment of well #6 located off Horton's Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Water Quality Staadards as per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. 2. Archaeological Resources The project site was used primarily for farming for many years in the past. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that the site had been previously disturbed over these numerous years. Based upon a field inspection by Dr. Robert Johnson of Hofstra University, and a review of the literature related to the archaeology of the North Fork and the NYS Register of Archaeological sites, it is indicated that no known or recorded aboriginal sites lie within or adjacent to the parcel. 3. Transportation (Traffic; A traffic study has been conducted by George B. Michos, P.E. on August 1990 (see Appendix E) and it has been determined that the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadways. Therefore, significant traffic impacts are not an issue and mitigation has not been offered. 4. Cumulative Impacts Since the proposed project is compatible and consistent with the surrounding land uses, it has been determined that cumulative impacts or a precedent setting concern should not be an issue. Also, since this project site meets the conceptual criteria discussed in the master plan for ideal "HD" Hamlet Density locations, and specifically meets the 1/2 mile distance from Hamlet Business districts established in the Amended Zoning Resolution adopted by the Town of Southold on 1/10/89, the proposed project will not create a cumulative or precedent setting impact. c. Alternatives Considered In analyzing the possible uses of the Jem Commons site, the following alternatives were examined which were: Alternate Size (32 Units) This alternative would meet the existing R-80 Zoning for the site and would not require a change in zone. However, this alternative is not consistent with the surrounding land uses (see Background & History), and it is not economically feasible not only to the project sponsor but also to the Town of Southold which would receive substantially less in tax revenues than the proposed project would generate. 2. No action The "no action" alternative would continue to maintain the site in its current condition. This alternative was found to be unacceptable, primarily because the project sponsor would be dented a legally protected right to gain proper economic benefits from the property and the "no action" alternative would deny the community the various economic and socio-economic benefits which would occur as a result of developing the property. -3- No nitrate residues from sanitary wastes and no further fertilization would reach groundwater. Certain resources would not be expended, (i.e., electricity, fuels, labor, water, etc.). On the other hand, the community would not gain the benefit of additional jobs during construction, the tax bases of ~he County, Town and School District would not gain in tax revenues and the community would not get the moderately and affordably priced housing so desperately needed in the Town. -4- d. Permits and Approvals Required In addition to the acceptance of this DEIS, other approvals that are required include the following: Approval from the Town of Southold Town Board for change of zone for 62 acres currently zoned R-80 to proposed zone HD (Hamlet Density) for the southerly (42 acre) portion of the site and a change in zone from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre) for the northerly (20 acre) portion of the site. 2. Subdivision Approval from Suffolk County. 3. Subdivision Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. 4· Access to State Road - Department of Transportation, NYS 5. Building Permit from the Town of Southold. Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sanitary facilities. 7. Water Supply Approvals from the Greenport Water District or other sources. 8. NYSDEC SPDES permit for proposed sewage treatment plant. It should be noted that the proposed project has been approved for the Suffolk County Affordable Homes Fast Tracking Program by the office of the County Executive, County of Suffolk (see Appendix D). -5- III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Jem Commons Development and to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the laws and regulations of the Town of Southold. The proposal calls for the construction of 171 detached one family dwellings, (consisting of 122 moderately-priced homes, 30 affordably priced homes, and 19 luxury homes), to be constructed on a 62 acre site located in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. The site is zoned R-80 (2 acre) and the project sponsor has requested a change in Zone to HD (Hamlet Density) for the southerly 42 acre portion of the site and R-40 (1 acre) for the northerly 20 acre portion of the site. This DEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts which may occur from the construction of the proposed community and will assess measures to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts and investigate possible alternatives. The project will be developed by Jem Realty Company. Development will take place on the north side of Main Road (Route 48), east of Sound Drive, south of the Long Island Sound, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The building lots on the northerly portion of the site (20 acres) will be greater than 1 acre in size while the southerly section (42 acres) will have lots averaging 12,036 SF in size. A sewage treatment plant will be designed and approval obtained to handle all sanitary wastes. Road access will be provided to individual lots totalling 340,480 square feet. A. Pro$ect Purpose and Benefits The purpose of the proposed project is to construct 171 detached one family dwellings (consisting of 122 moderately-priced homes, 30 affordably-priced homes and 19 luxury-priced homes). The benefits of the proposed project will be both to the public in providing moderately and affordably priced homes and also to the tax base of the Town of Southold. 1. Backqround and History The Jem Commons site is located approximately 95+/- miles east of New York city and 22+/- miles east of Riverhead. The site has a total area of 62 acres, and is presently an undeveloped tract. The terrestrial setting of the site is best described as relatively flat land with slopes of 2%-8%. The site is abutted by one road, Main Road (Route 48), 145+l- feet east of Sound Drive south of the Long Island Sound and within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet (see location map for boundaries of the project site following page number 13). Access to the proposed subdivision will be via Route 48 (Main Road). (See site plan in Appendix a). The site is presently zoned R-80 Residential Low-Density District (2-acre minimum). The project sponsor has applied to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone to HD (Hamlet Density) for the southern portion of the site (42 acres) which fronts Route 48 and a change in zone for the northern portion of the site (20 acres) which fronts the Long Island Sound to R-40 (1 acre density). A resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on 4/24/90 and it has been determined that a DEIS must be prepared by the project sponsor. The site is immediately surrounded almost entirely by residential one family dwellings and business/commercial uses. The average lot sizes along the westerly boundary line is approximately 5,000 square feet, resulting in a density as high as 8 units/acre. The 137 acre parcel to the east has been rezoned to Hamlet Density, allowing for 357 units in addition to the area along Main Road which is zoned Light Business. The parcels bordering the southwesterly corner of the site also are zoned Business. The parcel located further east of the 357 unit parcel is also zoned R-80 according to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map. However, & golf course is located on this site and it is unlikely single family dwellings will be -7- constructed on this parcel. The parcel located to the southeast of the subject site (east side of Manhasset Avenue), is also zoned R-80, however, a cemetery exists on this site and single family dwellings will not be constructed on this parcel. (The above information was taken from a survey of the immediate surrounding area prepared by the project sponsor dated 12/18/89 revised 2/23/90 and from the Town of Southold's Zoning Map.) The site was purchased by Jem Realty in April 1979. The site has not been farmed for the past 15 years. Prior to that, the site was farmed by the Sinuto Family and it was farmed continuously for 70 years. 2. Public Need for Pro~ect The need for moderately and affordably-priced housing, especially for the working class of the Town of Southold has been frequently and continually expressed, both by elected officials, the public and the press. -8- The need for affordable and moderately priced houses has been specifically recognized and addressed by the Consulting Town Planners in the preparation of the Master Plan for the Town of Southold. The concept of higher residential densities was implemented by the Town Board in the adoption of the amended zoning resolution of 1/10/89, wherein it established the "HD" Hamlet Density district so as to permit a higher residential density of moderately and affordably priced mixed housing types appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, and in this case within 1/2 mile of the village of Greenport. The average building 10t approximately two years ago cost $80,000.00 and a home $190,000.00. These costs have helped drive the working class from the community. As a result, Southold is becoming a second home community. The proposed project is not subsidized by any governmental agency. It is created by private capital to bring housing for the public good. Upon completion, Southold Town will have at least 122 moderately priced, 30 affordably-priced and 19 luxury priced homes which will have been created without any cost to the Town or its taxpayers. In fact, the proposed project will add to the Town's tax base and it will bring new life and vitality to the community. The following information was taken from the magazine "Builder", The Magazine Of The National Association of Home Builders, -9- a Hanley-Wood, Inc. publication dated July 1990. The article is entitled "Out of Reach". According to this article homeownership is down for the first time in our nation's history. At least 59 million people - nearly 25% of the U.S. population can no longer find a place to live for less than a third of their gross pay, (a standard definition of housing affordability). According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 45% of the nation's poor now spend 70% or more of their income on rent. Even the current group of homeowners is having problems, for the same basic reason. Prices are outstripping incomes on Long Island where house prices are so high and property, school and associated taxes have skyrocketted in the past 10 years. More and more Long Islanders are moving off the Island in order to find affordable housing and iow taxes such as in the South. After adjusting for inflation, median new-home prices are up 23.5 percent in 10 years, while median existing-home prices are flat. Median incomes are up about 8%, not enough to close the gap. First, there has been a massive redistribution of wealth tied to tax-code changes, the wage-depressing effects of the baby boomers on the labor market, and the replacement of high-paying industrial jobs (such as defense jobs on Long Island) Jobs with low-paying service careers. Example: households headed by people aged 25 to 34 earn 6% less than their 1970's counterparts; people under 25 earn 28% less, says the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "Even if nothing else happened to the housing market," says NAHB economist Michael Carliner, "this guaranteed that people, especially at the low end, would have a tough time". Homeownership rates are down in nearly every part of the country and for virtually every age group. The twenty and thirty-somethings were hit the hardest. Since 1980, the homeownership rate for young married couples with children fell from 71 to 63%. For people aged -10- 30-34, homeownership fell from 61 to 53%. Ages 35-44 down from 72.5 - 66.7%. To put it another way, the number of families that could qualify for the typical home fell by more than 12 million between 1984 and 1988, says NAHB. (See Appendix B for Comparison of Income vs. Housing Prices.) 3. Objectives of the Pro~ect Sponsor The project sponsor, Jem Realty Company, has an overall objective to create a well-planned, properly serviced, conveniently-located housing project consisting of 19 luxury homes, 122 moderately priced homes, and 30 affordably priced homes, all architecturally well coordinated, so as to provide an economically homogenous residential community. These proposed dwellings provide an opportunity for a younger family to find a moderate municipally-serviced house so that they could remain on Long Island particularly the North Fork, and as a secondary result help stabilize and potentially increase both the labor force and the buying population for businesses in the Town of Southold. 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action a. social The proposed project will help alleviate part of the housing shortage in the Town of Southold on several economic levels in that the project will provide housing at the luxury, moderate and affordable price levels, in an architectually coordinated and socially homogenous residential community. -11- bo Economic The Jem Commons Project will provide single-family housing for three levels of socio-economic strata with 100% private capital. The predominately higher density housing and the three different price levels (i.e. luxury, moderate, and affordable) allows for each level to economically compensate for the existence of each of the other two. This well balanced residential community will generate $502,730.46 in taxes for the Town of Southold, based on 1989-90 tax rates (See Appendix C). -12- B. Location 1. Site Specific Location Jem Commons is located in the Town of Southold, east of the Southold Hamlet, north of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York. The project site is located north of Main Road (Route 48), east of Sound Drive, south of the Long Island Sound, west of the Island's End Golf and Country Club. The site is in close proximity to the L.I.R.R. main line travelling west. The L.I.R.R. station is conveniently located just south of Wiggins Street, just west of 4th Street, in the Village of Greenport. There are numerous creeks, ponds and harbors located in close proximity to the site. Also the Long Island Sound is located just north of the site. (See Regional and Local Location Maps on the following page). 2. Description of Access to Site The major arterial roadway serving the area of the project is County Road 48 (Main Road) to the south. As mentioned previously the L.I.R.R. and its station is just south of Wiggins Street. Direct access to the development will be via Main Road (Route 48). The Town of Southold has requested that the project sponsor seek an additional access route via Sound Drive. However, all of the 10ts between the project site and Sound Drive contain single family dwellings with various garages and sheds, they are privately owned and it is very unlikely a private owner would grant access through their property. There is, however, a Town-owned park located at the extreme northwesterly corner of the project site and if the Town were to grant access through this lot, the project sponsor would entertain this additional access route. (See site plan in Appendix A). -13- REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Suffolk County State Park Facilities SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAS JEM COMMONS SITE SPECIFIc LOCATI'ON MAP ; 45 PROJECT SITE 0 U N D JEM COMMoNs SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAs rJR[IN 'OLD 196 3. Description of Existin~ Zonin~ The subject property is currently zoned R-80 (2 acre minimum). It is contiguous to an existing "HD" Hamlet Density parcel to the east. The surrounding residential areas to the west and south are being utilized as high density residential areas with as much as 8 units to the acre. At the southeasterly property line, the property is contiguous to a parcel designated as a Limited Business zone. Immediately across from the subject property on Route 48, a Commercial Shopping Center is being planned. According to the Town of Southold's Zoning map adopted 1/10/89 and last revised 12/27/89, there are only two other parcels within a one mile radius of the subject site that are zoned R-80. The first one is the parcel located 1600+/- ft. to the east on the north side of Route 48 which is presently utilized as a golf course and it is very unlikely that it will be developed as single family dwellings. The second parcel zoned R-80 is located on the southeast corner of Manhasset Avenue and Route 48. This parcel is an active cemetery and most assuredly will never be developed for single family dwellings. The present R-80 (2 acre minimum) zoning is incompatible with the uses of the surrounding area. It does not allow for compatible surrounding uses (moderate and affordable residential units), and for reasonable use of the subject parcel. The proposed change in zoning will allow the property to be developed compatibly with the surrounding uses and promote the general intent of the amended zoning resolution, allowing for "HD" Hamlet Density within the half mile distance of the Greenport Business Hamlet. -14- C. Design and Layout 1. Total Site Area The total site area is approximately 2,700,720 square feet, or 62 acres. The access roads to the individual lots will encompass 340,480 square feet. The proposed project is to subdivide the site into 171 individual lots. The northern portion of the site which fronts on the Long Island Sound, will consist of 20 acres with 19 single family dwellings on 45,852 SF lots (1 unit/acre). The southerly portion of the site, which fronts on Route 48, will consist of 42 acres with 152 single family dwellings on lots averaging 12,036 SF - 3.6 units/acre. Clearing is to be limited to the actual housing site locations, with all possible provisions made for natural growth, to be supplemented with additional plantings to provide buffer areas wherever and whenever possible. The roads are proposed to be 24+/-' wide, constructed in accordance with the Town of Southold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swales on either side as well as leaching pools in each Iow section of the road; both of which will be designed to take full advantage of the recharge capability of the well drained (100%) soil on this particular site. a. Proposed Impervious Surface Area As mentioned previously, impervious roads consisting of 340,480 square feet will be installed to access the proposed individual lots. Driveways will also be installed for each lot. -15- b. Land To Be Cleared Clearing is to be limited to the actual housing site locations, with all possible provisions made for natural growth, to be supplemented with additional plantings to provide buffer areas wherever and whenever possible. Also, iow-fertilizer dependent grasses will be used for lawn areas. Aside from installation of the access road off Route 48, 85,200 SF of vegetated buffer will remain along this 576' section of property. c. Open Space As stated above, an 85,200 SF vegetated buffer will remain fronting Route 48. The southerly portion of the property will be lost almost entirely to development, however, the northerly section of the property, (fronting the Long Island Sound) will have lots greater than 1 acre, therefore, this portion of the property will have more open space. Out of the entire 62 acre parcel only 32 acres of vegetation will be removed, leaving 30 acres of natural growth. The vegetation that is removed for construction, will be replaced with supplemental plantings. D. Construction & Operation It is anticipated that as soon as all required approvals and permits are granted by all concerned agencies, construction will commence. The approval of the proposed development is also dependent upon satisfaction of State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements. Actual construction will be completed in phases in order to minimize total site disturbance that one phase would create. Every effort will be made to assure that the project will be completed in a timely fashion. -16- E. Approvals In addition to the acceptance of this DEIS, other approvals that are required include the following: Approval from the Town of Southold Town Board for change of zone for 62 acres currently zoned R-80, (two acre), to proposed zone HD (Hamlet Density; for the southerly 42 acre portion of the site and a change in zone to R-40, (one acre), for the northerly 20 acre portion of the site. 2. Subdivision Approval from Suffolk County. 3. State Road Access-Department of Transportation, NYS. 4. Subdivision Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. 5. Building Permit from the Town of Southold. 6. Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sanitary facilities. 7. Water Supply Approvals from the Greenport Water District or other sources· 8. NYSDEC SPDES Permit is required for proposed Sewage Treatment Plant. It should be noted that the proposed project has been approved for the Suffolk County Affordable Homes Fast Tracking Program by the office of the County Executive, County of Suffolk. (See Appendix D). -17- IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resources A. Geoloqy 1. Subsurface & Surface The geology of this parcel proposed for rezoning and development is considered typical of the geology found throughout Southold Township. Upper Pleistocene deposits form the overall land mass of the North Fork, consisting of stratified sands and gravels with some thin beds of clay encountered. These Upper Pleistocene deposits range to approximately 200 feet below sea level. The Jem Commons Project has five types of soils found on the site. They are identified by the United States Soil Conservation Service as Beaches, Riverhead Sandy Loam, Plymouth series, Haven Series and Haven Loam. Ail are described in the following paragraphs. (See U.S.S.C. Soils map on the following page). Beaches (Bc) Beaches are made up of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly areas between water at mean sea level and dunes or escarpments. Slope is nearly level in most areas. Ail the beaches along Long Island Sound are very gravelly and cobbly. These areas are not suited to farming. Measures should be taken to control erosion to keep the beach wide enough to protect the nearby dunes or uplands. -18- Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB 3% - 8% slopes) This deep well drained, moderately coarse textured soil is formed in a mantle of sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. This soil is found throughout Suffolk County in rolling to steep areas on moraines and in level to gently sloping area on outwash plains. The vegetation that is native to this soil consists of black oak, white oak, red oak and scrub oak. The permeability rate is moderately rapid in the surface layer and subsoil, and very rapid in the substratum. In a representative profile, the surface layer is brown to dark brown sandy loam about 12 inches thick. The upper part of the subsoil to a depth of about 27 inches, is dark brown, very friable loamy sand to a depth of about 32 inches. Below is yellowish-brown friable gravelly loamy sand to a depth of about 35 inches. The substratum is very pale brown loose sand and gravel to a depth of about 65 inches. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Riverhead soil. The main concerns of management are controlling runoff and erosion and providing adequate moisture. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county, and it is used mainly for this purpose. Most areas in the western part of the county, however, are used for housing developments and as industrial sites. Plymouth Series (PIB 3% - 8% slopes) The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level to steep soils are throughout the county on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Native vegetation consists of white oak, black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak. -19- In a representative profile the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown loamy sand, about 4 inches thick, in wooded areas. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and there is a brown to dark-brown plow layer of loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish-brown and brown, very friable and loose loamy sand to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum, to a depth of about 58 inches, is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly coarse sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil. soil tends to be droughty. This This soil is fairly well suited to the crops commonly grown in the county. Some areas were formerly used for farming, but most such areas are in brush or are idle. In the western part of the county, this soil is used mainly for housing developments. Haven Series (HaA 0% - 3% slopes) The Haven series consists of deep, well-drained medium textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. These soils are present throughout the county, but most areas are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. HaA is mostly level and generally is on outwash plains. Some areas of this soil are on moraines and generally are on the top of iow-lying hills. Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fertility is Iow. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. -20- The hazard of erosion is slight on this Haven soil. Primary management concerns are keeping the soil from crusting after rain, maintaining tilth, and reducing the plowpan. Haven Loam (HaB 2% 6% slopes) This soil is on outwash plains and moraines, commonly along shallow, intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. In larger areas this soil is mostly undulating. Most areas of this soil are smaller than the areas of Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. In cultivated areas this soil is 2 or 3 inches shallower to sand and gravel than the soil described as representative of the series, and it contains a larger amount of gravel. Otherwise the two profiles are similar. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Riverhead and Bridgehampton soils, some of which are in a complex pattern with the dominant Haven soil. These included soils generally are in the larger areas of this soil. Also included are Montauk silt loams that have a very weak fragipan. In places areas of this soil that are mapped near Montauk soils have layers of till deep in the substratum. Also included are areas along the bottom of narrow drainage channels that have a silty surface layer that is thicker than that in the profile described. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Haven soil. Management concerns are controlling runoff and erosion and keeping the surface loose and free from crusting. -21- This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county. It generally is farmed the same as adjoining areas of nearly level soils. Crops commonly grown are potatoes, cauliflower, cabbage, and corn. Most areas in the western part of the county are used for housing developments. Capability unit IIe-1; woodland suitability group 3ol. 2. Topoqraphy The Jem Commons Site is relatively flat (with 2% 8% slopes). There is a bluff along the Long Island Sound. Construction will take place >100' landward of the crest of the bluff in order to minimize erosion to the bluff. The proposed 19 lots to be created on this 20 acre northerly parcel will consist of 1+ acre in size. According to Dr. Robert Johnson, Hofstra University Associate Professor of Biology, the sound beach is rocky and not sandy and varies from 80' to 100' in width with a well defined shelf along the bluff toe for most of the beach length. The bluff face is steep, 35 degrees to 55 degrees but well vegetated and has no significant recent erosion. The shoulder of the bluff is also stable. -22- B. Water Resources 1. Groundwater Groundwater is the principal water resource of concern in an area such as Long Island that has been classified by the EPA as being fully dependent upon a sole, or single, source acquifer for its potable water supply. This designation reinforces the in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities that are utilized to ensure that the groundwater not be contaminated by either point- or non-point sources of pollution. The concern is even more critical in the Town of Southold for, unlike many other areas of Long Island, potable water supply is not available here from both the Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Water underlying Southold within the Magothy formation is generally too saline for potable use. Sands and gravel of the particular soils previously discussed are characterized as highly permeable and yield little run-off during precipitation periods. The upper levels of these, plus the storm deposits, containing fresh water are the primary source of groundwater within the Town of Southold. The surface of the project site is 26-38' above sea level. Since the elevation of groundwater is 2' above sea level, the depth of groundwater at this 62 acre tract, would be approximately 24-36'. a. The site is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV and within the Water Budget A~ea of the North Fork. (See Hydrogeologic Zone Map on following page). Zone IV encompasses the North Fork, Shelter Island and the eastern portion of the South Fork; Zone V the remainder of the South Fork. The groundwater underlying the deep recharge areas on the South Fork is generally of excellent quality. The rest of Zone IV and V, as well as Zones VI and VII, and VIII are characterized by shallow flow systems that discharge to streams and marine waters. Zone IV on the North Fork has been contaminated as a result of agricultural activities. A few areas of Zone V have also been impacted by agricultural activities. -23 - b. Water Supply The Village of Greenport maintains a fifteen (15) square mile franchise area which extends from the east side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold. As of June 1989 the total Village water plant capacity was calculated at 3.0 mgd (million gallons per day). In addition, the Village of Greenport was and still is under mandate from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to add an additional 1 mgd water supply capability during the year 1988-89. The Village of Greenport has plans and work underway to increase the pumping capacity, including the development of additional wells that will increase the system's capability needs, so as not only to supply additional proposed developments but also to increase the reserve for the Village of Greenport's potable water system. There is also a degree of quality problems, (nitrates & chlorides), at certain wells. Additional water treatment, plus the establishment of new wells is in process to improve both the quality and quantity of the water system so as to continually meet New York State Water Quality Standards and provide the additional quantity required for the franchise area. A request was sent to the Village of Greenport to ascertain whether the Water District could provide water to the proposed project (see Appendix J). A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's office and Gerry Hickson of the Greenport Water District on 8/31/90 revealed that two new wells are now being installed at the west end of Tuckers Lane, both rated for 500 gallons per minute. Upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. -24- Treatment of well #6 located off Horton'$ Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Wa~er Quality S~andards as per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. -25- C. Air Resources 1. Climate The climate of Suffolk County is humid-continental, however, modified by the Atlantic Ocean. Continental influences dominate the climate because masses and weather systems affecting Long Island have their origin principally over the land areas of North America. Significant, too, is the Maritime influences which are characterized by an extended period of freeze-free temperatures and a reduced range in both diurnal and annual temperature. The moderate temperatures range from an average daily high of 83 degrees F in July to mild winter temperatures of an average daily iow of 24 degrees F in January. The freeze-free growing season is about 200 days. The annual average precipitation is about 45 inches, mostly in the form of rain; only 5 to 10 percent falls as snow or sleet. The sun shines 50%-55% of the time in winter and 60% to 65% of the time from May to October. The wind prevails from the north west at an average yearly velocity from 7-9 miles per hour and is influenced by seasonal and daily patterns. 2. ~ir Quality Ambient air quality in various parts of the State is monitored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to assure that they conform with State and National standards. Throughout the New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Regional (AQCR) are air quality monitoring stations that continuously measure the concentrations of major pollutants. These stations are part of the National Air Monitoring System (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitoring Systems (SLAMS). -26- Major or "critical" pollutants are defined as: Total Suspended Particles (TSP), Lead (Pb), Sulfur Dioxide (S02), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO;, and Ozone (03;. Results from these stations are compared with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards (NYSAAQS) to determine attainment or non-attainment status. Achievement of attainment status indicates that the particular pollutant has not exceeded acceptable levels. According to federal and state ambient standards, for TSP, Pb, S02, NO2, and CO the project area is in attainment. It is only recently that Long Island has been dropped from the EPA's carbon monoxide list and probably due to the fact of more newer cars designed for Iow emissions. Ambient 03 levels, however, exceed federal and state standards for the region. Ozone is a form of oxygen that results from chemical reactions between sunshine and nitrogen oxides, the combustion of fossil fuels, and chemicals such as unburned gasoline and certain solvents. Ail areas of the country must reach clean air standards by December 31, 1987. However, Congress has made no determination on what will happen to areas that do not meet the standards by the deadline. In Suffolk County, the ozone problem is partly caused by other areas. The area is downwind of New York city and New Jersey, which are sources of emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Together in the presence of sunlight and higher temperature, they increase ozone. The ozone then blows into Suffolk County. The existing NYS standard for Ozone 0.08 ppm has not yet been officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with the new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is applied to determine compliance status. Nevertheless, the pollution level of ozone will not be significantly affected from the construction of the proposed project. Approximately 62 miles to the west in Babylon is the nearest air quality monitoring station. There are no conditions indicative that the air quality from the Babylon reporting station would be significantly different from the project site. Since carbon monoxide -2 7- levels are not reported by the Babylon monitoring station, the figures taken are from the only reporting station for this parameter which is Eisenhower Park located in Nassau County. (See following ambient state and federal air quality standards and air quality for Suffolk County, Babylon monitoring station.) Existing air guality around the site will not be significantly impacted during construction or as a result of vehicle emissions after development. Carbon monoxide and other pollutants from automobile exhaust are the primary concerns. Fugitive dust from excavation and grading may cause localized particulate levels to rise. The project developer will exercise precautions to control this dust at the site. The release of any pollutants will have only a slight effect on the overall air quality in the area. The air quality of the region will remain well below EPA and State pollution level standards. -28- i~MIIIl:lJI AlII UUALII Y ~IANL)AII"L; I " PRIMARY _J SECONDART ~ - i1~ ALL O ~O~ MA~. 13OO u~/msl ~ I- P~ ~L~ ~q .,~. 40 mg/m9 M~. EO ~/~ kq~'X ~[ ~5 .... lO DAT~ [~. 10~ ,, A U. ~[ ~ ,, ,, ~ I~ ,, .'. ~ a~ ,. ,, J.~-rcr,: NY Sl)I..C, IgB5 'lo!fl Rtl~pnml,.d ts(I.l ~R/m! I'fr t Icul.te~ ~'[~F) flltroR~n IHoxhlo (/.1~1]1 i,i,m Hfs. OF OR.e; FI1 VAT I (). |Itl I I,Pnfl Il. Il ~,R/m~ (,l~lfllptly)nvPrfl~P lt,,l t,~ y.flr Air II.Hll~rl.i .~yf~.m~. IIAR-Iq~,-I~ 19R~ D. Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecoloqy 1. Veqetation The site was visited on 8/30/90 by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. The parcel proposed for rezoning and development has plant diversity. The 1400+ feet of Long Island Sound frontage adds diversity. The shoulder of the bluff is stable. Both the slope and the shoulder are dominated by bayberry, poison ivy, black locust, black cherry, Virginia creeper, bittersweet, honeysuckle, blackberry and various grasses and herbaceous plants. A large old field occupies most of the eastern and central portions of the site inland (or south) of the bluff. This old field is dominated by several golden rods and other herbaceous plants including grasses, but is being invaded by the same woody plants found on the bluff as well as grey birch, red cedar, groundsel bush, various pines and others. The western edge and southern portion of the site support stands of trembling aspen. A few red and Austrian pine, Norway maple, grey birch, European white birch and others occur within these aspens all the way south to Route 48. A hedgerow of mostly large black locusts follows the east border from Route 48 north into the site, then east along the property line. These are the largest (70' to 80' tall) trees on the site. There are patterns of shallow holes and old furrow marks (north-south) that along with the plants present, make it obvious that all or most of this site was a nursery following row crop agriculture. The presence of so many poplar trees and their tendency to grow in rows as wells as the presence of other common nursery tree species indicate the idea that the site may have been used as a nursery. -29- The land surface is relatively flat and the bluff crest on the northwest appears to be the highest part of the property. There is an almost inperceptible slope to the southeast. There is no surface water on or near the site and any archeological value has been eliminated by agriculture. It is unlikely that this site was used in pre-colonial times for more than hunting and gathering. It must be understood that the present vegetation is successional, or transitional and that the site will eventually become dominated by an oak forest. There are few signs of oaks at the moment, but they will arrive and eventually dominate. There were no plant or animal species of any particular significance found on the site by Dr. Johnson. None of the terrestrial species found on the site are included on the Protected Endangered and Threatened Plant lists published by the Department of the Interior or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2. Wildlife The Jem Commons property contains typical oak-pine woodland habitats of small mammals and birds. The following is a list of avian populations which are expected to visit the site at various times during the year. Avian species found within the oak/pine associations include, but are not limited to those listed below. Those species with an asterisk were actually observed on the site. -30- Avian Populations Common Name Latin Name Bobwhite Whip-poor-Will Purple Martin Flicker Hairy Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Blue Jay* Common Crow* Black-capped Chickadee White Breasted Nuthatch Starling Eastern Wood Peewee Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Common Grackle Northern Oriole Red Breasted Nuthatch Robin* Ring-necked Pheasant American Goldfinch Ovenbird Carolina Wren Wood Thrush Hermit Thrush Black & White Warbler Colinus virginianus Caprimulqus vociferus Progne subis Colaptes auratus picoides villosus Tyrannus tyrannus Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Parus atricapillus sitta carolinensis Sturnus vulgaris Contopus virens Cardinalis cardinalis Pheuticus Ludovicianus Quiscalus quiscula Icterus galbula Sitta canadensis Turdus migratorius Phasianus colchicus Carduelis tristis Seiurus aurocapillus Thrvothous ludouicianus H¥1ocichla mustelina Catharus quttatus Miniotilta varia -31- Mammalian populations in general consist of game mammals, small mammals and hoofed browers. These animals are almost totally dependent on vegetation as a primary food source. The following list of mammals have either been identified on this site or are expected to visit this site. Those species with an asterisk were actually observed on the site. Mammals Common Name Latin Name White-tailed Deer Eastern Cottontail* Grey Squirrel Norway Rate White-footed Mouse Meadow Vole Eastern Vole Pine Vole Oppossum Raccoon Eastern Chipmunk Odocoileis virqinianus Sylilaqus floridanus Sciurus carolinesis Rattus norveqicus permyscus leucopus Microtus pennsylvanicus Scalopus aquaticus Microtus Pinetorum Didelmhis vir~iniana Proc¥on lotor Tamias striatus Oppossum, Eastern Chipmunk and all mice, moles and rats make up the unprotected species found on the project site. The following species of reptiles may be found on the site: Reptiles Common Name Latin Name Spring Peeper Red-backed Salamander Eastern Garter Snake Hyla crucifer Plethodon cinereus Thamnomhis sirtalis -32- 1. Soils There are five (5) soil types on the subject site as follows: 60+/- percent are Haven Loam (HaA), 20 percent are Plymouth Series, 10 percent are Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB), 5 percent are Haven Loam (HaB) and the remaining 5 percent is Beaches (Bc). The slope for these range from 2%-8%. See Section IV A.1 "Environmental Setting - Geology" for detailed descriptions of soil types and location of each soil type on site. Ail of the above soil types except Bc are suited to crops. -33- Human Resources A. Transportation 1. Transportation Services The principal transportation arteries servicing the North Fork of Long Island are Middle or North Road (County Route 48) and Main Road (NYS Route 25). Route 25, an east-west roadway, is a two-lane improved roadway passing through the hamlet centers of the North Fork, including Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold within the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. Middle or North Road (County Route 48), also an east-west artery, runs along the northern section of the North Fork. County Route 48 is a four-lane roadway from Mattituck to Southold and a two-lane roadway from Southold to Greenport. County Route 48 adjacent to the site has three lanes. Vehicle access to the site is from County Route 48 on the south. There is a center turn lane and east and westbound through lanes. There are also paved shoulders. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas west and south of the site. A traffic study (See Appendix E for entire Traffic Study) prepared by George B. Michos, P.E. in August 1990, indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway; the key intersection providing access to the site can accommodate the added traffic with the existing geometry and the proposed entrance to the site will have a satisfactory level of service. -34- 2. Public Transportation other modes of transportation to the North Fork include ferry, train, bus and air service. Direct access to the South Fork of Long Island by way of Shelter Island is available on a regular basis from Greenport via the North Ferry Company, Inc. and the South Ferry. In addition, the Cross Sound Ferry, located some eight (8) miles east of Greenport, provides a direct route to New England for automobiles, trucks and walk-on passengers. Passenger rail service to Greenport is limited to two (2) trains eastbound and two (2) trains westbound per day, with more frequent bus-train service. Sunrise Coach Lines, Inc. provides direct bus service from Greenport to New York City - three (3) round-trips per day. Kennedy International Airport is located ninety-one (91) miles west of the project site, while Long Island's MacArthur Airport and Suffolk County's Airport at Westhampton are, respectively, forty-nine (49) and thirty-one (31) miles distant. The parcel on County Route Sound. proposed for development has 576+/- feet of frontage 48 and 1441+/- feet of frontage along the Long Island 3. Pedestrian Environment There are no sidewalks adjacent to or around the subject site. No pedestrians were observed in the area during the on site visit in August 1990. -35- B. Land Use & Zoninq 1. Existing Land Use & Zoning a. The 62 acre parcel proposed for development is a tract of vacant land previously farmed, but not in the last 15 years based on the information available. The tract has no improvements and has been overgrown in recent years since the cessation of agricultural use. As previously stated, the immediate surrounding area consists of varying uses and lot sizes. (See Zoning Map on the following page). The subject parcel is currently zoned R-80 (Residential District). Under this zoning classification a one-family taxed dwelling is permitted on a lot, with a minimum land area of 80,000 square feet or 1.84 acres, which classification is generally referred to as two (2) acre zoning. b. Affected A~ricultural District The lead agency, (Town of Southold), requested a discussion on "utilizing more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil". However, the subject site is presently zoned Residential and, therefore, agricultural resources should not be an issue. According to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map adopted 1/10/89 last revised 12/27/89, the closest agricultural site is located >4 miles to the west of the subject site. The proposed project will have no environmental impact on the agricultural site. Therefore, it is determined that the loss of this area as an agricultural resource is not the result of this rezoning and development, but of other unrelated actions. -36- SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING MAP JEM COMMONS PROJECT SITE HD R-~40 LEGEND ~LANO 2. Land Use Plans As per a telephone conversation with Melissa Spiro at the Town of Southold Planning Department, on 9/11/90. The Town uses the Zoning maps and Ordinances to determine land use. See Section III.C. "Design and Layout". C. Community Services The community services reviewed in this section include educational, police protection, fire protection, health care facilities, social services, recreational facilities, utilities, public water supply. and Educational Facilities. The proposed development lies within the Greenport Union Free School District. This district is relatively small, housing one school building. The enrollment at this school is stable and serves approximately six hundred students K-12. The school district employs approximately one hundred full and part-time employees. The development of this project would contribute approximately 64 school age children to the Greenport School District, and the Superindendent of Schools feels the District can accommodate the additional students the proposed project would create. (See Appendix F). -37- Police Protection. Police protection to the proposed development is the responsibility of the Southold Town Police, located on Route 25 in Peconic. State Police protection is available from the Riverhead Barracks on Route 24. Ability to provide protection to the proposed development is contained in a letter from the Chief of Police as Appendix G. The proposed project is located in Sector 804 of the Southold Town Police Department. Fire Protection. The proposed development is located within the Greenport Fire Department District, which maintains two fire stations, the closest of which is approximately 1 mile from the project site. Their equipment consists of the following: Four Class A pumpers, One Aerial Ladder (75'), One Heavy Rescue/Floodlight Truck, Two ALS equipped ambulances, and a 13' boat with a 15 horsepower outboard motor for water emergencies. There are approximately 200 members in the Department at the present time. Their average response time is very good. The Assistance Chief, Andrew Ficurilli, feels the Fire Department can accommodate the proposed project. (See Appendix H). Health Care Facilities. The Eastern Long Island Regional Hospital is located on Manor Place within the Village of Greenport, a very short distance south of the proposed project, providing both scheduled and emergency medical services on a 24-hour per day basis. In addition to a full complement of local medical, dental and related personnel, Southold residents are also served by the -38- Central Suffolk Hospital some twenty-two (22) miles distant in Riverhead, and the Riverhead Health and Mental Health Centers. Social Services. There are an abundance of Social Service Organizations available in the local area that range from animal shelters, consumer services, legal facilities, employment agencies, housing, human rights, public assistance, tax information, veterans, and voter service organizations. A complete list of each of these, by locale and phone numbers is listed in Appendix I. Recreational Facilities. The Town of Southold offers a variety of recreational opportunities for its permanent residents and seasonal visitors. Representative of more than 574 acres of parkland and preserve available for passive and active recreation are the following facilities: NAME AND LOCATION APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Southold Town Beach Orient Beach State Park at Orient Goldsmith's Inlet Park at Southold Inlet Point Pond Park at Greenport SCOPE Peconic Dunes at Southold Founder's Landing at Southold Moore's Woods Nature Study Area Truman Town Beach, E. Marion 5.9 357 34 36 37 1.8 101 1.7 Utilities. Utilities that are available to the project site include public water supply under the Village of Greenport's franchise and the Long Island Lighting Company's electrical primary distribution line, both of which are located on Route 48-Middle Road. -39- A Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) gas main is also located along Route 48. Water Supply. The Village of Greenport maintains a fifteen (15) square mile franchise area which extends from the east side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold. As previously discussed in Section IV.B.b (Environmental Setting, Water Resources, Water Supply), as of June 1989 the total Village Water Plant Capacity was calculated at 3.0 mgd. In addition, the Village of Greenport was and still is under mandate from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to add an additional 1 mgd water supply capability during the year 1988-89. The Village of Greenport has plans and work underway to increase the pumping, including the development of additional wells that will increase the system's capability, so as not only to supply additional proposed developments, but also to increase the reserve for the Village of Greenport's potable water system. There is also a degree of quality problems, (nitrates & chlorides), at certain wells. Additional water treatment, plus the establishment of new wells is in process to continually meet NYS Water Quality Standards and provide the additional quantity required for the franchise area. -40- A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's Office and Gerry Hickson at the Greenport Water District on 8/30/90 revealed that two(2) wells are now being installed at the west end of Tucker's Lane, both rated for 500 gallons per minute. Upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. Treatment of Well #6 located off Horton's Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Water Quality Standards as per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. As previously stated, a request was sent to the Greenport Village to ascertain availability of water supply to the proposed project (see Appendix J). Specific reference is also made to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, dated April 1983. Groundwater supply conditions in Zone 4, Greenport-Southold are critical, but there is some extra supply available (0.9 mgd available vs. 0.63 mgd required by the year 2000 as depicted in Table 1-1 on the following page). For identification purposes, Zones 1 through 5 are depicted following Page #23 in DEIS, contained herein. Table 8-27 makes a comparison of alternatives for the Greenport-Southold demand center. The recommended alternative is Level III, which is a municipal type distribution system. Implementation of the Level III is recommended, with the report stating: "...adequate supply exists in Zones 3 and 4 to meet Greenport's needs." -41- In order to estimate the total quantity of groundwater that may be withdrawn from larger capacity public supply wells from each water supply zone, water budget areas were delineated. Substantial amounts of groundwater are available outside of the budget areas but, to avoid saltwater intrusion, can only be withdrawn by small, domestic capacity wells. In Zones I and II, the budget areas were defined as those locations where the groundwater level is 5 feet or more above sea level. In Zones III, IV, and V, the availability of groundwater is more limited, so the budget area boundary was defined as the 2-foot groundwater contour. A total of approximately 41.2 mgd of fresh groundwater is available from the budget areas. An additional 10 to 20 mgd is available for domestic wells outside the budget areas. The results of the water budget analysis, by zone, are shown below in Table 1-1, which also includes consumptive use projections for the year 2000. Conclusion. Sufficient fresh groundwater is available to satisfy the needs of the overall planning area. However, critical water supply conditions exist in Zone 5 (Orient; where projected requirements are approximately equal to available supply. Groundwater supply conditions in Zone IV (Greenport/Southold) are also critical although there is some extra available supply (0.9 mgd available versus 0.63 mgd required). -42- TABLE 1-1 WATER BUDGETS AND CONSUMPTIVE USE PROJECTIONS Permissive Domestic Agricultural Water Sustained Yield, Consumptive Use, Consumptive Use, Supply Budget Area Year 2000 Year 2000 Zone (mgd ) ( mgd ) (mgd ) 1 29.4 2.25 3.06 2 5.6 0.97 3.06 3 4.9 1.18 2.80 4 0.9 0.59 0.04 5 0.4 0.11 0.35 TOTALS 41.2 5.10 9.31 -43 - D. Demoqraph¥ 1. Population Characteristics According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the Town of Southold experienced growth of 2,368 persons, or 14.1 percent, during the 1970-1980 decade. Generally this growth rate has continued through the 198o's, but has now started to slow down because of several factors, including cost of land and availability of public utilities. The most populous hamlet in the Town is Southold, Census Tract 1702.01 which grew 27.2% since 1970 to 4,770 persons. There are 1,957 households with only 2.4 persons per household. The median family income is $19,320. This is the Town's lowest, but can be partially offset by the household size. Southold has 2,871 housing units. Sixty-eight percent (1,952 units) of these are year-round occupied units. Twenty-seven percent (804 units) are considered seasonal dwellings or second homes. The age structure of this hamlet's population is older than most. There is only a small percentage of young children under the age of 5 and the school aged children (5-17) are 16% of the population. Additionally, 26% of the population is over 65 years. The combination of these two factors results in the median age of 47.4, which is four (4) years higher than the Town median. -44- E. Cultural Resources Visual Resources. The visual resources of this particular site include the northerly section of the parcel which consists of the Long Island Sound and the vegetated stable bluff. A large old field occupies most of the eastern and central portions of the site inland (or south) of the bluff. The western edge and southern portion of the site support stands of trembling aspen. The presence of these species and their tendency to grow in rows as well as the presence of other common nursery tree species support the idea that the site was used as a nursery. There are patterns of shallow holes and old furrow marks (north-south) that along with the plants present, indicate ghat all or most of this site may have been a nursery, following row crop agriculture. Historic and Archaeological Resources. Since this site was used primarily for farming in the past, it can be safely assumed that the site had been previously disturbed over 70+ years. An on-site inspection conducted by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. on August 30, 1990 revealed that the site had not been used for agricultural purposes within the past 10 to 15 years, based on the soil disturbance and vegetation present on the site. Based upon a field inspection and a review of the literature related to the archaeology of the North Fork and the NYS Register of Archaeological Sites, it is indicated that no known or recorded aboriginal sites lie within or adjacent to the parcel proposed for rezoning. -45- Noise. Noise complaints are often related to land use· Most complaints are made in residential areas during non-working hours. Vehicle traffic is the major source of noise in the project area. Minimal noise is caused by the residential areas nearby. Additional noise from cars and residential activities, etc. will not noticeably increase noise levels throughout the area. -46- V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The resources listed below have been identified by the Lead Agency (Town of Southold), as possiDly having a significant environmental impact. 1. Groundwater Resources The primary expected impact to the groundwater from rezoning and development would be from the nutrients that may enter the groundwater table via individual leaching pools, (if this alternative is chosen), and from fertilization of lawns and other grass areas. Because the groundwater in this area is already considered contaminated from nitrates and temik, there is some question as to whether the proposed development would create an adverse impact, when compared to its previous agricultural use. It does, however, have a potential to have an adverse impact over and above the present non-use of the property. Proposed mitigation measures described in Section VI are such that it is anticipated that potential contamination of recharge groundwater will be minimized, avoided or eliminated. 2. Public Water Supply The only community service that is determined to be potentially adversely impacted by the proposed action is public water supply. As previously indicated, the Village of Greenport, which services this franchise area, has available to them an estimated 3.0 million gallons per day. This project will add an anticipated 27,104+/~ gallons/day. As stated previously, however, the Village of Greenport has specific proposals and plans that would potentially improve the quality of water in existing wells (treatment) and also add to the supply by installing new wells. -47- 3. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat The rezoning and development of this particular site will result in a change of vegetation from present common herbaceous old field species and nursery crop to lawns and shrubbery. As there are no known protected, special concern, rare or endangered species of vegetation, the changes are is considered cosmetic in nature only. Also, since there are no known rare, threatened or endangered species of wildlife utilizing the site, there will be no impact to these species. 4. Aqricultural Resources As previously stated, according to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map adopted 1/10/89 last revised 12/27/89, the closest agricultural site is located >4 miles west of the subject site. The proposed project will have no environmental impact on the agricultural site. Therefore, it is determined that the loss of this area as an agricultural resource is not the result of this rezoning and development, but of other unrelated actions. 5. A~chaeological Resources Since this site was used primarily for farming in the past, it can be safe~y assumed that the site had been previously disturbed over numerous years. An on-site inspection conducted by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. on August 30, 1990 revealed that the site had been used for agricultural purposes, particularly nursery crop, in the past based on the soil disturbance and vegetation present on the site. -48- 6. Open Space As stated previously, all efforts will be made to keep clearing for construction to a minimum. A vegetated buffer will remain along Route 48's entrance to the proposed subdivision and all efforts will be made to keep as much of the black locust along the eastern property line of the site as a buffer area wherever and whenever possible. 7. Traffic Developments of any kind, including residential development, generate increased vehicle trips. It is also understandable that local and adjacent residents who are used to and enjoy the low population urban density feel that any increase in vehicle traffic is an adverse impact. However, the traffic study indicates that the surrounding streets, roads and intersections have adequate capacity for the projected increased vehicle trips without adverse impact from the increased traffic generated by the project. (See Appendix E for Traffic Study). The traffic study prepared by George B. Michos, P.E. indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway; the key intersection providing access to the site can accommodate the added traffic with the existing geometry and the proposed entrance to the site will have a satisfactory level of service. 8. Land Use & Zoninq (Cumulative Impacts; The Lead Agency, (Town of Southold) has stated in their Positive Declaration that "the project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined". ~ -49- Cumulative Impacts or a precedent setting nature should not be an issue for this proposed site. When looking at the adjoining properties, there is high density development completely surrounding the subject site. The proposed project is consistent with the development adjoining the subject site in all directions. Also, due to the fact that the Town of Southold has created Hamlet Density Zoning and approved previous developments under Hamlet Density for properties located within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet, it should be assumed that this site which is located within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet is consistent with that zoning. As previously stated, according to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map adopted 1/10/89 last revised 12/27/89, the only two other parcels within a one mile radius of the subject site that are zoned R-80, is a golf course and a cemetery. The parcel located 1600'+/- to the east (on the north side of County Route 48) is currently a golf course, and it is unlikely that single family dwellings will be constructed on this site. The cemetery is the only other parcel zoned R-80 which is located 800' +/- to the east (on the south side of County Route 48). It is definite that single family dwellings will not be constructed on this cemetery site. Due to the above, it is very unlikely that this project will be of "a precedent setting nature; or create "cumulative impacts", since the surrounding area is already developed with high-density housing. -50- I. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Natural Resources The natural concerns for which mitigation measures are to be implemented include: o Geology o Water Resources o Terrestrial Ecology o Agricultural Resources A. Geoloqy Ail top soil material is to be stockpiled during the construction and used for the restoration and landscaping around the new housing units. In addition, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve in place the natural growth which exists on the site. Additional plantings of shrubs and street trees will also help preserve the topsoil. Also, during the construction period the contractor will be required to surface the streets as soon as grading and compacting is complete so as to preclude erosion in the designated street areas. B. Water Resources 1. Groundwater Mitigation measures to prevent groundwater contamination include the following: a. A site construction restriction that allows no underground fuel storage tanks. This action has been previously supported and public agreed to by the Southold Town Planning Board. -51- b. Historically it has been proven that tbe indiscriminate application of lawn fertilizers can, and will, result in the contamination of groundwater, particularly by increased nitrogen levels. Mitigation measures, in the form of restrictions to limit the application of such lawn fertilizers, will insure the use of these nutrients by plant growth and not allow them to be applied to the extent that they will percolate into the groundwater recharge zone. According to the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, published by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, in 1984, limitations of soils for lawns has been established under three catagories; severe, moderate and slight constraints depending upon the soil present on the site. The subject site would fall into the category of slight since the site has Riverhead sandy loam (3-8% slopes), Plymouth Series (3-8% slopes), Haven Series (0-3% slopes) and Haven loam (2-6% slopes). A 0 - 8% slope is used for this category in the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook. In the section where tbe soil is classified as Beaches (Bc), no construction will take place and, in fact, construction will not take place within 100' of the crest of the bluff. Haybales and/or a snow fence will be installed along the landward side of the crest of the bluff for the length of the property during construction to avoid erosion to the crest of the bluff or the bluff face. These lawn constraints are related to turf quality rather than groundwater or surface water impacts. A "slight constraint" indicates no limitations or a few that can be overcome with relatively little cost, a moderate constraint indicates that the limitations are more difficult and expensive to correct, while severe constraints indicate the soil is very poor and will require excessive modification or maintenance if used for lawns. -52- There are recommendations in that report rehabilitate lawn areas only when the presence conditions indicates suitability for turf: to establish or of the following o nearly level or moderately sloped terrain; (<8% slope) o moderately drained soils; (a moderate permeability rate) o a moderately fine or medium textured surface o a small or a moderate amount of stony or sandy soil o a seasonal high water table more than 12" below the surface o soil or soils listed under "slight constraints". The subject site meets all of the above conditions to fit into the category of "slight constraints". The report also suggests alternatives to lawn areas such as native woodland species, low growing deciduous or evergreen groundcovers, or gravel as a groundcover, etc. to limit the use of fertilizers. Also, in areas where conditions are suitable for lawns, selection of a type or types of grass requiring the minimal use of fertilizers, which can minimize nitrogen leaching to groundwater, such as fine fescues, perennial rye grass and varieties of native grasses that adapt to Iow nitrogen levels will be used on this site wherever and whenever possible. Since the proposed change of zone and the development will be utilizing public water supply, there is little localized impact to the groundwater from pumping or other methods of withdrawal expected to occur as the result of this proposed development. -53 - C. Air Resources Not applicable. D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology The maximum potential development of one hundred and seventy-one (171) dwelling units will cause the removal of existing vegetation in areas where roadways and utilities are to be installed and homes located, and, as a consequence, local wildlife will be temporarily disrupted. None of the terrestrial species identified in this DEIS are included on the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant lists published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It is expected that similar populations will return to the development parcel as it matures as a residential community. Where natural areas are disturbed, bushes, trees and shrubs which fit the natural habitat and are suited to the conditions of the area will be planted to provide shade, define the grounds and soften the architectural elements. As part of the landscaping and planting plans, trees and shrubs will be planted around the homes and along the roadways. The row of black locusts along the eastern property line will be left in its natural state wherever and whenever possible. Areas with newly constructed homes will be replanted as soon as possible. A significant mitigation measure to the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the maintenance of the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and native type grasses. -54- Agricultural Resources There is no known mitigation measure that is available to reduce the impact on agricultural resources. On this particular site, the land is already out of farm type production and has been for some time. It has not been zoned agricultural, or placed in the Farmland Preservation Program, nor is it being presently used for agriculture by the Owner, and therefore there is no intention of returning it to agricultural production. Human Resources The human resources addressed for which mitigation measures are to be implemented include: o Transportation o Land Use and Zoning o Community Services o Cultural Resource -55- A. Transportation The proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions within or along the major routes serving Southold, specifically State Route 25 or County Route 48, (See Appendix E). The proposed development can readily accommodate the additional traffic flow generated and will not effect the current level of service, therefore, mitigation is not required. B. Land Use and Zonin~ There are very few mitigation measures that can be implemented when changing a land use from low-density residential to a higher-density residential use. The most logical and practical measure is to develop the site to be consistent with the residential character of the adjacent properties to the east, west and south, and also to lay out the proposed development to permit the installation of suitable residential infrastructure, which includes municipal water and properly developed local streets that will provide a well planned residential type environment. Included in this would be the landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual resource. C. Community Services 1. Public Water Supply No definite response has been received from the Greenport Water District and it is unknown if mitigation is required. -56- 2. Other Community Services As it has been determined that the proposed rezoning and development will not create any adverse impact to other Community Services, no mitigation action for these are required. (See Appendices F, G & H). D. Cultural Resources 1. Visual Resources The only mitigation measure considered worthy of consideration is to arrange the tree and shrub plantings so that they will enhance the visual impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Also, to leave as much of the existing vegetation and trees on the site as possible. 2. Historic and Archaeoloqical Resources Mitigation is not required since there is no known resource to protect. As previously stated, the site was used for agriculture purposes, and therefore previously disturbed. 3. Noise To avoid disturbance to the surrounding residences, site construction will be limited Co normal daylight working hours. Included in the final plat submittal will be shrubs and landscaping plans that will reduce noise transmission from the project site. (Reference Southold Town Code A-lO6). -57- VII. ;~DVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED There are several minor but unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the development of the Jem Commons residential subdivision. None of these will De so severe as to render the project unfeasible. Among the environmental impacts associated with the development of this project are the loss of vegetation and open space, temporary displacement of small mammals and birds, energy consumption, vehicular traffic (although not significant), demand upon the public water supplier, insignificant air pollution, minor increase in ambient noise levels, increase in solid waste generation, minor disruption of the groundwater regime and impact on the visual character of the site. Based on a comprehensive review of IV, V, and VI, the only adverse environmental impact that will occur regardless of mitigation measures will be the loss of open space, the use of an already stressed public water supply system, and the higher density land use proposed. -58- VIII. ALTERNATIVES A. Alternative Size (32 Units; An alternative to constructing 171 units would be to construct 32 units on two acre lots. This alternative meets the existing zoning and therefore would not require a change in zone. Lot clearing would be reduced substantially, water usage would be reduced and vehicle trips around the proposed subdivision would be decreased. However, this alternative has been determined as unfeasible since it is not consistent and compatible with the surrounding high-density use which already exists adjacent to the subject site. Moreover, it is not economically feasible, not only for the project sponsor, but also for the Town of Southold, which would receive $363,698.29 less in tax revenues if this alternative is implemented. B. No Action The "no action" alternative examined in this instance would be for the Town Board's rejection of the Change of Zone and the Planning Board's to not approve this site for moderate and affordable housing. It is believed that this would frustrate the efforts of the owner to undertake the development of this particular site to include moderate and affordable housing lots that will assist in helping fill the existing demand for Moderate and Affordable Income Housing. The end result to this no action alternative would be that the applicant would withdraw his request for rezone and the property would continue to be in two (2) acre zoning. -59- This would mean that the plans for moderate and affordable housing would be discontinued for tDis particular site. As previously discussed there are no significant environmental impacts pertaining to this proposed action, that would be avoided if the Town Board and the Town Planning Department were to pursue the no action alternative. Not only would there be a great loss for moderate and affordable housing to the citizens of Southold, but the Town of Southold would not benefit from the tax revenues that the proposed project would generate. -60- IX. IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed development of the parcel will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the following resources to the intended project: (~) A 62 Acre tract of non-productive and unused land will be developed; (2) Infrastructure installation and maintenance and individual capital investments will be made in residential premises; and (3) Energy resources will be committed to construction activity and to long-term uses for heating, cooling and related functions. As previously discussed in this DEIS: The water provided by the Village of Greenport will result in increased annual pumpage; (2) At least some of the existing vegetation on portions of this site will be removed, to be replaced with improved, native, non-endangered species; and (3) Minor loss of residual capacity will be experienced in existing streets and highways. -61 - There is, however, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources identified that would suggest that the proposed project be re-examined or that the proposed action should not occur. The most significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment would be the subdividing of this property for individual moderate and affordable housing lots that would negate the future availability of this property to be used for agriculture or for two acre lots for detached housing. -62- X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS A. Population Based on the proposed project of construction of 171 single family dwellings, and assuming there would be 3.6 persons per household, there would be approximately 616 persons in the project. Therefore, this development of moderate and affordable income housing is expected to result in a resident population of approximately 616 people. This cannot be directly converted, however, into increased population as it is expected that the majority of the occupants will be young working families that will relocate from sub-standard or illegal rentals in other parts of the Town. With limited moderate and affordable housing within the Town, these young working families, out of economic necessity, have had to live in available housing space, which also includes living with parents on an interim basis, until other means of housing could be obtained. Most often a major concern of development is increased population and its impact on local schools. As explained above, will be a minor increase in the school population. there B. Support Facilities It has been determined that existing businesses within the Town are sufficient to serve the new housing units. An increase in support businesses often comes about from significant increase in population, but as pointed out above, this is not likely to occur as a result of this particular project. Probably the most noticeable increase in service type work will be maintenance, including snow removal of the additional roads and streets within the housing area. -63- C. Development Potential The project in itself is not expected to result in any increased development potential, mainly because of its self-contained nature. Because of the urgent need for moderate income housing in greater numbers than would be supplied by previous projects, the success of this project is expected to give encouragement to meet the area's requirements. D. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts (precedent setting), should not be an issue for this particular site. As stated previously, the surrounding area is already developed with high density dwellings and the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the character of the surrounding community. -64- REFERENCES Builder Magazine, A Hanley-Wood, Inc. publication, 1990 Johnson, Robert W., PH.D., Associate Professor of Biology NYSDEC, Air Quality Report NYSDEC, Ambient Air Quality Standards NYSDEC, Draft L.I. Groundwater Management Program, Executive Summary Long Island Almanac, Long Island Regional Long Island Regional Handbook Southold Town Code A-lO6 Town of Southold Zoning Map Suffolk County Atlas U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 U.S. 199o Planning Board, Planning Board, L.I. 208 Study, Vol. 1 Nonpoint Source Management Department of Agriculture, Soil Survey of Suffolk County -65- ASSESSORS Char[es C. Watts, C/u~irman Frederick E. Gordon, Assessor Robert I. Scott, Jr., Assessor Telephone (516) 765-1937 SCO~ L. HARRIS, Supervisor Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Fa~t (516) 76%1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 4, 1990 Donald J. Middleton Environmental Consultant 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, NY 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton, Below please find the approximate assessment and taxes based on the 1989-90 tax rate. SCTM~1000-35-1-24 Assessment Taxes Schematic A 989,000 $502,730.46 " B 273,512 139,032.17 If you have to call. RIS/cg any questions please do not hesitate Sinc/~ely, /? / Robert I. Scot~'~"~-~'- Assessor MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DONALD J. MIDDLETON, JR. August 29, 1990 Mr. Charles C, Watts, Chairman Board of Assessors Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jem Commons SCTM# 1000-035-1-24 Dear Mr. Watts: Reference is made to our initial letter to Mr. Fred Gordon dated 6/27/90 and your subsequent reply dated 7/11/90 concerning information required for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Jem Commons project to be located on the North side of North Road and east of Sound Road in Greenport. I have enclosed for your information two (2) schematic site plans labeled "A","B" each indicating a different density as listed below. Schematic "A"- 171 total lots- 42 Acres ~ 30units ~ 1,O00.sq.ft building · ¢122units @,l~650.sq.ft b~ildinn on 1/4'acre sites. 20 Acres ~ lgunits @ 1,650.sq.ft building on I acre sites. Schematic "B"- 32 total lots-~ 2cres /unit 32 Units @ 1,650.sq.ft. building (footprint area) I hope the enclosed information is sufficient to provide us with the necessary projection of assessment and taxes for the proposed project. Y]~_u~s-_t r u 1 y, Donald J. ~iddleto~---' DJM/ek ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 66 0OMMACK ROAD, SUITE 103, COMMACK, NEWYORK 11725 · 515 462.2236 - FAX 516 462 2237 ME MIDI)I_I21 (t)l',l I: NVII ]ONMEN IAL INC. June 27. 1990 Mr. Frederick E. Gordon, Assessor Town of Southold Board of Assessors Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Jem Commons, Southold, NY Suffolk County Tax Hap # 1000-035-1-24 Dear Mr. Gordon The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an affordable housing project located in Southold. The project is on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and is east of Sound Road. We are in the process of preparing the DEIS for the project for both change of zone and site plan requirements. The project proposes a change of approximately 42 acres of residential (R-80) to Hamlet Density District (HD) to allow for the contruc~ion of 170 family units. An additional 20 acres of residential property (R-80) would be changed to R-40 Residential Low Density District which allows for a one acre minimum. Part of the requirements in the prepartation of this Impact Statement is the evaluation of change in taxes and assessment that will occur If thi~ property is developed as proposed. Would you please provide a tabulated evaluation and summary of the assessment and taxes of present versus projected if the property is developed as proposed If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, DJM:JM COUNTY OF ~UFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PAI'flIOK (~, HALRIN COUNTY EWEI~UI*IVE March 27, 1990 KfVIN ~, A IIIIII?AN'i' ~ The Honorable Soott Harris Supervisor, Town of Southold Members of [he Town Board 53095 Hain Road $outhold, NY 11971 Rem Parcel ~1 - Owner - "Jam Realtv"l (Jam Co~uons) 62 acres ng=~h og ~he viiAage ot O~eenpSr~ on Long Island 9ound~ Tax Map t000-035-1-24 Parcel ~2 - Owner -"g.M. ~ontokosta.'~ ($ou~hold Co~ons) 32 acres no,th et bueino~a hamlet o~ ~ou~hold, Tax ~ap 1000-055-05-0i7 Dear Supervisor Harrlel Th~ owners of the above captloned.prope£ty have applied for the Sui[olk County Feet-Tracking A~fotdable Homes Program. The owners have proposed t.o develop both parcels as subdivisions where 20% of the units will be effordably priced. The developer has agreed to comply with the eligibility criteria et 8ttffolk County's Affordable Homes Program and, therefore, the homes will cost lees than $100,000.00. Southoid residents sill also get fi. ret priority. Be advised that, eub~ect parcels, applicant, we have approved both projects Affordab~.e Homes Fast T~acki. ng Program. after' rnvi~.,~/n~ the application for each o£ tho and based on t. he Jniormation 9upplied by ~or th~ St.~olk County Very truly yours, /1 EDwin S. Law AssiStant County Executive GEORGE B. MICHOS, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 101 Longfellow Lanc Porl Jefferson, NY 11777 (516) 928-8237 JEM COMMONS Traffic Evaluation Prepared For: Hiddleton Environmental, Inc. 6B Commack.Rd, Suite 103 Commack, NY' 11725 Augugt lggo SUMMARY: This report presents an evaluation of the traffic impacts of a proposed "Jem Commons" condominium complex in Greenport, NY, The report considers the existing residential and commercial traffic and the impacts of the traffic ~enerated by the proposed use on the adjacent roadway, The results of'~ this analysis indicate that: o The traffic ~enerated by the proposed use will not reduce the ~eveJ of service of the adjacent roadway; o The key intersections prouidin~ access to the site can accommodate the added traffic with the existing ~eometry. The proposed entrance to the site on CR 48 will have a satisfactory level of service. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to examine the traffic impacts associated with the proposed development of a 62.3 acre site in Greenport, NY into the "Jam Commons" condominium complex. Vehicle access to the site la from Main Road on the south. This ts also known as County Road 48, and has three lanes adjacent to the site. There Is a center turn Jane and east and westbound through lanes. There are also paved shoulders. The major arterial roadways serving the area of the project are CR46 - Hain Rd. adjacent to the site and SR 25, Hain St. .i3 mi west. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas west and south of the site. This evaluation is based on the fo]lowing consideration: ~ Existing traffic counts on the adjacent and area road network. # The effect of the traffic generated by the proposed development on the local street system. ~ The existing conditions at the key intersections providing access to the site. In performing this evaluation we obtained existing traffic data from the NY State DOT and field traffic counts, ge also observed traffic activity at the key intersections around the site. Figure ! is a location map showtn~ the project site, and area road network. An Appendix is provided containing traffic engineering terms which are pertinent to this project, worksheets and calculations and traffic count data. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS: At the proposed project site, CR a8 is a three lane highway with a separate center turn lane. The travel lanes are 12 ft. wide and there are paved shoulders of varying width. ;REEl FIGURE ]. : PROJECT LOCATION Traffic controls consist of a stop sign at the Main St. intersection to the wast and a stop sign at the Sound Rd. intersection ,also to the west. The alignment of CR 46 at the site is straight and level. Sight distances are good at the proposed driveway location. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: To assess the impact of the proposed use on the adjacent roadway network, it is necessary to initially establish existing or baseline conditions. Traffic volumes on the surrounding streets were calculated from on-site counts during the week of July 23-27, 1990. From these sources the following PM peak hour volumes were established as existing conditions: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR Highway Peak Hour Volume vph E. Bd. W. Bd. N. Bd. S. Bd. CR a8 228 260 Main Street 200 172 Sound Road 40 12 The existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2. GENERATED TRAFFIC= In order to estimate the traffic generated by the proposed site use and predict the routes this traffic would use, the following procedures were usedl 1. Trip Generation: The "Trip Generation Report ~ Fourth Edition" of the Institute of Transportation Engineers ({TEl is the usual source for trip generation data. The data provided for condominiums were used to estimate the trip generation as follows: 4 VOLuMes units = 170 Avg, rate -- .446 vph/unit AH .561 vph/unit PM For the Jam Commons site this would give the follouing traffic distributions~ AM PM peak hour trips - 76 enter = .16 x 76 · 12 exit = .84 x 76 = 64 peak. hour trips = 95 enter = .67 x 95 = 6a exit = .33 x 95 = 31 These values were used in the capacity analysis for the project entrance. 2. Traffic Aesignment~ CR ~8 provides access to the project site and all traffic uae assigned to this road. Inbound and outbound splits were based on the trip generation factors noted above. Traffic splits for the project entrance area based on access road directional splits. All figures are for the PM peak hour, 4-5 PM. The traffic assignment to the adjacent roads is shown on Figure 3. CAPACITY ANALYSIS: Since this project is in a built up area, the capacity of the adjacent intersections is the key factor in determining the capacity of the area roads. Intersection capacity analyses uere performed for the unsignallzed intersection at the project entrance and the CR dB - Main St. intersection. The methodology employed in the analysis is that published : in the 1985 Higheay Capacity Manual (HCM) of the Transportation Research Board. lB TRAFFIC ASSIGNHENT 1. CR AG & Entrance= This will be an unsignalized 'T' intersection with shared turn ]aries. Unsignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on CR 48. The results are shown in Table ! below. TABLE 1~ INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Existing W/Project CR 40 & Entrance Lt from Entrance A Rt from Entrance A Lt from Hain St. A CR 48 & Main St. Lt from Main St. B B Rt from Main St. A A Lt from CR AB A A CR 48 & Sound Rd. Lt from Sound Rd. B B Rt from Sound Rd. A A Et from CE AG A A From the data presented in Table I it is evident that the traffic from the proposed project will not reduce the LOS at the project entrance. The non-impact of the project is due to the very Iow site generated volumef. It should also be noted that the project uill not add a significant volume of traffic to CR 48. Since the traffic counts ware made during the summer peak traffic period, this analysis represents a "worst-case" condition. Traffic during the off-pmak months on CR 48 wil{ be 16-20% lower than the volume counts presented in this report. 8 CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study Indloate that the development of the proposed Jam Commons condominiums uti) not reduce [ha level of service of the adJaoent roadway. The unstEnaltzed Intersection alone CR 48 et the project entrance will have satisfactory level of service for all turn movements. REFERENCES: 1. "Highway Capacity Manual", SpeoIal Report Transportation Research Board, 1985. 2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 209, 'ITE Trip Generation Report" Fourth Edition, iS80. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 'Transportation and Land Development", 19BB. APPENDIX: 1. Glossary of Traffic En~tneerInE Terms 2. Traffic Counts 3. Intersection Diagrams and Worksheets S, ppendix R. Glossary' Ar~a of Influence (also referrecl m as sm~i~ or trade ama). The area from which a business draws Its customers. Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that can be expected to travel over a $1ven section of roadway or a specific lane durLng a given time period under prrualJlng roadway and prevailing Imffic conditions. Critical Movement Analysis (also referred to as critical lane analysis). A technique used In c~rtain planning applications to de~etmine le'uel o! service at a signalized Intersection. Design Hour. The worst.-mse traffic slluaUon expected to occur within an hour period during a typical day In Ihe design year. Design Year. The ~ar a development is scheduled to open. tics of a roadway (e.g., vertical and horizontal lane align- ment; number of lanes; exlstencs of atmlllar,/lanes; and Intersections) that affect Its capacity. Pm'oalling Traffic CondiHon.~. The factors that constantly affect the capacity of a roadway, Including traffic volume; penni of traffic volume constituted by large vehicles; nature of conflicting vehicular movements; and pedes- trian/bicycle movements. Signal Pha~e. That part of a traffic signal's time cycle allo- cated to a traffic movement (e.g., left turns) or a combi- nation of movementl recalvlng the right-of-way simul- taneously. Traffic Warrants. Criteria ueed to assess the necessity for a traffic signal. Directional Distribution. The peroent distribution of site- generated vehicle trips on malor approach routes to a development. Level of Service. A measure of the effect on capacity of pre~ailing roadway and prevailing traffic conditions. Peak Hour. The hour during which the heaviest volume of traffic occurs on a roadway. P,,~ailing Roadmay Condition~. The physical characteris- · [I,~clz~ mnra >dthin · deflM~on ~ppe~ elm, whe~ In Iht gla~ar./. Trip Assignment. The assignment of vehide trip volumes (site-generated plus through traffic) to the roadway net- work around a development, and the assignment of site- generated vehicle trip volumes to Individual driveways of the development. Tr/p £n~s. The toial number of trips entering plus the total number of trips leaving a development_ Trip Generation. 'l'he number of trips generated by a development; sometimes calcula~l In trip ends, as in I'l-I~s Trip Generation Manual. Level of Service Quality of Tralrfic Operation A B C D F Free flow, minimal delay due to random arrival during red traffic signal indication. Queues develop occasionally that may not be delivered during the first green light indication (i.e., wait through a red light). Stable flow (typical design level); approximately 30 percent of the green indications fail to deliver queues forming. Backups may develop behind turning vehicles Approaching unstable flow; approximately 70 percent of the green indications fail to deliver the waiting queues. Delay may be substantial (waiting through two cycles of the traffic signal), but the queues occasionally clear during peak hour. Unstable flow, roadway is operating at capacity with long queues the entire peak hour. Forced flow, jammed intersection, long delays are expected with drivers having to wait through more than two cycles of the traffic signal. Al WORKSHEET FOE ANALYSIS OF T-INTERSECTIONS LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major StrceI- ~.~ .d-l~ ('~) N Grade ,- ~'~E_ V3 ~ V, .~__ _% .. _~v, Dal~ofCoun~:~ 0I T~e Period: ~-~ P ~ ~[ D YIELD Average Run~g Speed: N Minor ~, Street: PHF: '~ Grade % ItOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: 4ZIO-. N Grade '.4~' V: __~,o O v~ Date of Counts:'"~- TLme Period: /Z- ! p Average. Running Speed: PHF: Grade LOCATION: Minor I _Street'_ HOURLY VOLUMES Major Slreet: Grade ~ V~ --% ~ V~_ Dat'e of Counts:. Ti.me Period: Average Running Speed: Grade . ON 0 STOP -- -- [] YIELD . Slreel., % I IOURLY VOLUMES · ® Major Street: ~-~- '4xt~ N.MT1 .. v,t~ Grade I,ta~'V3 _ V, -% __~ ~ - Z r v, v,I Dale of Counts' -7."~&-~,O.-~ J ~ J~ STOP Tune Period: ,4 - ~ ~' ~-'] [3 YIELD Average Running Speed: . N ~ Minor Street: PHF:~ Grade · % ..t~t:tI~l~.~- LOCATION:, r~A uv/ IIOURLY VOLUMES Major Strect:~ N Grade __% ~ V~ " Dale of CountS:~ Tune Perle& 12-1 P Average. Ru~ning Speed: PRF: . Grade % LOCATION: IIOURLY VOLUMES Major SIrLX~t: Grade __ V~ Date of Counts:. Tune Period: Average Running Speed: f .PHF' Grade I I [] sTOP [] YIELD Minor Streeh % 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE NAME OF THE NAME OF THE DATE OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR ~8 NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Entrance ANALYST .............................. tmn ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/2T/gO TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 4-SP With Proleot INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET CONTROL TYPE TYPE: T-INTERSECTION DIRECTION: EAST/WEST SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT EB WB NB SB 38 0 -- 3 THRU 228 280 -- 0 RIGHT 0 26 -- 28 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB i I -- I C! ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT GRADE EASTBOUND 0.00 WESTBOUND 0,00 NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 90 20 N gO 20 N 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND S 0 0 ~ESTBOUND 5 0 0 NORTHBOUND ...... SOUTHBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table £0-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB S.SO S.SO 0,00 S.SO MAJOR LEFTS EB S.O0 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 C2 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERViCE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- T]AL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPAC]TY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) e (pcph) c c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHt 3 428 ~13 > ~13 > ~10 > A > 72~ > 688 PA 32 787 787 > 787 > ?SS > A MAJOR STREET E8 LEFT 43 873 873 873 830 A C3 19B5 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page~l ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK hOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULAtiON .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR 4B NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Mmtn NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS {mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 12-1P E×lst Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION Major STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 1~4 9G -- THRU 158 148 0 -- RIGHT 128 0 16~ -- NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB UB NB SB 1 1 I -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pa~e-2 EASTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (~t) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 2O N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 BO 20 N SOUTHBOUND ..... VEHICLE COMPOSITI'~N EASTBOUND SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES S O O WESTBOUND S O 0 NORTHBOUND S 0 0 SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST, FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5,50 0.00 5.50 HAJOR LEFTS ~6 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 C5 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT RIGHT 109 a46 388 > 388 > 279 > C > 589 > 293 ]C 1~7 846 8a6 ) 8a6 > 659 > a MAJOR STREET ~B LEFT t84 875 875 875 711 A C6 1985 HCM: UNSIGNADIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-i ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPUGATION .................................. 26000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR ~8 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Main NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OP THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/g0 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. ~-5P Exist Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUHES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 108 92 -- THRU 120., 1~8 0 -- RIGHT GL 0 108 -- NUMBER DF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I I -- C7 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS O, O0 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0,00 go 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 BO 20 N SOUTHBOUND ..... VEHICLE COMPOSITI6N EASTBOUND % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 5 0 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 0 NORTHBOUND 5 O 0 SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GaP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.BO MAJOR LEFTS WB 5.00 S.O0 O.00 S.OO MINOR LEFTS NB 8.BO 6.50 O.OO 6.50 CO CAPACITY AND LEVEL-DF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT FLOW- RATE ¥(pcph) POTEN- ACTUAL TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY e (pcph) ¢ (pcph) c (pcph) c c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT RIGHT 112 132 524 478 > 478 > 366 > B > 646 923 923 > 923 > 79! > A MAJOR STREET LEFT 132 98! 98t 98t 849 A CQ 1985 HCM: UN$|GNALIZED INTERSECTIONS P~se-I ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. g AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CE 48 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Main St NAME DF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. A-SP With Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION MAJOR STREEt CONTROL TYPE TYPE: T-INTERSECTION DIRECTION: EAST/VEST NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT THRU RIGHT EB WR NB SB 0 122 92 -- 139 162 0 64 0 127 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I 1 -- C10 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 go 20 N WESTBOUND 0,00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ..... VEHICLE COMPOSITI6N EASTBOUND SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES 5 0 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 0 NORTHBOUND 5 0 0 SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GaP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB S.O0 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 C11 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- FLOW- TIAL RATE CAPACITY v(peph) c (pcph) ACTUAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY c (pcph) c (pcph) c c v LOS M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT lOS ~sg RIGHT 1'~5 gOl ~a2 > ~A2 > 337 > B > 627 > 378 >B gOl > 901 > 756 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 96t 961 822 A C12 1965 HCM: UNSiGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR a8 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound Ave, NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. tmn DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/y¥) .................. 7/26/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 12-1P Exist Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT THRU RIGHT EB ~B NB SB 12 0 -- 16 3B4 268 -- 0 0 0 -- 4 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB ~B NB SB I I -- I C13 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 0,00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ............ SOUTHBOUND 0.00 go 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITI6N EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 5 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND S SU TRUCKS AND RV'S S COMBINATION VEHICLES 0 MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL gap MINOR RIGHTS SB S.50 S.SO 0.00 S.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 S.OO O.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB B.SO 6.50 O.OO $.50 C14 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERViCE P~g~-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOM- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY u(pcph) ~ (pcph) ¢ (pcph) c (pcph) ~ = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT 18 346 343 > 343 > > 386 '5 792 792 > 792 324 > B >B 788 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 14 892 892 892 878 A C15 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR 48 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound Ave. NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. tmn DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/y¥) .................. 7/26/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 4-5P Existing Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET CONTROL TYPE TYPE: T-INTERSECTION DIRECTION: EAST/UEST SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 2~ 0 -- 12 THRU 288 244 -- 0 RIGHT 0 16 -- 0 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I -- I CiG ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS N 90 20 N 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES S O 0 S 0 0 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 C17 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph~ c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT t4 410 402 > 402 > 389 > 402 > 389 -0 810 810 > 810 > 810 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 27 gO1 gOl 901 873 A 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Pa~e-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOU~ FACTOR .................................. AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/~EST STREET ..................... CR NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/y¥) .................. 7/27/90 TIRE PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. ~-SP gith Pro~ect INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET CONTROL TYPE TYPE: T-INTERSECTION DIRECTION: EAST/~EST SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 24 0 -- 0 THRU 266 272 -- 0 RIGHT 0 16 -- 12 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB ~B NB SB I I -- I ADJUSTMENT PACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0,00 NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0,00 PERCENT RIGHT TURN GRADE ANGLE 0.00 9O CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 20 N 90 :20 N gO 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND S 0 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 0 NORTHBOUND ......... SOUTHBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED (Table 10-2) VALUE SIGHT D1ST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB S.SO 5.50 O.OO 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 C20 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY vCpcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) ¢ c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT 0 ~06 398 > 398 > 39B > B > 780 > 766 >A ~4 780 780 > 780 ? 766 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 27 871 BT1 871 844 A C2! GREENPORT UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT GREENPORT, NEW YORK 11944 516-477-19,50 FAX 516-477-'2164 CARL J. NELSON Ed. D July 10, 1990 Mr. Donald J. Middleton Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Commack Road, Suite 103 Cor~nack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton: In response to your letter of July 5, 1990 regarding the Environmental Im- pact Statement for an affordable housing project to be located in Seuthold Town, on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road, I am providing you with the following information: A confirmation that the site is located within the Greenport School District's boudaries. The project is located within the Greenport School District. The amount of children within the District. A. The stability of enrollment, (i.e. increasing, decreasing or stable. Approximately 600 - K - 12 - stable 3. The amount of employees in the District. Approximately 1OO - full and part-time Whether, in your opinion, the District can accommodate 64 more students. The District can acconm~date 64 more students. 5. Number of school buildings in the District. There is one (1) school building. Should you require additional information, pleas?,feel free to call me. Superintendent of Schools CON/maw MII.)I )1 I' I ()f,l I'FIVII I(.)NMIiN IAI_ lNG. July 5, 1990 Dr. Carl J. Nelson Superintendent of Schools Greenport School District Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Dr. Nelson: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold. The project will be on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road. One of the requirements of the EIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local school district. It is estimated that approximately 64 children will be added to Southold's schools when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with the following information: A confirmation that the site is located within the Greenport School District's boundaries. 2 The amount of children within the District. A. The stability of enrollment, (i.e. increasing, decreasing or stable. 3 The amount of employees in the District. 4 Whether, in your opinion, the District can accommodate 64 more students. 5 Number of school building~ in the District. Thank you for your cooperation. DJM:JM Sincerely, ..- ~ ..-/ ~, ~-~ Donald~J.~ Middleton FI DANIEL WIhlTER$ POLICE DEPARTMENT, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIC. NEW YORK, 11958 TELEPHONE EMERGENCY DIAL 911 July 9,1990 Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Commack Road Commack, New York 1[725 Att: Mr. Donald Middleton Dear Mr. Middleton: In response to your two (2) letters dated July 5,1990. Both letters are identical in information needed by you for two (2) affordable housing projects in the Town of Southold. I can answere both letters at the same time. 1- Both sites are within the jurisdiction of tile Southold Town Police Department. 2- There is one police officer and one patrol car assigned to each of the sites. The one east of Sound Road is in Sector 804 and the one in Southold near Boisseau Avenue is in Sector 803. The dividing line between the sectors is Chapel Lane in West Greenport. 3- The Southold Town P.D. can with no problem accommodate this project. If I can be of further assistance to you in this matter please contact Very tr~}yours, H. Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/jj I I:NVII I{)[",IMI2N'IAI_ INC. July 5, 1990 Chief H. Daniel Winters Police Department Town of Southold Peconic, New York 11958 Dear Chief Winters: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold. The project will be on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road. One of the requirements of the EIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local police force. It is estimated that approximately 448 residents will be added to the area when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, would appreciate it if you would supply me with the following information: 1. A confirmation that the site is located within the jurisdiction of the Southold Police Department. The precinct that serves this area. A. The boundaries of the precinct. B- The amount of officers in the precinct. C. The number of patrol cars that are assigned the area encompassing the project site. D. Availability of specialized skills or equipment. to 3. Whether, in your opinion, the Department can accommodate this project. Thank you for your cooperation. Since~rely, ,,}~dn&lA J. Niddl Eon ! DJM:JM cc: E, Kontokosta THE GREENPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT September 19, 1990 Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Cu,,,~ck Rd. Cu,,,~ck, NY 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton: We have received your letter regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the affordable housing project to be located at Route 25 and Sound Road in Greenport. This site is located in the area known as the "East-West Fire Protection District", which is covered by the Greenport Fire Department. The Greenport Fire Department has tw~ stations, the closest of which is approximately 1 mile from the site. Our equipment consists of the following: 4 Class A p%~npers, 1 Aerial Ladder(75'), 1 Heavy Rescue/Floodlight truck, 2 ALS equipped ambulances, and a 13' boat with a 15 horseu~w~r outt~ard motor for w~ter ~ergencies. We have approximately 200 members in the department at the present time. In 1989, w~ answered 356 alarms. Our average response time is very good, under 5 minutes from the time the call is received until w~ are on the scene. It is my opinion that the Greenport Fire Department can accom~ate this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 477-9493. S,~/~cerely ~ /~ Andrew Ficurilli Assistant Chief rvlll )1 )1 I; I'()N [ ir',JVII-IONMEN-IAL INC. July 5, 1990 Greenport Fire District 3rd Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Chief: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold. The project will be on the north side of North Road (.~ and east of Sound Road. ~.~ One of the requirements of the BIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local fire department. It is estimated that approximately 448 residents will be added to the area when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with the following information: A confirmation that the site is located within the jurisdiction of the Greenport Fire District. 2 The nearest station that serves this area. 3 Average response time of the Department. 4 Number of active members in the Department. Amount and types of equipment, (including ambulances). Whether, in your opinion, the Department can accommodate this project. Thank you for your cooperation. DJM:JM Sincerely, Donald ~. Middl~ton Services'--,-' " ' ' U.~, COAST ~ AJdo~u,M~ I~ ......... 348 -d~(M]*~ U.I.~ ,. ..... :.~ ~ MTI~ .,, (li(~ 4.l,I I100., WOT[Iq INIrOIqMATIOfi '~ '~ 41;'d" '. g.M C~u. lV I M ......... We,me,~ Vm ................................ ,l Sel:vices.:. -..: .,.:, ANIMAL ~HLrLT'~R~ · piOI~NDm lelp .................................................. 3~4-gle~ ~ .................................... :..$~-797u M,) ....... '.'~*-..-.~.....: ........... ~ ........................................... 'F,9S-llli 11 Rem ~ I~w RoM. Gee .................................... C:~,I ................. : ............ , .............. T v,t~lc .................................... RiM (~4, N ~"d' HUMAN f~O~ ; ~,n~ ,i,l,l~ .................................... 539-1590 OMMMi ~ ~ ~ M ' ' I~ A~., ~ ............ ~W ENFORCeMeNT --~ .......... :..:..: ................... ~.. ........................ :~ ............ ~.~ Me O,Mee WMo~ .............................. 298-?3OO Fei ~),-..: ....'. ............ : .............. : ...... I~ Ye~ I~e I~m~4 ...................... 7gg-!170 New YM~ l~ Pe,~ Pe,Be~ Ik~qM .................................... d ), fRUSfEE~I -' ' ..... =' o- YL - P O BOX All GR[F NPORT. ~UFt-OLX COUN [¥ NLW YORK 119.14 UI'ILIF Y OFFICE 16) 4'71-i748 POWER PLANT 1KI.. ~516),177 0172 March 15, IgB9 Pachman & O~hrin, P.C. Attorneys 366 Veterans Memorial illgl~way P.O. Box 273 Commack, N. Y, 11725 Oear [qr. Pachman: Re: J.E.M. Realty Co. - Water allocation for 60 acres & E, Kontokosta - water allo- cation for 37 acres This letter answer~ your correspondence of March |0, 1989 relative to the two parcells outlined above. My previous correspondence requested that ioformatipn be furnished in order to begin the approval pFOCeSS for allocating Greenport Village water for the two parcels of land in question. The applications recolved were incomplete ir) Chat the one unit did not si~ow a water line connecting it to the main. The preliminary plans indicate that one water service will supply water to a whole cluster which I~ not in accordance with Village Policy. I am available to meet with your client or his representa[tve to work out the details. Imly correspondence of November 15, 1988 stated that a letter of water availa- bility will be Issued by Greenport Village when sufficient quantities of water are available, The Village of Greenport does not ~urrently have efficient well pumping capacity to add additional customers, Ilowever, the Village Board of Trustees has committed to upgrade and Improve the system. The engineering annalysis has been complete for the Village to acquire a $5 million bond issue to accomplish the upgrade. The Village engineers will complete the SEQRA process during the week of March 21, ~989 allowing the bonds to be sold during July & August 1989. Pg. 2 Subsequent to receiving fun¢ls the Village will complete the engineering required to activate 3 new water wells which will supply sufficient water for your client. At a point during this process when the Village can be assured that the new wells will be on line and sufficient water available to meet sour cllentJneeds prior to construction of the developments in question, we will negotiate a contract to supply water as requested. The forgoing is of course subject to any other extenuating circumstance that may arrlse. ttBS:lkm cc: George tlubbard, Mayor All Village Trustees Utility Commltlee Village Attorney Very truly yours, AsR'I. F, ilpt,, of Public Utilities L · E,MS N30 (~ATE 06-20-90 STATEMENT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES 54 N. Count~ Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 Southold Tow~ Tow~ Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1170 Southold, New York 11971 ATTENTION: Mrs. Judith T. Te~-ry RE: Jem C~mons Change of Zone. Scoping meeting of the EIS for the above-referenced site $250.00 $250.00 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES June 20 IO90 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. To. Cra~..er Voo.rhis & Associates Inc. . .................... Claimant Addr~ 54 N Country Road. Miller Place New York 11764 Fed. I. D. No ..................................... or Soc. Security No ......................... 06-20-90 RE: Jem Commons Chanae o'f Zone & Southold Commons @ Southold. Scoping meeting of the EIS for the above- / referenced sites. . / $250.0D .so. o The undersigned (6!~im.~nt) (Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross OUt one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ,~C ,')~e ;Q C:) 19.~,~.).... ( , ;.( [q ~' ......................................... . . . · ..................... ~: ....... L' .... Signature PAGHM2~N & OSHRIN. P. G. MS. Judith T. Terry, Town Hall 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11071 June 12, 1990 Town Clerk Re: Jem Realty Co. RECEIVED JUN 1 3 1990 (Jem Commons) Dear Ms. Terry: This will confirm that I have made an appointment with Charles Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis and Associates for the scoping session in the above-captioned matter for Monday, June 18, 1990 at 10:00 a.m. at the Southold Town Hall. Copies of these letters are being sent to Mr. Voorhis and our client for their information. I look forward to seeing you at that time. HFP:tt cc: Charles Voorhis Jem Realty Co. [DAGHNIAN ~ OSHRIN. P. G. June 1, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall 53095 Main Road Post Office Box ~1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED JUN 4 Re: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) Dear Ms. Terry: Further to your letter of April 25, 1990, we enclose herewith Jem Realty Co.'s check #177, dated May 25, 1990, in the sum of $2,000.00 to cover the deposit you requested in your aforementioned letter for the review process for the draft environmental impact statement. Within the next week, we will contact Charles J. Voorhis with reference to setting a mutually agreeable scoping session at Town Hall. Thank you for your cooperation. HEP:ah cc: Jem Realty Co. ruly yours E--~ PAC H M A~--~ RECEIVED MAY 2 9 1990 DEPARTMENT Of PLANNING (-uUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK (~, HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY eXECUTiVe 360-5513 / I~y 24, 1990 Mr. Emanuel Kontokosta 43 West 54th Street New Y9rk~ Ne,~z York 10019 Re: Application of "Jem Realty Co." (#299) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40" and "HD" Hamlet Density, Town of Southold (SD-90-7) Dear Mr. Kontokosta: In response to your letter of 5/21/90 regarding the above referenced, please be advised that since the Suffolk County Planning Co~ission did not render an official determination within the prescribed 45 day County Administrative Code notification period comencing 4/2/90, said application is considered as automatically approved as submitted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning Gera/-d--G. Newman, Chief Planner GGN:mb cc: Southold Tow~ Clerk/ KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHITECTS 43 west 54th street / new york city, new york 10019 / 212-582-6100 e.m. k0ntok0sta p.e. gary rogers r.a. RECEIVED MAY 2, 3 1990 May 21~ 1990 J~r. Gerald G. Newma~n, Chisf I;'lar, lqer Departmer, b of Plar, r, ing Cour~ty of Suffolk Denr, nisor~ Build Hauppauge, New Yc, rk 11788 Re:Applicatior~ of "3'em Realty Co (:B299) fc, r u'l-~<,nge~ of z,z,r',m 'From R-..SC)" b,z, R-40 ar, d "FID" i lamleb L)en,.~i'~y, 'l-owr~ of Soutl.-,old (!:3D.-.-90--7),. We are i,', receipt c,f a copy ,z,f your letter t,_, i,ls.._'r,..td:i, tl-, I.. ]r~,, Towr, Clerk o'f .c],_,u'bh,z, ld dated May 3, 1990 cJ~cr-llD:i.r~.~ 't. he uc.'Lic, r,~ ._.,' Would y,_-,,_~ bE' sc:, kir, d as to, elaborate or, the final sta'bu~ ,;,'F bhe applicati,:,r, as bo 'bhe actior, taker, by the Cour, ty Planr, ir, g Comrniss:[,r,r, at tlneir May 2ncl i990 meetir, g. EMK/ck cc: MBoJudi%h T.'Fer'~'y Southold Town Clerk RECEIVED MAY '7 1990 r.~UNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK ~.~. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OFPLANNING May 3, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Tow~n Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of "Jem Realty Co. (#299) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40' and "HD" Hamlet Density, Tow~ of Southold (SD-90-7). Dear Ms. Terry: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and del~beration considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: The total number of dwelling units~lots shall not exceed 170, preferably less; The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with requirements of the Affordable Housing District; The parcels shall be developed jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emergency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent w~th market demands and appraisals of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. *The motion failed to carry. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:mb IMPORTANT File Number: P1--473800--00096 RECEIVED MAY 1. '7 lgg0 JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516/ 765-1823 fELEPHONE (516) 765 1801 April 25, 1990 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Pachman & Oshrin, P.C. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Pachman: Transmitted herewith is a Positive Declaration of the Southold Town Board with respect to the petition of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) for a change of zone, as well as a certified copy of the Board's decision which includes the determination that a $2,000.00 deposit shall be paid prior to the scoping session to defray the cost of reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Said deposit is to be made payable to the Southold Town Clerk. Please contact Charles J. Voorhis, of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, (516) 331-1455, to arrange a date for a scoping session to be held hereby at the Southold Town Hall. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: C. J. Voorhis SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Soutbold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: April 24, 1990 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons ) Change of Zone Petition SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting NYS Rt. 25 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). Location: North side of North Road (NYS 25 } ,east of Sound Road, Southold, New York Page I of 2 Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project site contains eroding headlands associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. 2) The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. 3) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where thc Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. 4) The proposed action could cause substantial erosion_ 5) The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. 6) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. 7) The project may impact cultural resources. 8) The project will impact open space resources. 9) The project will cause an increase in traffic generation. 10) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recommended denial. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No_: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, lq. Y. (516) 765- 1801 11971 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant-Jem Realty Co. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Village of Greenport New York State Department of Transportation Page 2 of 2 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197l FAX~516~ 7654823 TELEPHON[: (516~ 765 I801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 2°,, lg90: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone on two parcels located at the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 - the most southerly 42+- acres - from existing "R-S0" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel 2 - the most northerly 20+- acres - from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40) Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); now, therefore,, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby declares itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta; and be it further RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Environmeotal Conservation Law; Part 617 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter 44 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board does hereby determine that the action proposed is unlisted and is likely to have a significiant effect on the environment. This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: a) The project site contains eroding headlands associates with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. b) The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. c) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. d) The proposed action will cause substantial erosion. e) The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. f) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. g) The project may impact cultural resources. h) The project will impact open space resources. i) The project will cause increase in traffic generation. j) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recommended denial. 2. The Town Clerk shall file and circulate such determination as required by the aforementioned law, rules and code. Page 2 - Jem. Commons 3. That the Town Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Jem Realty Co. of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. 4. In accordance with Chapter 44, Section 20 and Part 617 NYCRR, the applicant is required to defray the cost of reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which includes a scoping session, therefore, the Town Board determines that a deposit of $2,000.00 shall be paid to the Town Clerk prior to the date of the scoping session. ~J~udith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk April 26, 1990 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS April 4, 1990 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: SEQRA EAF Review Jem Commons, Change of Zone Southold Commons, Change of Zone RECEIV~:D APR 6 lggO Fouthold T ...... Dear Judy: Enclosed, please find the completed Long Environmental Assessment Forms for the above referenced projects. Please note that we have performed field inspections on each of these parcels, reviewed and corrected the Part I, and completed Parts II and III for each project. In addition, a draft SEQR Positive Declaration is included for each project, due to the fact that significant environmental impacts are anticipated. The Long EAF's should be used as a basis for the determination. In the case of change of zone petitions, the Town Board is the only involved agency, and is therefore the Lead Agency. In accordance with Part 617.6 (a)(1)(i0, the Lead Agency shall determine the significance of the action within 20 days of receipt of the application, the LEAF and any additional information reasonably necessary to make the determination. The enclosed documentation provides the additional information necessary to make the determination. It is our recommendation that the Town Board review the enclosed information, and consider the adoption of the Positive Declarations. The draft Declarations are prepared such that they can be xeroxed onto Town Board stationary, adopted and filed in accordance with Part 617.10. In addition, the LEAF's can be circulated as additional support for the determinations, If you or the Board have any questions pertaining to this information, please do not hesitate to call. enc:2 LEAF's;2 draft determinations 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331 1455 SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice of Intent to Prepare a Draft EIS Determination of Sigrfificance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: April 24, 1990 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons ) Change of Zone Petition SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting NY$ Rt. 25 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). Location: North side of North Road (NYS 25) ,east of Sound Road, Southold, New York Page I of 2 Town of Southold SEQR Positive Declaration Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determ/nation is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I. II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The project site contains eroding headlands associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. 2) The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. 3) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. 4) The proposed action could cause substantial erosion. 5) The project will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. 6) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. 7) The project may impact cultural resources. 8) The project will impact open space resources. 9) The project will cause an increase in traffic generation. I0) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recommended denial. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, (516) 765- 1801 N.Y. 11971 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant-Jem Realty Co. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Village of Greenport New York State Department of Transportation Page 2 of 2 ENVIRONMENTAL J~~CONSULTANTS LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS'I, II AND III JEM COMMONS Southold, New York Review Agency: Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MII~LER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 LEAF Par~ 1II Jem Realty LEAF PART I CRAMER, VO~RI-I'~..~//.~[SOCIATES ENVIRON MENT~[~.._ __.__ [ .'~.~G CONSULTANTS '~%.-1 ~-'-' C~!8~-- 7¢ : 617.21 SE(: Appencllz A State ~vironmental Quali~ Review ~ .. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The full EAF is desiened [o help apoiicanu ~nd aeencles dateline, iff ~n ordedy manner, whaler a p~oje or acuon may be s~gmficsnL The question o~ whether an actxon may be significant is not always easy :o a~wer. Frequer fy, ~ere ~re a~Dec~ o~ a 0rojec: :ha[ are subiective or unmea~ureable. It is also understood ~[ ~o~ who detach significance ma~ have ii:tie or ~o formal ~owl~&e of :he environment or may be technically e~De~ in environmem analysis. In addition. ~any who have knowl~ge m one ~a~cular area may not be aware o(~e broader concerns affect ~e question o~ significance. ' ' : ' The tull EAF is intended ~o 0rovide a me,od whereby a~plicanM ~nd age~cies can be a~sur~ that ~e dete~i~a~, proces~ has b~n orderly, comDrehenswe in harm, yec flex~ble to allow introduction o~ info~adon :o fit a prOleC~ or a~ic Full EAF Componems: The tull EAF ~s comprised o~ :brae ~a~: Part 1: Provides obiec:~ve data a~d i~iormadon about a given ~rojec: and i~ si:e. 8y identi~i~g basic ptoj~ dace. it a~s~s~ a reviewer i~ c~e analysis :hac takes place in Pa~ g and ~. Pa~t 2: Focuses on ~dena~wn~e rang~ of DossibJeimDac~ :hat may occur irom a ~roiect or action, ltprovic ~arge i~oac:. T~e ~orm also ~d~nc~fies whether an ~mpac: c~ ~e m~cigace~ or reduced. Part 3: If ~nv ~mDac: :n P~ ~ is identified as pocencJalJy4arg~, :hen P~rc 2 is used [o evaluate whether or no[ DETER.,~41NATION OF SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify lhe Pordons o~ E.AF completed [or this project: ? Part 1 ~- Part 2 r-Parc ] Upon review of :~e mformaoon ;ecorded on chis E,~F (Par~ 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other suooo~ing information, and consicerm~ oocn :he magltuce ano impor:anc~ of e~c~ mmDac:, ~t is reasonaoiy oetermined by the lead agency :hat: ,{. The ~rolec: ,.vn[ no[ :esul: ,n any large and imporc~n: impacts] and, :herefore. is one which will no[ have a s~gmhc~nc ~mpac: on the environment. :herefore ~ nesative declaralion will be p~epared. 5. Although ~ne orolec: c~uld have a significant effec: on :he environmenL ~ere will hoc be ~ significan( effec: for chis Unlis[~d Ac:ion because the mitigation mea&ures descnbe~ in PART 3 have be~n required. [hererore a CONOITION/D negative decJa~ation wil[ be pre,areal.' ~ C. The proiec: may result in one or more large and impo~an[ fha: have impac= impac: on :he enwronmenL :nerefore a positive decJara6on wil[ be prepared.' 'A Conditioned ~egauve OecJarac~on is only valid for UnJisced Ac:ions JEM COFLHONS Name or Ac:ion Name of Leaa Agency $igna[ure of Responsible Oificer in Lead .~gency Title of Res~ons~bie~Drrlcer Signature or Preparer [Ir different frown responsible of/icer] ,4,~,~,z 31/990 Oa[e .'ART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION , Prepared by Project Sponsor.~ _ NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whet'her the action prmoosed may have a significant on the environment. Plea.se complete the entire form. Parts A through E. AngNe~ to these questions will be consi~ as Dart of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any addJt information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. - It is ezpected that comWetion of the full E^F will be del~endent on information currently available and will not in' new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work Lt unavailable, so indicate and s; each instance. ' ..... " NAME OF AG'r'ION JEM COMMONS. North Roa~, East o~ Soun~ Road ~o JEM REALTY CO., BY: 366 Veterans Memorial Highway (P.O. CFI'Y/PO Commack, ADDRESS L.I. Sound, Greenpor.t, Suffc Partner c/_o [ mU~INUSTE~PNON[ F~U%NUEL KONTOKOSTA,PACHMAN & QSHR~NfS161 543-2200 JEM REALTY CO. BOX 273) S'rATE BUSlN E~ TEL~PHON E North Road, P.O. Box 67 cl~mo Greenpor t, NY 1194 ~[$Cm~ONOF~CT~O, Rezoning of 62 acre parcel, as follows: PARCEL I: Most southerly 42+ acres from existing R80-Residential Low- De~ity Dist. (2 acre min.) to Hamlet Density (HD). PARCEL II: Most northerly 20+ acres from existing R80 Residential Low- Density District (~ acre min.) to proposed R40-Residential Lclw-Densit~ Di~t~icS~ (1 ac~e ~n. Vacant lan~nown on Sur~o-~ county 'tax ~ap )a's Dist.1000~Sec. 35~Blk.1, Please Complele Each Question--Jndlca[e N.A. if not appJlcabJe LOt 24 A. Site Description Physical setting of overall 0rojec:. both develooeo and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: ~lJr0an ~lncusmal ~Commerc.al (-1Forest ~Agr~culture ~O'ther 2. Total acreage of orolect area: 62 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE ,~:~ ~ ~.~. Meadow or Brushland ~Non-aJricul~ural) Forested *gricul:u~al (Includes orchards, cropland. ~asture. Wetland (Freshwace~ or tidal ~s ~er Articles 24. Water Surface Area Unvege~ated (Rock. each or fill] : Roads. buHdin~ and ocher oared su~aces ~ Res,dentrol (suburban', ~Rural PRESENTLY AFTER CC,',4PLETIC 62 Other (Indicate type1 3. What ,s oredominan[ soil type(s) on project site? _ a. Soil c~ramage: :~Well dra,ned 100 % of .ute I'lPoori¥ drained % of size b. If any agr,cultural land is involved, how many acres pi soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the Land Class~hcatlon SYstem/ -g- acres. (See I NYCRR 370]. 4. Are there bedrock ouscropp~ng~ on'project site? /-]Yes a. What LS depth.co bedrock~ N/A ('in feet) -0- acres ,~/,,~ Sand/gravel ~ Z~,~,e ~-~ModerateJy well drained % ~' 2 '5. Approximate percentage of prc.:aoseu proiect site with slopes: [~10.10% 9 ~ % fq10-15% ~15% or greater ~; % 6. Is proiect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Natior Registers of Historic Places? I-lYes ~;]No 7. Is proiect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarksi' I-rYes ](~13 8. What is the depth of the water table? ~10 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? r~Yes [-iNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project areal' r-lyes x~]No 11. Does proiect site contain an'/ species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened ot endangere i-lyes ~rlNo Accordinii to Idez,Ufy each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological formatio~ ~Yes DNo Descnbe 30 feet -+ high bluffs to L.I. ~n~ 13. Is the proiect site presently used by the community or neighoorhood as an open space or recreation are I--lYes KqNo If yes, explain · 14. Does h,~ present site mcJude scenic views known to be important to the community!'~ 7--- Long Island Sound 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas 'within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b.~ acres) 17. Is the site served by'~xisting p~Jblic ut,lities? ['~Yes rmNo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~]Yes b) If Yes, wdl improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~J~Yes ~]No a~b"/'/4'~/O I$~t/~ ~J~'"' 18. Is the site located in an agncuJtural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-A Secuon 303 and 304? ~Yes ~No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 I~'fes I~No · 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? F-lYes ~No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project gill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 62 acres .... b. Project acreage to be developed: 62 acres initially; acres ultimately. X c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 30 acres. U~/,~'~'Or,~/ d. Length of project, in redes: -- (If appropriate) *'$ r--~ ¢4~v~6' e/e ~F-OA~,~A~'~ ./~--------~ e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing . -- g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 75 h. If residential. Number and type of housing units: One Farnliy Two Family Initially 170 - UIt~malely i Dimensmons(in feet) cf largest proposed structure 28 h ' " 25 e~ght; i. Linear feet of frogtage along a public thoroughfare project wdl occupy is? 576 ; proposed __ (upon completion of pro~ect)? Multiple Fam,ly Condominium v. id[h; ~ 30 length. ft. 2. How much natural material L . ~ 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ]~'Y, es i-lNo [-]N/A a. If yes, for what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpded for reclamation? ~"lyes nNo c. will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation~ ]~'es none ., earth, etcl) will be removed (rom .,,e s,,e? landscape gnp tons/cubic yards ~ 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 3 2 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years o[d') or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? months, {including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year. I-lyes I-]No after prolect is complete 5 []Yes RqNo If yes, explain OYes IX'?No 12 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (numberJ. b. AnUcipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date pi~ final phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? I--lYes lrINo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 150 10. Number of iobs eliminated by this project none 11. Wilt project require relocation of any projects or faciliues~' 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? []-lYes X~No a. If yes. indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. ,',lame of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~-"]Yes []No Type Sanitary effluent 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease bV proposal? J~Yes [~No Explain 15. Is project or any poruon pi prolect located ,n a 100 year Hood plato? ~Yes ENo 16. Will the project generate solid waste.~ ~]Yes ~'~No a. If yes. what is the amount per month 10 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? [~Yes r-{No SOUTHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL. rotation SOUTHOLD c. If yes, g~ve name , d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a.samtary landfill? /~Yes e. If Yes, explain ~'-r/D;~,~,~,,,,,e.rLcl~ /A/~O /.-~r~flA/(... ~'~'~ ~ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? a. If yes. what is the antiopated rate of disposal? b. If yes, what is the anuc~pated site Life? 18. Will project use herbicides or pesucides? F-lYes ~Yes ii]No tons/month. years. I~No 19. \Viii project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? ~Yes ~'lNo 20. Wilt prolect produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient nmse levels? I-lYes 21. WHI project result ~n an ~ncrease in energy use? l~Yes ~No If yes . indicate type(si Gas fuel for hea~in~, electricity. 22. IJ water supply ~s irom wells, ~ndicate pumping capacity gaJJonslm~nute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day~_]' ~ 000 __ gallons/day 24. Does prolect involve Local, State or Federal funding? [']Yes :~'lNo If Yes. explain 4 Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board ]l~]Yes ~]No City, Town, Village Planning Board ~Yes [No City, Town Zoning Board ~]Yes ~]No City. County Health Department ~]Yes Other Local Agencies DYes J~]No Other Regional Agencies [~Yes ."lNo State Agencies ~]Yes ~No Federal Agencies i-Wes Submitt Type Date Rezoning ~'~(~ Site Plan Approval 12/90 Sewaqe treatment Dot-tie in CR 48 Costal Erosion Ha2 Act. C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decisioni' L~Yes i-]No If Yes, indicate decision required: ]~]zoning amendment nzoning variance ITIspecial use permit []subdivision 'l~site plan [-1new/revision of master plan I-Iresource management plan []other. (R-803~esidential Low-Density District (2 ac.mi 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site.,' 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zonlngi' 31 residential units · PARCEL· ~: Hamlet Density(U ~ARCEL II: RESIDENTIAL-R 4. What is the proposed zomng or tiqe sltef LOW-DENSITY DIST. (1 ac.~ ~ 5. What is the maximu, m potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 170 residential units 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ~]Yes 7 What are the predominant land use(s) a~d zoning,class,Citations w~thin a '4 rode radius of proposed action? (HD) Hamlet Density Llght Business, Residential Low-Density District 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoin,ng,lsurrounding land uses w~thin a % mile? ~]Yes I'- 9. If [he proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many Ior.5 are proposed? 17Q ! a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 100' × 110~ //j 0OO 10 Will proposed action require any authorization(si for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-'lyes 11. Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation. edu~'~n, a. If yes. is existing capacity sufficient to h,]ndle projected demand? I~Yes /~o ~ 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levers? ~Yes FI, , a. If yes. is the exisdng road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [~Yes I-1Na- D. Informational Details 7'0 Attach any additional information as ma,~ be needed to clarify your proiect. If there are or may be any adve impacts associated ,,v~th your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate avoid them. E. Verilication I ceruty that th~"atlon provided above/f's true to the best of my knowledge. Signature If Ihe action ~in Ihe Coaslal Area, and y. op~a slale agency, complele Ihe Coaslal Assessmenl Form before proceed wilh Ibis assessmenL 5 LEAF Part 11I Jem Realty LEAF PART II CRAMER, V~R~ ~/~.SOCIATES ~: U V I R O N M ~: N ~:J~-' .. _~_ ~,~,~1~1~ G CONSULTANTS ~y ~rEe ~mDact mus~ ~ ~i~uit~ m PAKT 3 Io dete~i~ ~&nif~e. ~i an im~ct in column 2 s~DIY fm 4 Potential kar~ Im~ ~, ~us ~ui~n~ waius~ ~ Pa~ 3. · In ~nlifyin8 impact,, c~s~r ~S t~, s~ term a~ cumlative eff~. Im~m (Read a. ~r each of ~ ~9 qucst~s in PART 2. Answer Yu if ~e will ~ am ~ b. Mi~ inswe~ s~ld ~ c~ider~ as Y~ answefl. c_ If an~e~ni Yfl to a qu~sti~ t~n c~ck t~ appropriate ~g {colu~ 1 ~ 2) Lo ~ic/te ~ ~tential im~ If impa~ ~Jd ~uals ~ execs any example pr~, c~k c~u~ 2. II impact will ~cur but thr~ic ~ ~t ~n example, c~ column ~. d. If ~v~er his ~bt :,~t siz~ of ~ ~mpacz ~n c~ider ~ im~c~ as ~lly iar~e a~ p~ e. If & ~tentially lar~ im~ ~ck~ Zn colur~n 2 can ~ miU~t~ ~ c~ni~J ~ ~ ~o~ to a small ~ mint ~ ~plai~ ~ Pa~ 3. ~y ~stmction ~ sl~s of 15~ ~ Ireater, (~S f~ n~ ~ 1~ s f~t of len~hL ~ w~re ~ ~ral slo~ m ~ ~oi~ area uc~ 10%_ · ¢o~st~ction on lam;; wh~re the depth to ~he water Lible is les ~n 3 · C~ction of ~v~ pa~inl area f~ 1.~ M ~r~ whici~. · C~ on la~ ~ ~r~k ~ ex~ or le~tally 3 f~t of ~istinl ir~ m~ace. · C~tmction that will c~tin~ for more ~an 1 year ~ invol~.more ~n ~e phase ~ sMEe. · Escav~tion for minina pur~s that would remove ~e t~n 1.~ t~ ol natural matedal [Le.. r~k ~ soil) ~r year. · Cons~uction or ~Dansion of a sanita~ landfill. · Conllmction in a designat~ flyway. · O~r impac~ ~Ye~ ~No I--lYes n~o J-]Yes ~Nc 0 0 0 0 O 0 OYes C~ 0 OY~ 0 OYes WI]! prol~sed act~o~ affect Any no~l~otected e~isr~/~f n~w ~y of water~ ~NO OYeS E~mpl~ ~t w~ld a~ly Io colu~ ~ 10% increase ~ ~c~e*~ ~ ~ so,ace ama ol any ~y of wate~ more ~an · 10 ~cm ~eJ~ or ~re~. C~truction of a ~y of water ~at ezce~s 10 acres of su~ace area. ~r impdcU: Will Propo~d Action affect surface M Iroundwater quality or quan~y~ ONO rum~Bes I~t ~W Apply ~ colu~ 2 p~ Act~n wil~ r~ui~ , di~r~ p~ Ac~J~ ~uir~ u~ of a ~fce of water that ~ve approval to ~ ~m~t) ~ct~n. p~ A~ ~u~ wa~r su~ f~ wells wi~ creater ~an C~ m mt~ umine ~ c~umi~t~ ~ a w~ter P~d A~ will I~ iff~ If~wite- L~u~ effl~nE ~1~ ~ c~y~ off ~ s~e ~ faci~ wh.~h ~e~nUy p~ Act~ ~ld ~e water ~ exc~s o( ~.~ lafions day. p~ Acti~ will 1ikPl-- ~.~ ~l~tmn ~ o~r disc~rpe ~stin~ ~y of wat~ ~ ~ e-~ent ~t t~re wi~ ~ ~n ~v~s c~r~'t ~o natu~a~ pm~ Act~ will ~uire ~ ~tmale of ~troleum ~u~ ~reater ~n 1,~ lillons. Pfo~d Action will ill~ residential ules Jfl areas wit~t waler Pm~ed Action ~at~s c~meroil a~lm induslrial ~s which r~uire fle~ or e2~ans~n of e~istJnK waste ~ea~me~t an~r stora~ facilities. Will propost,~l sclio~ water runoHT Eu .-n p~.-es P ~~g~de[r.~ n~e fle~d, watet OYes OYes COYe~ ONo l-lNo 0 t 0 · OYe Owo i 0 5,es ~ 0 ~,es 0~o ! ,C~ ONo ,OYes 0No O ' es 0~o Pro[~:~d Action m~¥ C4u~ s~b~f~ntiil ero~ Pt'c~w~4.,~ Actlofl ,! incompatible w,Lh ex,stin~, dramn~Le Da~tt~rna. Proposed Act~o~ wdl allow development m a OLder impacts; IMPACT ON ~7. Will I~o~ action affect air quelityf ~) OYES ~Ump~ ~t ~Zd 4~ly tO COlum' 2 , Pro~ Action will induce 1.~ o. ~re vehicle ~ m any ~ivefl ~r. , Pro~s~ Action will result in ~ incineration of more I~an 1 ton of , [mis~i~ ~are of total contamifl/n~ will excHd ~at ~urce pr~ucing more theft 10 mill~n DTU'I ~f ~r. Pfo~ action will all~ an incrta~ in t~ am~flt of ~a~ c~mitt~ to industriar u~. , Pr~ action wiJl all~ afl increase i~ ~ densi~ of i~us~ial ~vel~men[ w~in existiflI i~u~ial af~. , ~r ~mpa~: , IMPACT ON PI..A~fTS ANO ANIMALS Will Proposed Action affect any t.,!~eatene~ ~ s~ ONO ~YE~ Eu~ ~t w~ld a~ ~ c~umn 2 ' I~L using ~ s~te. over ~ ~ar rite m ~ ~ ~ Re~val of any ~i~ of a c~itical or siEn~ficant wi:allele Application of ~stic~e ~ he~ic~e more ~an ~ice a year. ~n f~ a~icultural ~. Other impacu' ~ ~~S O~ Will Pro~s~ Action mbsMntially aff~t ~reate~ ~ ~ndanger~ ~c~sl ~N~ ~ampl~ Lna[ w~ld apply to cn'umn 2 Pro.ed Action would substantially info,ere w;,~ any reside~( or m~grato~ fish. s~l]fJsh ~ wdd[ife Pto~s~ Action requires ~ m~val of more Lhan ~ tc~es of mature forest [over 1~ ye;r~ ~ ~r.~ er OL~r ~q~ ;~--~ ve~etahon. ~MPRCT ON AGRICULTURAL ~D 10. Will the Provue' Action affect agricul~u,al land E[ampl~ [hat would apply to column 2 T~ p~o~5~ ac~ w~ld ~r. cr~s ~ limit acc~ ~ la~ ~ncJudes cropJa~. ~ields. ~sture, vin~a~. ~c~ d. 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . OYe ~Y · C~Jtructio~ actr~:ty wOuM excavate t~ compact ,~l~r~¢u!turai !and. , '~ ~o~e~ achon w~ld i-ever~bly c~ve~ more ~fl 2.5 ac~s d alr~ulturil J~ Cr~fl~ ~ create I f~ld to drain ~y d~ to ~crea~ . Ot~r ~mpacu . gMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will propos~ action affect aesthetic (If ~cessa~, use I~ Visual EX~ A~dendum Ap~ndix 84 E~mpl~ ~a~ w~ld a~ly ~o column · Pro~ Za~ u~s, or proie~ com~n~ ~ in Ih~,~ conUast to current sutr~nd~n~ ma~aae or · P~ la~ u~s. ~ ~oject c~ a~ic re~ourc~ which will en~ent of ~ aesl~tJc quali~i~ · Project come.nb ~4t will resu~ K~nin8 o; sc~c views k~n 0 ' C C)No O, es IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURC'-J~ 2Will Proposed Action impact at~y ~ite hist~ic ~ ~l~tol~ical im~nce? E~mpl~ that w~d a~ ~ column 2 Pro~se~ Action ~currin~ wholly or paniaUy within co~;uou~ to anv facili~ ~ site list~ of hi~to;~c place~. Any ~p'ct t,o an archa~l~ica) s~e Pro~ Action will ~cur in an area desi,nat~ ~s ~n$~ for archaeo[og,cal sites on the NYS Sire lnve~.:o~. ; , Other ~ IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Wi!! Proposed Action affect the future o~n spaces or r~reationa~ ~x~mp~ that would apply to column 2 ~NO ~Y~ ~ ~rmanen[ forec)~u~ ~mpacU: , _ ' Yes OYes Will the. re be a~ effect to e~istinp 14 [tampl~ that wO~ld al)ply ~o c~m ) · Alter/tfon ~f pre.at ~ernl of ~v~nt ~ ~le a~ .~ ~ · Pro~sed Action wall resul~ ,n ma~ ~.,~f~ p~o[4ems. ~ 0 IMPA~ 0~ [tamples that w~ld a~IV to c~u~ 2 Pro~sed ACl~Ofl will cau~ a Irealer ~%an 5% ~crea~ m ~ u~ of any ~orm of e~rly ~ ~ munich** ~:i~. Pro~ Act~n ~ill ~uire t~ cma~ ~ extension ~ ~n e~r~ uansmission ~ supp~ s~m ~ ~ ~e i~n ~0 sin~Re ~ ~ fa.~ residences or to ~ a ma~or c~m~rc~aJ ~r ~dus~ia] NOISE A~"~ O~R IMPACT~ 16 Will d~re be objectionable o~'-,~n. ~i~, o~ E~mp~ ~t · Blastin~ within 1,~ (~t of familia. IMPACT ON PU~ILIC HFuI~LTH 17 Will Proposed ActiOn affect I>ublic h~alth and ~af ~:~O CYE5 Ezamples that w~uk:l apply · Proposed Action may cause a ride of e~plosion o: re!ea~ of ha~ar,~ous s~ance~ (i.e. oil. pesticides, ch~m~cah. acc~ent n~ upset COrtditi,'n~% discharge or emi$1io~. · Proposed Action may result in t~ bur~a] of "~azafd~s was[e~" in any ~fectious. etc.) · 5tora~e facilities for O~e m~on ~ m~e 8al'o~ ~ ]~quif~ ~atur,t~ gas ~ Ot~r flammable · Pfo~ action may resul~ i~ ~ ~cava~ or o~r disturbance [3 0 O 0 [] DYe, [3No OYes ONe .I 0 O I')No OY~ ONe OYes 0No 0~. OYes I~.NO OYes nNo OYes ON0 I E:)No [tamp~ lhat w~ a~V lo column ~O~Z ,s I~atd is lie~ m Ir~ b~ ~e ~n ~%. Development will utile I dem4~ for 4ddil~ c~muni~ Pto~ AcI~ will ,t an im~dn~ ~ec~,l f~ luture proiec~. Pro~s~ Act~ will ctflle ~ elimin~le ,mpl~nt. Ot~r im~acu' 0 0 0 0 0 0 Imp&ct I, litlqlted By 19 Is I. here. or is Ihee li~,ely to ~:~. public conlro~r~y rela~-,c~/to potenlial adver~,e ~nvi;o~r~nLaI impacts? OhIO I! Any Acllon tn P~r[ 2 le Iclenllflecl es '. Potential La~,~ Impact or You Cannot Determine the tv:~n!tud~ o.'. 'mpact, Proceed te Per~ 3 Part 3--EVALUA?")N Or T~ ""~)RTANCE OF IMPACTS ~isLuss ~ fofl~ing f~ rich imD~ct ~enti~ ~n Column ~ of Pan 3 9a&~ on t~ in~orm~ti~ available, deCde if it ~ re~n~%~e to conclude ~al ~s ~m~e¢t ~s im~anl. TO *nswer ~ ~es~n ot im~a~ce, c~s~e~ · T~ Wobabili~ d t~ ; pact e T~ durati~ of ~ e ~t~ ir,eversibili~, indu¢,m~ ~m~nt~y ~l resources d · T~ rqionnl con~uence ~' ~ im~ (Continue on a~chmen~) · :': ':':"?",. '.:---f..v'.,: :.~. -v :., ... . ,--:.... . .....'., - .-: ., .. - :.,.-_-. - ... LEAF Part III Jem Realty LEAF PART III ENVIRONMENT ..I~'~._~_AL~_~",~..////~G. _-~ .. CONSULTANTS LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS LEAF Part I11 Jern Realty PROJECT Jem Commons Located on the north side of North Road (C.R. 48), east of Sound Road, Southold, New York APPLICANT Jem Realty Co. North Road, P.O. Box 67 Greenport, New York 11944 DATE April 4, 1990 INTRODUCTION The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting C.R. Route 48 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). Additional detail regarding the proposed project as well as the environmental character of the project site is described m detail in the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude_ Procedures for completion of a Long EAF are such that a Part II1 narrative is completed for impacts which are potentially large_ The Part III analyses the impact and its importance, and is used as a basis for a Determination of Environmental Significance, as to whether a Draft Envirotxmental Impact Statement is required or not. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the Jem Realty project, for the Town Board of the Town of Southold to use in deliberation on the environmental significance of this action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * The project will re,~ult in a physical change to the project site. * There may be an effect upon unusual land forms found on the site. E N VI R O N M E N T~,~'~'~./~N, G CONSULTANTS Page 1 of 5 LEAF Part Ill Jena Really The proposed project involves a 62 acre parcel which runs between C.R. 48 and Long Island Sound_ The north side of the sue (bordering Long Island Sound), exhibits extreme slopes and is subject to coastal erosion. The eroding face of the Harbor Hills terminal moraine, is considered a unique and sensitive resource which should be protected in terms of land use. The proposed development of the property, if not properly planned, could create significant erosion, through improper handling of runoff, excavation, bluff destabilization, or other means. In addition, the protection of property and structures proposed to be located on this site is important in terms of setbacks and planning. Due to the proposed density of development, the specific site design, grading, setbacks and clearing limits, must be proposed in order to determine the significance of this impact. A similar project under the name of Greenport Commons was prev/ously under conslderatmn by the Town Board for a change of zoning of the entire 62 acres to HD Hamlet Density. That project also proposed 170 residential units, which is consistent with the current Jem Realty Co. application. There is significant concern with regard to the specific site design, bluff setbacks, site stabilization, re-vegetation, and other proposed physical changes which could result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation includes: preservation of natural buffers, use of clustering, runoff control, use ofberms, and landscape stabilization. In addition, alternatives to the proposed action may be .appropriate to consider including the No Action Alternative, development under existing zoning, and reduced density. * Theproposedaction willaffectsurface orgroundwaterquality orquantity. The proposed action is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV. The site is not located in the water budget area for the North Fork, thereby minimizing the significance of potential groundwater contamination. Site recharge is expected to discharge into the nearshore waters of Long Island Sound. It is recommended that a non-degradation policy for site recharge be utilized, through limiting the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge to less than 6 milligrams/liter. Based upon statistical analysis performed by Cornell University, this will give an adequate safeguard that the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l will not be violated. Nitrogen is a primary water quality concern with regard to residential development, due to sewage treatment plant discharge and fertilizer usage. The proposed project involves a sil~nificant increase in density above what is presently permitted by zoning. In additmn, the reuse of an agricultural field will require landscaping with fertilizer dependent vegetation. Accordingly, the issue of groundwater quality with respect to site development is a significant potential impact which must be examined in detail. Due to the proposed density, the project will require tertiary treatment of sanitary effluent. The location of treatment facilities, leaching capability of soils, conformance to siting setbacks, and .potential impacts on adjacent land use: Mitigation includes: density reduction, and hmitation on the use of fertilizer dependent vegetation. Alternative treatment technologies, locations, and relation to other projects in the area are important additional considerations. The quantity of water available for existing and proposed population is also a significant issue. Water supply on the North Fork is limited due to the elevation of CRAMER, VQ~ R H~, ~j~/'~e~.~S O C IAT E S Page 2 of 5 LEAF Part I11 Jem Realty groundwater above sea level, as a function of the depth of the fresh water lense. Due to the limited nature of the resource, the Greenport Water District as the local purveyor, has had difficulty meeting demand. This issue applies to projects which have already been approved or are pending approval. In addition, this issue affects projects which are proposed to be constructedln accordance with their existing zomng. The subject application is for a change of zoning which would significantly increase the development potential of the subject property. As a result it is important to consider water supply planning issues of this density increase, in relation to the water supply and demand expected within the Greenport Water District as a result of approved, pending and potential projects. Anticipated water needs are in the range of 51,000 gallons per day_ The water supply needs and impacts must be examined in detail in conjunction with this change of zone. Mitigation includes: density reduction, conformance with the North Fork Water Supply Plan, phased development, and water use restrictions. In addition, the North Fork Water Supply Plan recommends that new developments provide self sufficiency in terms of water supply, and add additional supply to local water supply systems. This recommendation has become a policy of landuse planning in this water quantity sensitive area, and is recognized as a mitigation measure. * The proposed action will alter drainage flow patterns. The control of runoff on site is extremely important in terms of maintaining stability and setbacks from eroding bluffs. Proposed development could result in alteration of drainage patterns, due to grading and clearing of vegetation, which could in turn exacerbate erosion potential. The design must be considered in detail in order to minimize the impact on erosion. Mitigation includes: avoid and buffer steep slope areas, provide at least 5 inches of runoff containment, minimize grading and maximize retention of natural vegetation. The proposed action may affect non-threatened or non-endangered species of wildlife. The proposed action involves the significant alteration of an abandoned agricultural field. The site has had the opportunity to revegetate with pioneer species thereby creating a habitat which is suitable to a variety of species. The wildlife occupying the site must be inventoried, and the design of the project analyzed in order to determine impacts. To date, insufficient information is available to assess impacts. The habitat which the site provides is limited in the area due to the large size of this individual parcel and the stage of succession which the parcel is in. Possible mitigation includes: protection of the more significant areas of the property, aligning contiguous open space, preservation of buffer areas and greenbelts. Page 3 of 5 LEAF Part 111 Jem Realty * The proposed project will affect agricultural land resources. The proposed project involves the use of a former agricultural farm, for the purpose of residential housing. The 62 acre site is partially comprised in part of Haven Loam soils which has a high soil productivity rating. This use would permanently foreclose the option of future a. gricultural land use on the site. The impact is potentially large due to the foregoing concerns, and cannot be mitigated by a project change. It is recognized that agricultural use in itself can cause significant impacts upon groundwater. In addition, it is recognized that there are numerous other areas of the Town where agricultural use is occurring, thereby partially minimizing the magnitude of this impact. * The proposedproject will affect aesthetic resources. The proposed project will result in a significant change in the existing aesthetic resources of the site. A portion of the site is located on the bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound. This feature makes the site desirable for real estate marketing; however, the site also provides a unique resource which should be considered in planned development. The project site is presently an abandoned agricultural field. This setting provides views across the site in keeping with the rural character of the area. The project calls for high density housing, which would significantly alter this character. The site is highly visible as it has 580 feet of frontage on a well travelled County Road. Accordingly, the impact is of great magnitude. Possible mitigation includes the following: architectural and site design considerations, use of clustering, buffering and retention of open space. * Project may adversely affectpre-historic resources. There is little information regarding the aboriginal resources of the Town. The North Fork is in an area of intensive aboriginal habitation, in terms of archaeological sensitivity, as determined by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association (SCPoL 1979). Consequently, there is a potential for irreversible loss of cultural resources. A Stage IA, archaeological investigation is therefore recommended, in order to further document the sensitivity of the site. Mitigation cannot be determined until the resources are identified, however, it is expected that the magnitude of impacts can be minimized through site design, resource documentation, and other means to be determined. * The project will cause an effect upon existing transportation systems_ The project will result in the generation of traffic commensurate with the project density, and type of land use. Added traffic may have an impact in the capacity or lever of service of area roadways, and must be quantifiedand analyzed, particularly with respect to seasonal traffic flow. Degradation of the existing level of service is considered to be a significant impact, which would require mitigation. .~"~ ~/I/A\ CRAMER, VC~RHI~ &~/;~ASOCIATES LEAF Part HI Jem Realty Potential mitigation could include: reduction of trip generation; addition of turning lanes; signalization; signage; and intersection improvements, depending upon the magnitude of the impact. * The proposed action will affect the character of the existing com~nuni~y. The proposed project site is presently zoned for low density residential use (R- 80), which co,,nid ,p, otentially yield 31 residential units. The proposal calls for a change of zoning to HD Hamlet Density, for a project of 170 units. This is a significant increase in density which is inconsistent with the goals of the community as reflected on the land use map. This density increase will in turn cause a demand for community and recreational services, the magnitude of which must be determined. There is presently a 136+ acre "HD" adjacent to and east of the subject site. Therefore, the appropriateness and need for expansion of the hamlet density zoning in this area is questioned. In addition, the proposal if granted would tend to create a precedent for additional density increases on other properties in the area, resulting in cumulative impacts. The ability of the area to support this growth is of concern. The impact and compatibility with adjacent land use must be fully evaluated. The magnitude of the impact cannot be determined until more detail is available regarding the specific project. Mitigation could include: density limitations, on site amenities, and impact fees. CONCLUSION The proposed action is expected to have a si!gnificant impact upon the environment, as discussed above. It is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to provide the proper public and interagency forum, for critical evaluation of the project and anticipated ~mpacts upon the environment. E NVI R O N M E NT~tD~_ ~..,//~. G CONSULTANTS Page PACHMAN ~: O~HRIN. P. C. ATTORNEYS April 5, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: JEM Commons SCTM #1000-55-1-24 Change of zone Dear Ms. Terry: Receipt is herein acknowledged of a memorandum from the Southold Planning Board to yourself dated March 27, 1990 regarding the encaptioned change of zone. This memorandum indicates that the Planning Board opposes the change of zone. I am somewhat surprised that the resolution was adopted without any presentation by the applicant or the applicant being present. I wish to place the Town on notice that my client does not waive any o~ }lis rights by the reason of the Planning Board's action. HV~truly yours, HEP:mrt cc: Mr. Emanuel Kontokosta March 27, 1990 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PATRICK G, HAL. PIN COUNTY EXECUTIVE The Honorable Scott Harris Supervisor, Town of Southold Members of the Town Board 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: Parcel #1 Owner - "Jem Realty"; (Jem Commons) 62 acres north of the village of Greenport on Long Island Sound, Tax Map 1000-035-1-24 Parcel #2 Owner -"E.M. Kontokosta"; 32 acres north of business hamlet of Tax Map 1000-055-05-017 (Southold Commons) Southold, Dear Supervisor Harris: The owners of the above captioned property have applied for the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program. The owners have proposed to develop both parcels as subdivisions where 20% of the units will be affordably priced. The developer has agreed to comply with the eligibility criteria of Suffolk County's Affordable Homes Program and, therefore, the homes will cost less than $100,000.00. Southold residents will also get first priority. ~ Be advised that, after reviewing the application for each of the subject parcels, and based on the information supplied by the applicant, we have approved both projects for the Suffolk County Affordable Homes Fast Tracking Program. Very truly yours, S. Law ant County Executive KSL:mg New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Re: LEAD AGENCY COORDINATION RESPONSE This letter responds to your communication of /"- '~ "- '~ "8' regarding lead agency coordination for the above-noted project, under Article (State Environmental Quality Review - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617. The Department has the following interest in this project: DEC Permits (if any) DEC Contact Person: SEQR Classification: [-'] Type I [ ] Unlisted DEC Position: Based on the information provided: [ ] DEC has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] DEC needs additional information in order to respond (see comments). [ ] DEC cannot be lead agency because it has no jurisdiction in this action. Comments: [ ] see attached [-~'3 none If you do not concur with the DEC position indicated above, please contset this office to resolve designation of lead agency within the time allowable under Part 617. Please feel free to contact this office for further information or discussion. RECEIVED 4 1990 cc: (attach distribution list) JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Pursuant to Sections 1323 and 1332 of the Suffolk County Charter the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby refers the following proposed zoning action to the Suffolk County Department of Planning: X New Zoning Ordinance Amendment of Zoning Code Amendment of Zoning Map (Change of Zone} Location of affected land: North Road, Greenport, east of Sound Drive. Suffolk County Tax Map No.: 1000-35-1-24 Within 500 feet of: The boundary of any village or town The boundary of any existing or proposed county, state or federal park. X The right-of-way of any existing or proposed county or state parkway, thruway, expressway, road or highway. The existing or proposed right-of-way of any stream or drainage channel owned by the County or for which the County has established channel lines. The existing or proposed boundary of any other county, state or federally owned land. X The Long Island Sound, any bay in Suffolk County or estuary of any of the foregoing bodies of water. Or within one mile of: Nuclear power plant. Airport CO,~,~MENTS: Recommendation of the Southold Town Planning Board attached hereto. Date: March 28, 1990 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SCOTFL HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone ¢$161 765-1800 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OFSOUTHOLD Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Members of the Planning Board Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from "R-80" to "HD" and from "R-80" to "R-40" on property located north of SR 25, approximately 564' east of Sound Drive, Greenport. SCTM 9 1000-35-1-24 DATE: March 27, 1990 The Planning Board wishes to go on record as opposing this change of zone application. Following is the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petition. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SCOTI~L. HARRIS Supe~'isor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Town Hall Southold , New York 11971 March 26, 1990 REC[:IVED MAR 2 6 199(~ .~Orli,~nl.~ 'r~ ~ .I. Re: Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from "R-80" to "HD" and from "R-80" to "R-40" on property located on the north side of SR 25, approximately 564' E/ of Sound Drive, Greenport SCTM ~ 1000-35-1-24 Dear Mrs. Terry, In response to the Town Board's Lead Agency Coordination Request of March 16, 1990, the Planning Board has no objection to the Town Board taking lead agency. However, the Planning Board would like to be a coordinating agency in the review of the environemtnal impacts of the proposed project. Consequently, if an environmental impact statement is required, please notify this office of the date of the scoping session. Very Truly Yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr: ' Chairman JUDITH T. TERRY -'~-~ %-, ;~ -'~"~'!~,. ~"z~/ %?! ', OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 20, 1990 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 IELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 Southold Town Planning Board $outhold Town Hall Southold, New York 11971 Gentlemen: Transmitted herewith is the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner (Jem Commons) for a change of zone on certain property located on the northerly side of NY$ Route 25, east of Sound Drive, Greenport. Please prepare an official report defining the conditions described in said petition and determine the area so affected by your recommendation, and transmit same to me. Thank you. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Attachments JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX(516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 22, 1990 Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental 5 Planning consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Gentlemen: The Southold Town Board, at their regular meeting held on March 13, 1990, adopted a resolution requesting you to conduct a SEQRA review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form with respect to the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner, (Jem Commons) for a change of zone, at the agreed cost not to exceed $500.00. Petition and pertinent maps, etc. are enclosed herewith, Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry $outhold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Howard E. Pachman, Esq. JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 'rELEPHONE {5 i6) 765-1801 March 16, 1990 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 273 Commadk, New York 11725 Re: Petition of Jem Realty Co. E. Kontoko~a - Jem Commons Dear Mr. Pachman: In accordance with Chapter 44, Environmental Quality Review, of the Code of the Town of Southold, the Town Board has engaged the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates to review the Long Environmental Assessment form submitted by you on behalf of Jem Realty Co. with respect to the petition for a change of zone. The cost of this review is $500.00 and must be paid prior to the consultant commencing their work. Please send a check in the amount of $500.00, payable to the Southold Town Clerk, at your earliest convenience so we may proceed with processing the petition. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures JUDITH T. TERRY TO~qq CLERK OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE ($16) 765 1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 13, 1990: WHEREAS, a petition has been received from Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner, (Jem Commons) for a change of zone on certain property located at the North Road, Greenport, from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is directed to transmit this petition to the $outhold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning, all in accordance with the Southold Town Code and the Suffolk County Charter. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk March 15, 1990 JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 I-AX f516~ 765 1823 '1 ELEPHONE (516~ 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 13, 1990: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, at a cost not to exceed $500.00, to review the Long Environmental Assessment Form with respect to the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner (Jem Commons) for a change of zone; said review to include applicant's Part I, prepare a Part II and III, draft a proposed declaration, including a field inspection; the cost of said review to be paid by Jem Realty Co. prior to the commencement of the review. Judith T. Terry .~z 5outhold Town Clerk March 15, 1990 JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town tfall. 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 }:AX 15).6) 765-lB2X [ELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 16, 1990 Lead Agency Coordination Request The purpose of this request is Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: to determine under Article 8 (State of the Environmental Conservation Law 1. your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and 3. issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of the application and ·a completed Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in ,/our response. Project Name: Jem Realty Co,, by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner (Jem Comrdons) Requested Action: Petition for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located at the North Road, Greenport: Parcel 1 - the most southerly 42_+ acres from existing "R- 80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20+ acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density Oistrict (/-acre minimum). SEQRA Classification: Type Contact Person: Judith T. T-~rry, Town Clerk, Town of Southold. The lead agency will determine the need for a environmental impact statement {ELS) on this project. If you have an interest in being lead agency, please contact this office immediately. If no response is received from you within 30 days of the date of this letter, it will be assumed that your agency has no interest in being lead agency. Page 2. Agency Position: [ ] This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. [ X] This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. [ ] Other. (See comments below) Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures Copies of this request and all attachments to the following: Commissioner Jorling, NYS-DEC, Albany Robe.rt Greene, NYS-DEC, Stony Brook Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Suffolk County Department of Planning Suffolk County Department of Health Services NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island Howard E. Pachman, Esq., for Jem Realty Co. Cwithout attachments) Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board (without attachments) Village of Greenport JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 IrAX i516J 705-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-I801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON MARCH 13. 1990; RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby commences the lead agency coordination process in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act on the type I action of the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, Partner, (Jem Commons) for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located at the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 the most southerly 42_+ acres from existing "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II the most northerly 20+ acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (l-acre minimum). Judith T. T&rry Southold Town Clerk March 15. 1990 PAGItMAN ~: OSHRIN, P- G. RECI:~vED t,~AR 1 '3 1990 ? ~,,~k~l.-I 'r~, "'~--~' March 9, 1990 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O, Box 1179 Southold, New york 11971 Attn.: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk Re: Petition of JEM REALTY CO. (EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA) - JEM COMMONS Tax Map No. 1000-35-1-24 (62 acres) North Road, Greenport, N.Y. Dear .Ms. Terry: Further to our telephone conversation of recent date, enclose herewith Affidavit of Service on all of the necessary parties of the Notice which is attached thereto. Thank you for your cooperation. we HEP:nj Encs. Very truly yours, HOWARD E. PACHMAN TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of JEM REALTY CO. to the Town Board of the Town of Southold. STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE JOAN SMEDLEY, residing at Deer Park, New York, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 8th day of March, 1990, deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice annexed hereto, directed to each of the persons named on Schedule A also annexed hereto, at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post office at Commack, New York; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. d3 /' / JOAN SMEDLE¥ Sworn to before me this NOREEN JOHN~ TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In £he Matter of the Petition of JEM REALTY CO. to the Town Board of the Town of 5outhold. TO: SEE SCHEDULE A ANNEXED HERETO NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Town Board of the Tg)yn of 5outhold.to , re uesta zone change from Residential Low-Density District ~z acre mznzmum~R-80 t~ PARCEL I: Hamlet--Density (HD) and PARCEL II: Residential Low-Density Dis- trict (1-acre minimum) -R-40. '2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adiacent to your property_and is des- cribeda.sfollows: 62 acres of vacant land known on the ~uffol~ County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 35, block 1, Lot 24. P~]RL'"L'I7 I: Most southerly 421 acres PARCEL II: Most northerly 20'_% acres. 3. That the property which is tht: subi~ct of such Petition i,s IQcated in the following zoning district: Residential ~ow-Denisty Dzst~lct (2 acre m~nlmum). 4. That by such Petition the undersigned will r¢cluest that the above-described proper*,,, be placed in the following z0ne district classification: PARCEL I: Hamlet Density (HD). PARCEL II: Residential Low-Density District (1-acre minimum) -R-40. $. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southo[d, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 6. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Town Board; that a notice of such hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Trave[er-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: February 2.8~ 1990 BY: HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ. PACHM3%N & OSHRIN, P.C. P°stOfficeAddress:366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box 2/3 Commack, New York 11725 (5±6) 543-22uu NAME PROOF OF ~,IAILINC OF NOTIC~E ADDRESS STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS.: , residing al: , bein§ duly sworn, deposes and says that on the day of ,19 , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of the abo¥ -named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the cur- rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Office at ; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to me this d,~y of , 19__ Notary Public 11102 q U[)O- ~,q I - I I.I ['~! LtetlT)~tnl] , Rae P, }4;ir'aery Fine .~, .~ound .,\venue, r]reenport NY 11944 .it Verity, Joseph D. ~, W'f. ~O Box l?,6, East Marten NY 11939 So,md Avenue, Greenpor~ ,~IY 11944 I /0~3q I-t. 3 j Webb, l..in,.vood S (;reenpor t ~.1'( 101)0-.5S- t 14 1000-35 1 -15 Bubb, Francis H (;~ eenpor t bi"{ 11914 Eglsh, [;e~trurle 2Z So,md Road, C, reenpor- N'Y 11944 Ir)Oil 35- I I '/ ,J Ir)q0-3S-I P:", Fischnr, D;tnleL L fi Ntul,iv [, ~[1 SOln~d Road. Greenport lqY 11944 [larrower. Ho 1. ty 2811 NW ,ll, h I,ap.e, Ga]rtesv]lle, 'FL 32607 :qinuta, ll'~t ry I~ Horth Road, Greenport HY 11944 Ill(lO- .'] 5 - L 7,q Walter F ~.t)t. 1(], Great Neck NY 1[021 / [',,wn o1[ 5qouthol.] Neck Rd., II)0 ] 5~- t /u P,~'[',~r, Robert r, I~ Carl Frimann Krebs 341! ',,h~,l .!,.nd :,r., Hew York NY 10024 L1817 , - l "; . J L~t5 .; I Ir'~,.[, .',}] /I-I)S [i ! Ir 01 3gth Ava. Fl,~!;hing NY 1135~ 10nu-.~.% t-£15 / Colail is, .Jerry 1fig- 16 .q.lti] ,V;e, Coruna NY 11368 L0n .';q, l ,~1 / Kase, Robert ~4 & Wf (,;'-St /[0tho"'r_, Bay,;ide HT 11364 10'l)-~q '1-85 ] I)wc:'qrek, Joseph P & W[ 2~') We;;t 77th SI:, i',lY 100~4 IOUO 55-4 P.h J lib , Otto ~ Derby Road, Port k'ashtn, gton NY 1LOSO L()U() 35 ,l-g7 ~ (II',L~ Otto Jr. 9 Derby Road, Port Washington NY 11050 TOWN BOARD~'[OWN OF SOUTIIOLD In the Matter or tile PoLitico o[ JEM REALTY CO. to the Town Board or tile T.w. or Snutimld TO: SEE SCIIFDULE A ANNEXED HERETO NOTICE RECEIVED MAR 9 1990 YOU ARE tlEREBYGIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of tile undersigned to petition the Tosvn Board of the Tpkvn of Southgld to zone change from Residential Low-Density District ~z acre mznimum~R-80 t~ PARCEL I: Ham]et-D-~sity (HD) and PARCEL II: Residential Low-Density Dis- trict (1-g~cre minimum) -R-40. 2. That the property which is the subject of tile Petition is located ad,~acent to your property_ and is des- cribed as follows: 62 acre.~ of vacant land known on the ~uffol~ County Tax Map as District 1.0OD, Seck~rm 3b,-~41ock 1. T,of~ 24. p-A~r~v~. I: Most southerly 421 acres PARCEL II: Mos~ northerls, 20~_ acres. 3. That lhe property x~l~icll is the subi~ct of such Petition i3 It}coted in the following zoning district: ResidentJa] Lew-l)enisty Distfl. ct (2 acre mzn~mum). 4. That hy ~uch rethio., the undersigned will r~quest that the above-described property be placed in tile following zone district classification: PARCEL I: Hamlet Density (HD) . PARCEL 1T: Resi_dential Low-DensiLy_ District (1-acre minimum) -R-40. 5. That withir~ five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting tile relief specified above will be filed in tile Soodmld Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regula~ office hours_ 6. That bero,e tile relief sought may be granted, a public hearing mu~t be held on tile matter by the Town Board; that a notice of st,ch hearing must be published at least ten days prior to the date or such hearing in the Suffolk Times and i,, the I_ong Island Traveier-Mattituck \Vatchmao, nexvspapers published in the Town of Southold and designated for tile publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: February 2.8r 1990 Petition~gEM REALTY CO. BY: HOWARD g. PACIt~N, ESQ. PACH~N & OSHRIN, P.C. PostOfficeAddress:366 Veterans Memorial Highway P. O. Box Commack, New York 11725 (5£6) 54J-ZzUU lllOZ // I'attenhauLn, Rae 5 ,Margery Fine .$7 :~oulld A~en.m, (]reenport NY 11944 / Verity', Joseph O. & Wf. PO Box L26, East Marion NY 11939 Skrezec, ,Jack Sound Avenue, Greenport NY 11944 ,V.bb r. inwo-d S 8 Wf. (;reenpor ~ NY i 19,L.1 Bubb, Francis ll Greenport bi'/ 119.l,1 Egish, Gertrude Sound Road, Greenport NY 11944 Fischer, [)aniel L & N~ncy L 2 oo u d ',oad, Greenport NY 11944 ti;ir rowe T' , Molly Z,q,1]_ NW .'l]:h Lane, Caine~ville, FL ~Sinuta, Ilarry B ,~!orth Road, greenport NY 1].944 32607 ';ledjeskl, Waltor F t4[-eenport Dovel. opment Ct) C/O (;ol(IZe Walomitz, lO[) Great Neck Rd., .X. Dt. ]C, great Neck NY 1[021 own of Southold I.[ain Road, '3o,]rhold ,~[¥ ]197i Becket, I.okert .l. & Carl Frimann Krebs ?n! Wes~ g2nd .Sr. , New York NY 10024 Brow[i, Vici. or A fi Wf. 722 Bergen SL. , [Iroc~},'ly'n N~ SrrrlU~:~ner, ,\[u..J.L]$cus F, fie ';r~mnporl: blY [ 1944 11.817 ,/ l/nss{lJ')o, ,qp/t-')~ & !gl I I-.'~U[ 38Lh Ave, F1,]shi. ng NY i/354 / Coiai,:i.s, Jerry I I)q t6 54 th ,\ve , Corong NY 11368 Kxse, Robert bi ti Wf f, 7-51.~_TtOt}l 3.," r Baysi. de NY 1136,1 Owc;'.arek, ,Joseph P & ;'if ~r W~'~t '17nh 3P. ,U'[' 10024 IJhl. , Otto Derby Ro~td, Port W~shlngton NY ll0S0 Uh[, Otto Jr, Derby Road, Port Washington NY 11050 '\, PAGHMAN ~ OSHRIN. P. G. ~.TTO~NE¥$ February 28, 1990 Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road I~!.~ 1 ~990 P. O. BOX 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attn.: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Re: Petition of JEM REALTY CO. (Emanuel Kontokosta) - JEM COMMONS Tax Map No. 1000-35-1-24 (62 acres) North Road, Greenport, New York Dear Ms. Terry: Further to our telephone conversation of last week, we enclose herewith the following: Check to the order of the Town of Southold, in the sum of $500.00, for requisite filing fee. 2. Three (3) copies of Petition for change of zone. Three (3) copies of EAF statement duly executed by the owner. Six (6) copies of maps showing the area to be rezoned, the surrounding area with the appropriate zoning classifications and attached to Petition is a list of the owners within 500 feet of the parcel to be rezoned. Copy of proposed Notice to be mailed when the public hearing is scheduled. We believe these papers are accurate to place the matter on the Town Board calendar, If any additional papers are necessary, please do not hesitate to call. Thank you for your cooperation. HEP:nj Encs. KONTOKOgTA ~, JEM COMMONS 53095 Main Road .................. New '{ I Southold, 11971 (~d,~,~A~; (~O~Es~aLS'I~'anY § ~ATUROAY'WCK'UP R[C[IV~.D ~AR 1 1990 CASE NO. STATE OF NEW YORK PETIT O TOWN OF SOUTHOLD IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF JEM REALTY CO- FOR A CHANGE, MODIFICATION OR AMENDMENT OF THE BUILDIN~ ZOnE ORDIN~NCE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK. TO THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD; 1. I, JEM REALTY CO., by EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA, Partner, by: HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ., as agent, c/o PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C., 366 Veterans Memorial Highway, P. O. Box 273, Commack, County of Suffolk, New York 11725, the undersigned, am the owner of certain real property situated at North Road, Route 58, Greenport, Suffolk County, New York, and more particularly bounded and described on Schedule A (metes and bounds description for Parcel I) and Schedule B (metes and bounds description for Parcel II), both of which are annexed hereto, said property being vacant land known on Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 35, Block 1, Lot 24. 2. I do hereby petition the Town Board of the Town of Southold to change, modify and amend the Building Zone ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, including the Building Zone Maps heretofore made a part thereof, as follows: To change the zone designation of the property described above, as follows: PARCEL I: The most southerly 42+- acres from existing R80-Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to proposed HD-Hamlet Density. (See Schedule A annexed for description). PARCEL II: The most northerly 20+- acres from existing R80-Residential Low-Denisty District (2-acre minimum) to proposed R40-Residential Low-Density District (1-acre minimum). (See Schedule B annexed for description. 3. Such request is made for the following reasons: The requested zone change is within the purpose and applicability of the Hamlet Density (HD) Zone Designation as defined in Article IV of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold. The subject property is: (1) contigious to an existing Hamlet Density (HD) parcel located on the easterly boundary of the subject property; (2) within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport; (3) contiguous to and part of a high density area with most contiguous lots on Sound Drive measuring less than 1/4 acre; (4) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limited Business zone (LB) on the southeasterly boundary; (5) contiguous to a parcel designated as Limited Business zone S EDULE A PARCEL Nc.I-(Northerly Parcel) Owner: JEM REALTY CO. Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or Formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (N.¥.S. (:3 thence Pts. 25): North 30deg. North 76deg. North 2ideg. said point OF 16' 30" Nlest 1085.53 feet, 30' 30" East 378.40 feet, 05' 30" Isest 807.87 Fpet, and running beginning 5ohth 52deg. 26' ~0" West ~hrough "he land ,3F the mar~¥ of ~he First part ~-~ _~m fe~t ,lc, ~he land no~ or formerl), ,DF ALJ USe 'q Straossner' ~hence North .~w 33' ?n" =,,~eg. West along the land no~ or formerlM of Augos~es 5traussner and of otNers 6F2.50 Feet to ~he Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long ~sland SounO having the following courses and distances: ( I ) North 80deg. 32' 20" East 356.27 feet , (2) North 58deg. lO' 00" East 386.00 Feet, (3) North 8°. 10' 00" Easu 342.00 Feet, (4) North 79deg. t3' 30" East 357.33 Feet thence along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following distances: (~) South 21deg. (2) South 21deg. place of beginning. 34' 40" East 410.00 Feet, 05' 30" East 175.00 feet to the southerly courses and point or SCHEDULE B PARCEL No.2-(Southerly Parcel) Owner: 3EM REALTY CO. Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or Formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, Formerly Grace Robinson; and From said point ,of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the Following co~rses and distances: ,' ' h ~rD~]Eh, ',.,deg. 09' 20" West 329.44 Feet , ~. ~_" '2z~ltb, 7Edeg. !5 ' ,hQ" .... Iwesr 246 ?A Feet to o~her land now or .,F 51",t~,a: m~nning ~h~nc'3 along said land North 26deg. 56' 20" Wea, t 240.77 Fee~ t,o the land no~ or running thence along said land the ( 1 North 30deg. 58' (2 South $6deg. 00' formerl,~ of Harrower; running Formerly of walter Sledjeski; Following courses and distances: 00" West 198.28 Feet, 30" West 38m.47 Feet to the land now or thence along said land and along land of other owners the Following two courses and distances: (l) North 27deg. 47' 30" (2) North 27deg. 33' 20" South 62deg. 26' 40" west 1373.47 West 548.67 Feet, ~est 634.19 Feet, running thence feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the Following courses 30" East 807.87 feet, 30" West 376.40 feet, 30" East 1085.53 Feet to Ehe northerly the point or place of beginning. and distances: (1) South 21deg. 05' (2) South 76deg. 30' (3) South 30deg. t6' side of North Road, ,at ,~lanouve!os, Steve .% dr. Crescent St., As= :_a 111'02 1000-35-1-i! Ugntenbaum, Roe ~ Margery Fine 37 Sound Avenue, greenport NY 11944 Verity, Joseph O. ~ Wf. PO Box 126, last Marion NY 11959 1000-55-1-i2 ~ Sound Avenue, r'~ .... NY 11944 1000-35-!-13 ~Vebb, Linwood S ~ Wf. Creenport NY 11944 1,300-BS-l-i-~ j ~ubb, Francis H Greenport NY 11944 E§ish, Gertrude 22 Sound Road, Greenport NY 1194J 1~00-$5-~-i6 ( Fischer, D~niei L ~ None7 L 20 £ound Road, Greenpor~ NY 11944 1900 33-1-17 '~, Harrcwer, Moll7 ~ 2~1 NW 4th Lane, Gaim~svi!le, ~L !000-35-!-13 /Sinuta, Harry B ~crth Road, Greenpor= NY 11~44 52607 120'3-!,:-I-11 / .5!edjeski, ' ,._~reenpc r t >fy 11944 Greenport Development Co .Aot_ LC, 5reat Neck NY drea= Neck Rd., 11021 1,30C,-~3-"~- 78 Town of Southold Main Road, Southold NY 1!9Y1 iC00-53-1-79 Becket, Robert 7. 5 Carl Frimann Krebs 20'~ ~qest ~ P-~ .... St., New York v,, ! ~)0,3 -SS-z-SO 1000-53-'4-21 Brown, Victor A 222 Bergen St., Brooklyn .~t raussner, Augustus t]reenporl ',WY 11944 llgl7 ' ";'l 5B 7' , ~...0 3- -4-83 Colaitis Jeff7 L09-46 Bath Ave, Corona NY 11368 1000-$5-~-S~ I Kase, Robert N 8 Wf 57-51 l!0=h St, Bays~de NY 1000-33-¢-85 { Owczarek, Joseph P & WE 20 Nest 77ck St, NY !002~ 11364 1000-33-a-~6 I Uhl, Otto '~ Derby Road, Port Washington NY ll0S0 i000-33-4-~? ~ Uhl, Otto Jr. 9 Derby Road, Port Washington NY 11050 617.2.1 Appendix A State Environmental Qualil7 Review % .. FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM SEQR Purl~ose: The full EAF is designed :o help applican~ and agencies determine, in an order, ly manner, whether a proiec: or action may be significant_ The question of whether an action may be significant is not a{fvays easy to ar~wer_ Frequent- ly, there are asoec'~ of a prmect :ha: are subjective or unmeaaureable. [t is also understood chat those who determine significance may have Hide or no formal knowledge of :he environment or may ~e technically e;~pe~ [n environmental ana?ysis. Jn addition, many who have knowledge in one par:zcular area may not be -~ware of, the broader concerns affecdnl~ [~e question of significance. . · - The fuji E,-~fi is intended to provide a met. hod whereby applicants and agencies can be assured thai: t~e deterrnination process has been order[y, comprehensive in nature, yet flexible :o allow introduction of information to fit a project or action_ Full t:.-~F Components: The full EAF is comprised of three par:s; Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a g~ven prolec: and irs site_ By identifying basic project data, it ass~s~ a reviewer in the analysis :ha: takes place ~n P~ 2 and Y. Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impac~ :ha: may occur from a Droiec: or action_ It provides gu]dance as :o w~echer an impact is likely :o be considered small ~o moderate or whether it is a large imDac:. The form also ~d:~n[iiies whec~er ~n impact can be mitigated or reduced. P~rt 3: If any ,moat:in Pan2 is identified ~s Docen:lallv-large. ~hen P~r: ~ is used ~o evaluace whether ar DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANC[--Type 1 and Unlisted .Actions Identiiv the Portions of £.AF completed for this project: ~ Part 1 /'- Par: 2 ~Pa~ ] Upon revrew of :~e ,n~ormauon ~ec~rded ~n :his EAF (Par~ ~ and ~ and ] ,~ a~Dro~r~ace), and any other supposing .&. The =ro~ec: ..v,ll abc result [n anv large and rmDortan[ ~moacffs) and. :herefore. is one which will not 3..Althou6h ~e orol~C: could have a s~]ni¢ic~nt effect on :he enwronmenL there will not be ~ siBnifican~ effec: rot .... ' .2~5 ~nHs~ed ,&czion because ~he mlciS~Efon measures described ;n PART 3 have been required. ¢~ere~ore ~ CONDITIONED n~ative declaration ~HI be prepared.' C. The ~ro et: may result in one or more larBe and im~o~anc imDac~ ~ha~ may have ~ s~sniiican[ impact on ~he enwronmenL therefore a ~ofitive decJatatian will b~ predated.' ' A CDndidoned Ne~[ive OecJaraC~on is only valid ~or Unlisted Actions JEIJI C OMit, IONS '' ,Name of Ac:ion Name of Lead Agency PrlnC or type `Name of [;[e.~pOnslPle Officer in Lead ASenc,/ Tide of Responsible Officer $igna:ure pi: Respcnslble Officer ~n Lead Agency Signature of Preparer(ir different from responsible officer) PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Pre~ared by Project Sponsor~ NOT[CE: This document is designe~ to assist in detem~ining whet'her the acti~n'proposed may have a significant eh,. on the environment. Pleue complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to the~e questions will be conside~ as Dart of the application for al=provai and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additic information you believe will be needed to complete Pars 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information cutrontiy available and will not invo, new studies, research or investi&ation. If information recauzrm& such additional work is unavailable, ac indicate and sDe¢~ each instance· · NAME OF ACTION . . JEM COMMONS North RoM, East o~ Soun~t Road to L.T. Sound, Greenpor:~, Suffol] NAME OF APlaLJCANT/~IaON$OR Partner C/_O j ELI~iN~a TEJ.~aHONE JEM REALTY CO., BY: EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA,PACHMAN a OSHRINr516~ 543-2200 1 366 Veterans Memorial Highway CrT'Y/PO Commack, JEM REALTY CO. (P.O. Box 273) STATE ADDRESS [,Torth Road, P.O. Box 67 Greenport, I NYI 11944 DE$CRIFTION OF ACTION Rezoning of 62 acre parcel, as follows: PARCEL I: Most southerly 42+ acres from existing RS0-Residential Low- De~r~ity Dist. (2 acre min.) to Hamlet Density (HD). PARCE.L II: Most northerly 20+ acres from existing R80 Residential Low- Density District (~ acre min.) to proposed R40-Residential w-Density. D' ic (1 ,a e 'n. Vacant lan~nown on Su~o~ ~ount~ q~a~x~a~p)~s Dist.10001Sec. 35rBlk.1, Please Coml~iete Each Question--indicate N.A. if not aopiicat~ie Lot 24. A. Site Description Phvs~ca~ seizing of overall project, both develoDec and uncievelolDed areas. 1. Present [and use: F-lUr0an -Ilncustnal :-Commercial '~Res~dent~aJ (suburbam -'lRuraJ (non-f; ~Fores: ~^gr~cuiture [~Other 2_ Total acreage of proiec: area: 62 acres· APPROXIMATE ACREACE PRESENTLY Meadow or 8rushlanci (Non-agricultural) 62 acres Forested acres acre Agncukural (Includes orchards, cropland. 10astute. etc.) -0'- acres ' acre Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) -0- acres acre Water Surface Area -O- acres acre Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) -0- ; acres acre Roads. buildings and other paved surfaces -Q- acres acre Other (Indicate typel -0- acres acr~ 3. What is oredominant soil type(s) on prolect site? ,Sand/qravel a'. Soil drainage: :~Well drained 100 % of s~te ~lMoaerateiy well drained % of site nPoorl¥ drained % o~ site b. If any a~ricu[tutal land is involved, how many acres of soil are classiiied within soil group 1 through 4 of the Land Class~ficauon System? -Q- acres. (See I NYCRR 370]. 4. Are there bedrock outGrooolngs on-project site? nYes D~No ; a. what ~s depth .to bedrock? N/A (in fee0 AFTER CC',tPLETIOI acre 2 5. Approximate percentage of proposed proiect site with slopes: ~0-10% 9.5 % 1-110-15% .. ~15% or greater ~ % 6, Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Nation Registers of Historic Places? C~Yes ~No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? [~Yes ~ g. What is the depth of the water table~' 30 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primaw, principal, or sole source aquifer? l~Yes l~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presendy exist in the project area? r~Yes x~]No 11. Does project site contain an'/ species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered I-lYes ~'1NO According to Idet,tif¥ each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i,e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations [~Yes []No Describe 30 feet -+ high bluffs to L.I. Sound '13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? [~Yes R'qNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community;~ ~Yes ~,No Long Island Sound 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area; a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to proiect area: a. Name b. Size (in acres) 17. Is the site served by-~xisting public utilities? [~Yes ~,~No a) I[ Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to a}low connection? ~]Yes ~INc b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ~Yes ~]No 1~. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304~ ~Yes 19. Is the s~te located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617~' [~'Yes ~No 20. Has the s~te e,~er been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? (~Yes ~]No B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by proiect sponsor 62 b. Project acreage to be developed: 62 acres initiall,/; c. Project acreage to remain undeve!oped 30 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: -- ti? appropriate) e. if the project is an expansion, indicate percent pt expansion proposed -- %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing -- ; proposed 170 g. ;-,lax~mum vehicular trips generated per hour 75 (upon completion of proiect)? h. If res~dentiat: Number and type of housin~ units: One Fami;y Two Family Multiple Family Initially 3_70 Ulbmately i. D~mensionstin feetloi largest proposed structure 28 height; _25 width; j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 576 acres ultimately. Condominium 30 length. ft. 2. How much natural maten,, (i.e., rock. earth, etc.) will be removed from the site? none, 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? ]~'Yes r-lNo I-IN/A a. if yes, for what intend_, purpose is the site being reclaimed? landscape b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? BYes L--INo c. Will upper subsoil he stockpiled for reclamation? ~'es I-/No tons/cubic yards 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 32 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other local[y-important vegetation be removed by this proiect? months, (including demolition). month year, (including demolition). month year. r-lYes I~No · after project is complete 5 ~lYes E'qNo If yes, explain 1'-lYes ~No 12 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (numberL b. Anticipated date o[: commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? r-lYes l~No g. Humber of jobs generated: during construction 150 10. Number of iobs eliminated by this proiect /3.one 11. Will proiect require relocation of any proiects or fatalities? 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ~Yes a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent wdl be discharged 13. ls subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? ~]Yes I~,No Type Sanitary effluent 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? []Yes Explain 15. Is project or any portion of prolect located in a 10C) year flood pJain~ ~Yes [:]No 16. Will the prolect generate solid waste~ ~]Yes 7'~No a. If yes, what ~s the amount per month 10 tons b. [f ~es, will an existJn§ solid waste facility be used? [~Yes ~No SOUTHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL· location SOUTI{OLD c. If yes, give name d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a.samtary landfill? e. if Yes, explain r-lyes ~No 17, Will the project involve the disposal o1: solid waste? a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? b. [f yes, what is the anticipated site life? 18. Will prolect use herbicides or pesticides? [~Yes F-lYes ]~No tons/month. years. [~No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? [-],Yes ~]No 20. Will prolect produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient nmse levels? ~Yes 21. Will proiect result in an increase in energy use? RqYes I~No If yes , indicate type(s) Gas fuel for h~,~ng' electricity. 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity galJonslminute. 23 Total anticipated water usage per day~_]- ~ 000 __ BaHonslday. 24. Does prolect revolve Local. State or Federal funding? r-lYes ~]No If Yes, explain A'INo 4 25. Approvals Required: City, Town, Village Board ]~]Yes I-INo City, Town, Village Planning Board ~]Yes City, Town Zoning 8oard I~Yes ~]No City, County Health Department ~Yes I-INo Other Local Agencies L'-lYes Other Regional Agencies i~Yes ,"1No State Agencies []Yes Federal Agencies nyes ~]No Type Rezoning Site Plan Approval Sewaqe treatment Dot-tie in CR 48 Costal Erosion Ha2 Act. Submittal Date 7/90 12/90 a~ter.re- zoning C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? L~Yes If Yes. indicate decision required: ~zoning amendment I/zoning variance Eqspecial use permit r-lsubdivision K]site plan l~new/revis~on of master plan I-lresource management plan I-Iother R-80 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of t~e $,te?~Residential Low-Density District (2 ac.rain What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? 31 residential units · PARCEL. I: rensity(nU~ARCEL II: RESIDENTIAL-R4 4. What is the proposed zomng et the site{ Hamlet LOW-DENSITY DIST. (1 ac.mi What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? 170 residential units Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ]~Yes l-IN What are the predominant ]and u, se(s] aod zonine.classifications within a ~4 mile radius of proposed action? (HD) Hamlet Density Light Bufflness, Residential Low-Density District ~N 8 Is the proDosed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ¼ mile? 9. Ii: the proposed action is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? 170 a. What is the minimum Jot size proposed? 100~ x 1].0~ 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? I-lYes 11. Will the proposed action create a demand ~or any community provided services (recreation. education, police fire protection)? ~Yes [No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufi~icient to handle proiected demand? [~Yes /-INo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above pre~ent levels? ~l~Yes I/Nc . a. Il~ yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? [~Yes I~No- D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as ma~/ be needed to clarify your project If there are or may be any advers impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate o avoid them. E. Verification I certify that th..o--i~i1~ation p./~vided a.bove/f~ trge to the best of my knowledge. Apphcant/Sponsor/~..~//~/BY~: EMANUEL//~' / ~/ Ko~mo~o.qmh, Date Feb. /~- 199~ / //-. ~~/ Partner Owner II Ihe aclion is in the Coaslal Area, anna slale agency, complele Ihe Coaslal Assessmenl Form before ~rocee~in wilh Ih~s assessmenl. 3.7 Sound A,zmnue, Greenpor~?!Y 11944 Verst'f, Joseph D. ~ l~f. PO 3ox !~, 5as~ Harion NY 11939 Sound Aver_ua .' ',Vebb, Linwood S a Wf. Sound ]reer.~c r-_ '~',' 119~ ,' .]reen~cr~ Oevelo~manC "'~ .-kou ,r ~re~t ~ie.sk )[Y !2,321 / Town 2f Sau~hol! ~ Hain xoad, 3ou~h,o!d }/Y 119-I 32607 Backer, :-sober: ... S Carl ?rimann . ~ ~-~ - "i':'w York :?,2 West a~.,~ ~C, , . ~ Brown, Victor A ''' ~er~en S~ Brooklvr. N Vassili3,2, Sg'/ros j Iff ~1--,!1 3.~tk Ava, Flushing N'! 11331 Colairis, ,ferry 109-46 Sash .*','e Corona xv · , ,J, 11568 Xase, Robers N ~ WE ,-o~ ._ z Bayside Nv 11564 ~a.~x, Joseph ?lest Uh!, Ot :o '~ ~"' a ~ a]..n_~, o~ NY llOS0 = n~.o/ ~.oad, Por~ ~,V -' ' um_~, O'c:o Jr. Neck TOWN BOARD, TOWN OF SOtJTIIOLD In the Matter of the Petition of JEM REALTY CO. to the Town Bonrd of tide Town of Stand,old. TO: SEE SCHEDULE A ANNEXED HERETO NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is tile intention of tile DJndersigned to petition tide Town Board of the Town of Southgld to re uest~ zone change from Residential Low-Density District (2 acre m~nimum~R-81 t~ PARCEL I: Hamlet D-~sity (}iD) and PARCEL II: Residential Low-Density Dis- trict (1-acre minimum) -R-40. 7. That the property wbicb is tile subect of the lr~etition is located ad'acent to our ro ert and is de - v a' Y p s cribedas Follows: 62 acres of ac nt land known on the ~uffolK County ~ax Map as District 1000, Section 3~,-~lock i, Lot 24. P~R~q~i: I: Most southerly 42! acre PARCEL II: Most northerly 2~_% acres. 3. That the property which is the subi~ct of such Petition i,s I(;cated in the following zoning district: Residential 1,ow-Denisty DJst~ct (2 acre at~nzmum). 4. That by such Petition, the uodersigned will re¢ uest that tile above-described property be placed in the following zone distric~ classification: PARCEL I: Ham].et Density (FID) . PARCEL II: Residenti~ Low-Density; District (1-acre minimum) -R-40. 5_ That within five days from tile date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be fired in the Southold Town Clerk's OFfice at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 6_ That before tile relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be held on the matter by the Town Board; that a notice of such bearing must be published at least ten days prior to tide date of such hearing' in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watchman, newspapers published in the Town of Sou£hold and designated for the publication of such notices; that you or your representative have the right to ap- pear and be heard at such hearing. Dated: February 2,8,t 1990 Petitioner JEM REALTY CO. BY: HOWARD E. PACHMAN, ESQ. PACHMAN & OSHRIN, P.C. Post Office Address: 366 Veterans Memorial Highwa' P. O. Box zI3 Commack, New York 11725 (5£6) 543-22uu NAME PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE_ ADDRESS STATE OF NEW YORK : COUNTY OF SUFFOLK: SS-; , residing at , being duly sworn, deposes a.nd says that on the day of ,19 _. , deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the reverse side hereof, directed to each of tile abov -named persons at £he addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as sbown on the cur- rent assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at tbe United States Post Office at __; that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (certified) (registered) mail. Sworn to me this day of , 19 Notary Public q RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MArL i/,,(,' el an~ __ ~u G.zeat Neck ~ of Southold P 980 787 'i70 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MArL 9 De_rb~ R~ SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additionat services are desired, and comptete items 3 and 4. Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the Teverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card 3. Article Addressecl to: G~eenport Develo[~nsnt CO. c/o Goldie walc~itz 100 Gr~at Neck RDad Apartment lC Great Neck, New York 11021 5. Sig.~ture - Ad~lresse, a~, ,~ D.te of NAR 1 4. Article Number P980 787 358 Tybe of Service: ~ RegisTered ~ Insured 8. Addressee's Address (ONLY if requested and fee paidJ PS Form 3811, Apr. 1989 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIP and check bo~-Y~or addi~erv ces are--~--~~ersOn delive~red to end ~ddre~sed z~_... (E~tre c,~argel 2. L~ Restricted Delivery Otto Uhl, Jr. ~ 9 Derby Road \ \ Port Washington, NY 11050 · Date of Dehvery -- PS Farm 3811, Apr. 19[~9 *U.S.G.PO. Type of Service: -- ~ Regiatered ~ Insured Certifie~ I_'~ COD L~ Enpress Mail ~ fRoert~v~enrcRl~r~?se Always obtain signat ddresses -- requested ~d Jke DOMES~ETURN REC~ P 121 279 437 Mr. Walter F. Siedjeski Greenport, NY 11944 9 Derby Road _ ._~ ' 7p~'~{"[~'~ington, NY [105 ~,, ' ~ o '~TTLT, ~Z .... ~ ~ - -'] P 9~&0 T87 364 ~IPT RO~ ~£~TI~I~ M~IL l~'.'"and Mrs. A. Straussner 1590 So urml C~e_.!port, ~'~'" v,~-~ 11944 F~ SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when add/t, services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. tree d~te ~f deh~ver~= For 8dditmnal lees [he follow,n9 serv,ces are a~eCab~e. Consult postmaster for ~ 1. I i Show to whom de ve ed, da~e, and addressee's address. 2. LJ Res[ricted Delivery 3. Art,cie Addressed to: Hr. Walter F. Sledjeski Greenport, Naw York 11944 JEM 5. Signature Addressee 7. O~te of l~'ehvery - j' ~ PS Form 3811, Ap~ 1'9,~g ~ ' 4. Article Number P121 279 437 Ty_pe of Service: geglstered ~ Insure0 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT Otto Uhl .j~.<'. 9 Derby Road Port Washington, NY 11050 Signa ur Add e · S,gnature Agent Date of Delivery PS Form 38 1 1, -\pr 14~9 .u.s G.P.O. 19S9-238-815 4. Article Number P980 787 37~ T~pe of Service: L~ Registered ~J In~ured ~ Cert,f,ea b~ COD b~ Express Mall ~] Return Receipt ~ Ier Merchandise or agent and DATE DELIVERED, fExtra charge ~ '~' Article Number Article Addressed to: M~. and Mrs. Augu~Us Straussner~ ~ Sound ~ ~a~ ~Greenport, NY 11944 6.X Si~at~rej. -- Agent P8 Form 3811, Apr. 1989 ' 980 787 364 Regis[ered ~ Insured ' Cer[ified [] COD [] for Merchan~se Mail or agent and DATUM DELIVERED. ~ ~ Addressee's Address (ONLY requested and f~'e paid) DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P 121 279 434 JEM DAniel L.&Nancy Fischer' 20 Sound Road Greenport, NY 11944 P 121 279 435 Ms. Molly Harrower 2841 NM 4%h Lane GAinesville, FL 32607 P 121 279 436 Mr. Harry B. Sinuta North Road GReenport, NY 11944 SENDER: Cumptete i[ems ] and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items g and 4. Daniel & Nancy Fischer P 121 279 434 20 Sound Road Type of Service: Greenport, NY 11944 []Regis,0red I__~nsu,ed (JEM) Always ob,am signature o! addressee 5. Sign~ure%Add~ss~e 8. Addressee's Address ONLY X 7. Oate of Delivery PS Form 3811, .Apr. DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT SENDER: Complete items ] end 2 when additionai services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. Pu[your address~n the "RETURN TO' Space on the reverse s~de. Failure ~o do this wdlprevent tins card ~Oe~ ab~nogf rc~te~rvnfrd to you. The return recelp[ fee will provide you the name of the person de ye ed to and 1. I I Show to whom delivered, date. and addressee's address. 2. C' Restricted Delivery 3, Article Addressed to: Holly Harrower 2841 NW 4th Lane 3ainesville, FL 32607 4. Article Number P121 279 435 Type of Service: ~ Registered [] Insurea Cat, iliad [] COD Express Mail [] Return Recei er Merchandise or agent a~ATE DELIVE_RED 8. Addre'~ee's Address IC~NLY~ 1 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT SENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. Put your ~ddress ~n the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this wdl prevent this carc~ fron be,rig eunedtoyou mhere;urnrecept eew prov de you the name o[ the person dehvered to and the date ~f dehvery. For additional fees [he following services are ~vailable Consult pos;master [or fees ~nd check boxtes) for additional service[s) requested. 1. L~ Show to whom delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. ~ Restricted Delivery 3. Article Addressed to: Mr. Harry B. Sinuta North Road Greanport, NY 11944 (JEM) 5. Signature Addressee , 6. Signature ~Agent X I 7. Date/ ?el{/ery , PS Fo~'m 3811, ~pr. 1989 4. Article Number P121 279 436 Type of Service: ~ Regismred [] insured S. Addressee's Address requested anti fee paidl *U.S.G.P.O. 1989-238-81S DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIP~ 121 279 431 Mr.&Mrs. Liwood s.Webb Greenpot~, NY 11944 Francis H. Bubb Greenport, NY 11944 Ms. Gertrude Egish 22 Sound Road Gre~nport, NY 11944 rom being eturned to ¥o turn re ,pt~lleoewlWnlll r 3. Article Addressed to: 4. Article Number p 121 279 431 Mr. Had Mrs. S. Linwood Webb Iype of ~viee: . Greenport, New York _1944 ~ // E.press Mail ~ ~ ~ Always obtain slgna~ureo~ add ...... 8. Addressee's Address ~ONLY n~UFSTIC RETURN RECEIP~ PS Form 3811, Apr. 1o89 JEM FRancis H. Bubb Greenport, NY 11944 5 S, ature - X 7 4. Article Number P ]21 279 432 L~ [or Merchandise PS Form 3811, Apr ~v~w *U'S'G'P'O' 1959'238'815 JEM DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT Gertrude Egish 22 Sound Road Greenport, NY 11944' (JEM) 6':~%Signat~re -- A§e,'t 7. Date of Deli,ery P 121 279 433 8. ArJdressee's Address ,(),%! ) it DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT 121 333 443 121 333 440 Mr.&Mrs. Jack Skrezec P121 333 443 Sound .t\:::.::-~ ~ Type of S~rvice: Greenport, NY 11944 [] Reg,s,~d [] Insured ~ ~ Always obtain s,gnature of Eddressee *U.S.G.P.O. 1989-238-815 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIP~ P~ P 121 333 441 · ..NDER: Complete items 1 and 2 whoa ~ I~ces are desired, and complete items 3 and 4. Put your address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do thru will prevent th~s card Irom being returned to VOU. The return receipt fee WilCo_vide you the name of the person delivered to and the dam o~ delivary. ~r additional fee~ ~he following serwc~s ere available. Consult postmaster Jar fees and check box(ssi for additional service{s) requested. 1. ~ Show to whom delivered~ date, and addressee's address. 2. ~ Restricted Delivery 333 l/' ~ Type of S~rvice: f~y/~~ ~ ~ ~ R,gisteredcertif/e~ ~l.sured 5. Signature -- Aadressee ' 'S' ~ 8..~d~rI ~e's Address (ONLY (f PS Fo,m 38 1 1, Apr. 1989 ~'LC::::~"/ ~ C"~'"/~')/ DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT 980 78= 860 p, rccE%pT FOR cERTIFIEDr MAiL lENDER: Complete items 1 and 2 when additional services are desired, and comblete items end 4. our addreas in the "RETURN TO" Space on the reverse side. Failure to do this will prevent this card 3eing returned to you. The return recerpt fee will provide you the name of the person dehvered to and Ite of delivery. For additional fees the following services are available. Consult postmaster for fees ~eck box(es) for additional service(s) requested. Show to whom delivered, date, and addreaeee's address. 2. [] Restricted Delivery f~tra charge/ fExtra charge) tJc[e Addressed to: J Frimann Krebs ~est 82nd Street brk, NY ~D24 4. Arhcle Number P980 787 360 Type of Service: egistered I~ Insured Return Race[ t ~ Express Mail ~ for Metchan~se AJways obtain signature ef addressee or agent and DATE DELIVERED. 8, ;Addressee's Address fONLY if requested anti fee paid) )811, Apr. .,~ DQ~EiSTI~ RETqRN RECEIPT RECE~-PT FOR CERTIFIED MA M~-"~ Mrs. V. Brown 22 ~z~-~e~rgef~ St~/~=t - P 980 ~87 366 RECEIPT FOR 6ERTIFIEO MAIL ~s~in'gn MY 11354 ' I ~f~. and Mrs. Vic~:~ Brown -~22 Bergen Street'- ~n~klyn, NY 11817 Artic/e Number P980 787 361 l~ COD Mr. and Mrs. SpyrOS Vassili( 147-01 38th Avenue Flushing, NY 11354 Show to whom delivered2 ~'~nd ad~re~ss~'s add,~ss, tCr/~ c~rgel f~m g ~mber 980-?8?-356 Addressee DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT PS Form '~E~'~ 1, Apt. g' 7.:'3D ;87 ~b8 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL ~"~- and Mrs. R. Kase ~c210 Street nd 4. r address in the "RETURN TO" Space on the ~ ~kll. ~llilure lo do this will prevent th~s card ~i2g re:urned to you. The return receipt fee will prewde ~ I~ name of the person delivered to and te el dehver . For additional fees the fo~low,ng services are available. Consult postmaster for tees ar addi[ional servicels) requested. ~om delivered, date, and addressee's address. 2. [] Restricted Delivery (Eztra charge) f~ttra charge) rt~ e Addressed to: and Mrs. Robert Kase ~7-51 210 S%Neet 'Bayside, NY '11364 ii ature Addressee 4. Article Number P980 787 368 Type of Service: [] Registered [] I~[sured [] Certified [] .~OD [] Express Mail ~ Return Recei t for Merchan~se Always obtain signatL~re of addressee or agent and DAT~ DELIVERED. 8. Addressee's Adclress (ONLYif . r~quested and fee paid) o,,~ 31~i 1 ,'Apr. 1989 DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT P 980 ?E'~ ! 67 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Jerry Colaitis S~e6'~-~ 54th Avenue P~O ~ 6en{~a ,Zl P~ York 113( 8 ,> 0 0 0 ./ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATIST[CS MARRIAGE OFFICER 'foden Hall. 53095 Main Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York l Iq71 Fax 1516} 765-h~23 Telephone (5161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 8, 1991 Charles V. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Dear Chick: Enclosed is the Town Board's resolution, adopted on February 5, 1991, confirming our conversation with respect to the review of the revised DEIS for $outhold Commons and the one for Jem Commons which was received by me on that same day. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: E. M. Kontokosta JUDITH T. TERRY TOV~ N CLERK REGISTRAR OI- VITAL STAI-ISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York I IttTl Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (SIOl 765-1}40[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON FEBRUARY 5, 1991: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby requests Cramer, Voorhis & Associates to review the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the E. M. Kontokosta change of zone petition (Southold Commons), and the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement with Commons), to accordance with the dated November 12, Commons). respect to the Jem Realty Co. change of zone petition (Jem determine whether the documents have been revised in recommendations of Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, 1990 (Southold Commons), and November 13, 1990 (Jem Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk February 7, 1991 JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 5, 1991 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (5161 76.5-1823 TELEPHONE 1516) 765-1801 CHICK: The Town Board has asked that you review each advise me of your findings. Thank you. DEIS and M MIDDLETON ENVIR NlvlENTAL INC. DONALD J k11DDl February 4, 1991 VIA MESSENGER SERVICE Ms. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Jem Commons Revised DEIS FEB 5 199! Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find twenty (20) copies of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the above referenced project. This DEIS was revised in accordance with comments received from Cramer, Voorhis & Associates dated November 13, 1990. Thank you. Encl. CC: Sincerely, Catherine Russell Project Manager E. Kontokosta Jem Realty Company Cramer, Voorhis & Associates .,~.- ,... ~ .~.. . ...,,.: ,. :, .~_:.,:/...> ~ ~ ~ ~-~-,,~,~/~-~,'~ ~ ~,~.,/~ .. ..~.. BILL l C.O.D. BILL t C.O.D. R~CEIVED. SUBJECT TO THE CLASSIFICATIONS AND TARIFFS IN EFFECT ON THE DATE OF THE ISSUE OF THIS BILL OF LADING ~ PRIORITY ~' IMMEDIATE ~ SCHEDULED ~ OVERNIGHT ~ MULTIPLE EXPRESS .... .. N.Y.D,O.T. ~ ~ t ,~ ~ ~,~ AND IBTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION REGULA~ONS. m M MIDDL. ETON ENVIRONMENTAL INC': DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NY OCTOBER 1990 REVISED: JANUARY 1991 APPLICANT: JEM REALTY COMPANY J. COVEP SHEET DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOCATION: North of Route 48 (Main Road) East of Sound Drive Town of Southold, Suffolk County APPLICANT: Jem Realty Company 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 PREPARER: Middleton Environmental, Inc. 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, New York 11725 Donald J. Middleton, President (516) 462-2222 DATE OF PREPARATION: DATE REVISED: DATE ACCEPTED: October 1990 January 1991 COMMENT PERIOD: Copies of this Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Written comments should be submitted by to be in the public record. TABLE OF CO"'ITENTS JEM COMMONS DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS I. COVER SHEET II. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Executive Summary ................................... S-1 a. Description of Proposed Action .................. S-1 b. Significant, Beneficial & Adverse Impacts and Mitigation Measures .......................... S-1 1. Groundwater Quantity & Quality .............. s-2 2. Archeological Resources ..................... S-3 3. Transportation (Traffic) .................... S-4 4. Cumulative Impacts .......................... S-4 c. Alternatives Considered ......................... S-4 1. No Action ................................... S-5 2. Alternative Size (32 Units) ................. S-5 3. Alternative Size (31 Units Cluster) ......... S-6 4. 171 Units, 20 Acre-19 Unit Cluster .......... S-6 d. Permits & Approvals Required .................... S-7 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................. A. Project Purpose & Benefits ...................... 1. Background & History ............................ 2. Public Need For Project ......................... 3. Objectives of the Project Sponsor ............... 4, Benefits of the Proposed Action ................. a. Social ...................................... b. Economic .................................... B. Location ........................................ 1. Regional & Local Location ................... 2. Description of Access to Site ............... 3. Description of Existing Zoning .............. C. Design & Layout ................................. 1. Total Site Area ............................. a. Proposed Impervious Surface Areas ....... b. Land To Be Cleared ...................... c. Open Space .............................. D. Construction & Operation ........................ Page No. III-1 III-2 III-2 III-4 III-7 III-8 III-8 III-8 III-9 III-9 III-9 III-11 III-13 III-13 III-14 III-15 III-15 III-16 E. Approvals ....................................... III-17 Page No. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ............................... IV-1 Natural Resources ................................... /-g-i A. Geology ......................................... /V-1 1. Subsurface & Surface ........................ IV-1 2. Topography .................................. /V-6 B. Water Resources ................................. /-V-7 1. Groundwater ................................. /V-7 a. Location & Description of Aquifers & Recharge Areas ........................... IV-7 b. Identification of Present Uses & Level of Use of Groundwater ................... IV-8 C. Air Resources ................................... IV-12 1. Climate ..................................... IV-12 2. Air Quality ................................. IV-12 D, Terrestrial & Ecology ........................... 1];-15 1. Vegetation .................................. IV-15 2, Wildlife .................................... IV-17 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) E. Agricultural Resources ......................... 1. S~ils ....................................... Page No. IV-20 IV-20 Human Resources ..................................... A. Transportation .................................. 1. Transportation Services ..................... 2. Public Transportation ....................... 3. Pedestrian Environment ...................... IV-21 IV-22 IV-22 Bo Land Use & Zoning ............................... 1. Existing Land Use & Zoning .................. a. Description of Existing Land Use of Project Site and Surrounding Area ....... b. Affected Agricultural District .......... 2. Land Use Plans .............................. IV-23 IV-23 IV-23 IV-23 IV-24 C. Community Services .............................. 1. Education ................................... 2. Police Protection ........................... 3. Fire Protection ............................. 4. Health Care Facilities ...................... 5. Social Sel-vices ............................. 6. Recreational Facilities ..................... 7. Utilities ................................... 8. Public Water Supply ......................... IV-24 IV-24 IV-25 IV-25 IV-25 IV-26 IV-26 IV-27 IV-27 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) D. Demography ...................................... 1. Population Characteristics .................. E, Cultural Resources .............................. 1. Visual Resources ............................ 2. Historic & Archaeological Resources ......... 3. Noise ....................................... Page No. IV-31 IV-31 IV-32 IV-32 IV-32 1];-33 VI. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................... 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Groundwater Resources ........................ Public Water Supply ......................... Wildlife Habitat ............................ Agricultural Resources ...................... Archaeological Resources .................... Open Space .................................. Traffic ....................................... Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) ......... MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT Natural Resources ................................... A. Geology ......................................... B. Water Resources ................................. V~i V-1 V-7 V-8 V-9 V-9 V-9 V-10 V-10 VI-i VI-1 VI-1 VI-1 1. Groundwater ................................. VI-1 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) vii. D. E. Agricultural Resources ....................... Human Resources .................................. Air Resources ................................... Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology ................. A. Transportation ................................. B. Land Use and Zoning ............................ C. Community Services ............................. 1. Public Water Supply ........................ 2. Other Community Services .................... D. Cultural Resources .............................. 1. Visual Resources ............................ 2. Historic and Archaeological Resources ....... 3. Noise ....................................... ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ..................... Groundwater Resources ............................... Public Water Supply ................................. Open Space .......................................... Page No. VI-4 VI-4 VI-5 VI-6 VI-7 VI-7 VI-7 VI-7 VI-8 VI-8 VI-8 VI-8 VI-9 VII-1 VII-1 VII-1 VII-1 Page No. VIII. ALTERNATIVES ........................................ VIII-1 A. No Action ....................................... B. Alternative Size (32 Units) ..................... C. Alternative Size (31 Units, Cluster) ............ D. 171 Units, 20 Acre-19 Unit Cluster .............. VIII-1 VIII-2 VIII-ii VIII-19 IX. IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES IX-1 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS ............................. X-1 A. Population ...................................... X-1 B. Support Facilities .............................. X-1 C. Development Potential ........................... X-2 D. Cumulative Impacts ..... . ......................... X-2 REFERENCES R-1 XI. APPENDICES Site Plan Appendix A Alternative Plans for all alternatives Appendix A Comparison of Income vs. Housing Prices Appendix B Town of Southold Board of Assessors Appendix C County of Suffolk Letter Appendix D Traffic Study Appendix E Greenport Union Free School District Appendix F Southold Town Police Dept. Appendix G Greenport Fire Dept. Appendix H Social Services Village of Greenport Letter Southold Planning Board's Recommendation Positive Declaration and LEaF S.C. Fast Tracking Affordable Homes Program Aerial Photograph - 1955 NYS Parks & Recreation (OPRHP) R.W. Johnson, Ph.D. - Field Report NYSDEC Natural Heritage Program Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K Appendix L Appendix M Appendix N Appendix 0 Appendix P Appendix Q Topographic Map in Pocket in Rear of Document List of Illustrations & Tables Following Page Number Regional Location Map ............................... Specific Location Map .............................. Soils Map .......................................... Hydrogeologic Zone Map ............................. Figure 1 - Geological Cross Section ................ Figure 2 - Groundwater Flow Patterns ............... Figure 5 - Pesticide Contamination ................. Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................... Air Quality (Babylon-Suffolk County) ............... Town of Southold Zoning Map ........................ Table 8-27 (Comparison of Alternatives) ............ III-9 III-9 IV-1 IV-7 IV-8 IV-8 IV-10 11;-14 IV-14 IV-23 1-V-29 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY a. Description of Proposed Action The proposed project calls for the construction of 171 detached single family dwellings (consisting of 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes) to be constructed on a 62 acre site located east of Sound Drive, north of Route 48 (Main Road), south of the Long Island Sound, within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport, in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. An application for a change in zone has been submitted to the Town of Southold. The application requests that the existing R-80 zoning (2 acre) be changed to Hamlet Density (HD) for the southerly (42 acre) portion of the parcel and a change in zone from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre) for the northerly (20 acre) portion of the parcel. b. Significant. Beneficial and Adverse Impacts and Mitiqation Measures The following is a summary of the findings of the DEIS as it considered the potential impacts of primary concern (i.e.' groundwater quantity and quality, archaeological resources, traffic and cumulative impacts). S-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) 1. Groundwater Ouantit¥ & Oualitv The proposed project will utilize approximately 51,300 gallons per day. If 171 units were constructed at 300 gpd per unit = 51,300 gpd. The total annual water usage is 51,300 gpd x 365 days = 18,724,500 MGY. A request was sent to the Village of Greenport to ascertain the availability of water allocation for the subject site. On March 15, 1989 (see Appendix J), a response was received from the Village of Greenport stating that the "Village does not currently have efficient well pumping capacity to add additional customers." However, the Village Board of Trustees has committed to upgrade and improve the system. "Subsequent to receiving funds the Village will complete the engineering required to activate three new water wells which will supply sufficient water for your client". A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's Office and Gerry Hick$on of the Greenport Water District on 8/31/90 revealed that two new wells are now being installed at the west end of Tuckers Lane both rated for 500 gallons per minute. However, upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. Treatment of well ~6 located off Horton's Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Water Quality Standards per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. S-2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) 2. Archeoloqical Resources At the request of the Lead Agency, the NYS Office of Parks, Recreatibn and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) was contacted and a response received (see Appendix 0). They have indicated in their response that the project area "may" contain an archeological site, unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented. Dr. Robert W. Johnson conducted an additional field visit 1/91 (see Appendix P, Page 7 & 8). A 1955 Aerial Photograph (Appendix N) indicates the entire site was plowed and cultivated at that time. This would have disturbed the soils down to a depth of at least 8 or 10 inches. Since then (during the past 25 years), the nursery operation disturbed the soils down to 24 to 36 inches. Special attention was paid to the exposed soils throughout this site; particularly along bare soil ATV trails and within the holes left by the nursery operation. These hundreds of holes range from one to three feet in depth and two to four feet in diameter. Dr. Johnson scraped the soils away from the sides of about 15 holes scattered around the property and found nothing resembling quartz chips or shell fragments (which is one of the criteria which may indicate an archeological site). Also OPRHP has indicated in their response that the area has not been professionally surveyed for historic buildings or structures. As can be seen in the 1955 Aerial Photograph of the site, there were not and still is not any buildings or structures on the entire site and in fact the majority of the area was farmland. $-3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) 3. Transportation ~Traffic; A traffic study has been conducted by George B. Michos, P.E. on August 1990 (see Appendix E) and it has been determined that the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadways. Therefore, significant impacts is not an issue and mitigation has not been offered. 4. Cumulative Impacts Since the proposed project is compatible and consistent with the surrounding land uses, it has been determined that cumulative impacts or a precedent setting nature should not be an issue. Also, since this project site meets the conceptual criteria discussed in the Master Plan for ideal "HD" Hamlet Density locations, and specifically meets the 1/2 mile distance from Hamlet Business districts established in the Amended Zoning Resolution adopted by the Town of Southold on 1/10/89, the proposed project will not create a cumulative or precedent setting impact. c. Alternatives Considered In analyzing the possible uses of the Jem Commons site, alternatives were examined which were: S-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) 1. No action The "no action" alternative would continue to maintain the site in its current condition. This alternative was found to be unacceptable, primarily because the project sponsor would be denied a legally protected right to gain proper economic benefits from the property and the "no action" alternative would deny the community the various economic and socio-economic benefits which would occur as a result of developing the property. .No nitrate residues from sanitary wastes and no further fertilization would reach groundwater. Certain resources would not be expended, (i.e., electricity, fuels, labor, water, etc.). On other hand the community would not gain the benefit of additional jobs during construction, the tax bases of the County, Town and School District would not gain in tax revenues and the community would not get the moderately and affordably priced housing so desperately needed in the Town. 2. Alternate Size (32 Units; This alternative would meet the existing R-80 Zoning for the site and would not require a change in zone. This alternative would require less water usage, however, the total net recharge to the aquifer would also be less than the proposed project. This alternative is not consistent with the surrounding land uses (see Background & History), and it is not economically feasible not only to the project sponsor but also to the Town of Southold which would receive substantially less S-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) in tax revenues than the proposed project would generate. In addition, this alternative would not provide the "affordable" and "moderate" priced housing that the proposed project would provide (see Page #III-4, Public Need, for distinction between "affordable" and "moderate" priced housing). 3. Alternative Size (31 Units. Cluster; This alternative would meet the existing R-80 Zoning for the site and would not require a change in zone. This alternative also would require less water usage and again the net recharge to the groundwater would also be less. However, this alternative is not consistent with the surrounding land uses (see Background & History), and it is not economically feasible not only to the project sponsor but also to the Town of Southold which would receive substantially less in tax revenues than the proposed project would generate. Also, this alternative would not provide "affordable" and "moderate" priced housing as the proposed project would provide. 4. 171 Units, 20 Acre-19 Unit Cluster This alternative would also require a change in zone as the proposed project would. Total water usage and net recharge is approximately the same as the proposed project. Although there would be a greater amount of open space between the northern and southern section of the site, since the northern section would be clustered, the lots on the northern section would be reduced in size and therefore have a greater density than the northern section of the proposed project would have. However, it should be noted that if a change in zone is granted, clustering is not allowed under the HD zoning. Tax revenues received would be the same as the proposed project. S-6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) d. Permits and Approvals Required In addition to the completion of the SEQR process, other approvals that are required include the following: Approval from the Town of Southold Town Board for change of zone for 62 acres currently zoned R-80 to proposed zone HD (Hamlet Density) for the southerly (42 acre) portion of the site and a change in zone from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre) for the northerly (20 acre) portion of the site. 2. Subdivision Approval from Suffolk County. 3. Subdivision Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. 4. Access to State Road - NYS Department of Transportation 5. Building Permit from the Town of Southold. 6. Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sanitary facilities. 7. Water Supply Approvals from the Greenport Water District or other sources. 8. NYSDEC SPDES permit for proposed sewage treatment plant, if this method for sewage disposal is chosen. S-7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - (Continued) It should be noted that the proposed project has been approved for the Suffolk County Affordable Homes Fast Tracking Program by the office of the County Executive, County of Suffolk (see Appendix D). S-8 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been prepared to assess the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Jem Commons Development and to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the laws and regulations of the Town of Southold. The proposal calls for the construction of 171 detached one family dwellings (consisting of 122 moderately-priced homes, 30 affordably priced homes, and 19 luxury homes) to be constructed on a 62 acre site located in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY. The site is zoned R-80 (2 acre) and the project sponsor has requested a change in Zone to HD (Hamlet Density) for the southerly 42 acre portion of the site and R-40 for the northerly 20 acre portion of the site. This DEIS will analyze the potential environmental impacts which may occur from the construction of the proposed community and will assess measures to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts and investigate possible alternatives. The project will be developed by Jem Realty Company. Development will take place on the north side of Main Road (Route 48), east of Sound Drive, south of the Long Island Sound, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. The building lots on the northerly portion of the site (20 acres) will be greater than 1 acre in size the southerly section (42 acres) will have lots averaging 12,036 SF in size. A sewage treatment plant will be designed and approval oDtained to handle all sanitary wastes. Road access will be provided to individual lots totalling 340,480 square feet. III-1 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) A. Project Purpose and Benefits The purpose of the proposed project is to construct 171 detached one family dwellings (consisting of 122 moderately-priced homes, 30 affordably-priced homes and 19 luxury-priced homes). The benefits of the proposed project will be both to the public in having moderately and affordably priced homes and also to the tax base of the Town of Southold. 1. Background and History The Jem Commons site is located approximately 95~ miles east of New York City and 22± miles east of Riverhead. The site has a total area of 62 acres, which is presently an undeveloped tract. The terrestrial setting of the site is best described as relatively flat land with slopes of 2%-8%. The site is abutted by one road, Main Road (Route 48), 145± feet east of Sound Drive south of the Long Island Sound and within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet (see location map for boundaries of the project site following page number III-9). Access to the proposed subdivision will be via Route 48 (Main Road). An additional access route has been shown on the plan as requested by the Town, however, since the Town owns this section of land, approval would have to be granted by them to utilize this alternative access route. (See revised site plan in Appendix A). III-2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) The site is presently zoned R-80 Residential Low-Density District (2-acre minimum). The project sponsor has applied to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone to HD (Hamlet Density) for the southern portion of the site (42 acres) which fronts Route 48 and a change in zone for the northern portion of the site (20 acres) which fronts the Long Island Sound to R-40 (1 acre density). A resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Board at a regular meeting held on 4/24/90 and it has been determined that a DEIS must be prepared by the project sponsor. The Town of Southold's Planning Board has indicated opposition to the request for a change in zone (see 3/27/90 memo to Town Clerk in Appendix K) and has recommended denial of the proposed petition. However, also in Appendix K are responses from the Suffolk County Planning Board dated 5/3/90 and 5/24/90. As indicated in Suffolk County's 5/24/90 letter, since no official determination was made within the prescribed 45 day notification period, the application was automatically approved. Shown in Appendix L is the Positive Declaration and the Long Environmental Assessment Form. The site is immediately surrounded almost entirely by residential one family dwellings and business/commercial uses. The average lot sizes along the westerly boundary line is approximately 5,000 square feet resulting in a density as high as 8 units/acre. The 137 acre parcel to the east has been rezoned to Hamlet Density allowing for 357 units in addition to the area along Main Road which is zoned Light Business. The parcels bordering the southwesterly corner of the site also are zoned Business. The parcel located further east of the 357 unit parcel is also zoned R-SO according to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map. However, a golf course is located on this site and it is unlikely single family dwellings will be constructed on III-3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION (Continued) this parcel. The parcel located to the southeast of the subject site (east side of Manhasset Avenue), is also zoned R-80, however, a cemetery exists on this site and it is definite that single family dwellings will not be constructed on this parcel. (The above information was taken from a survey of the immediate surrounding area prepared by the project sponsor dated 12/18/89 revised 2/23/90 and from the Town of Southold's Zoning Map.) The site was purchased by Jem Realty in April 1979. The site has not been farmed for the past 15 years, however, prior to that, the site was farmed by the Sinuto Family and it was farmed continuously for 70 years. 2. Public Need for Project The need for moderately and 'affordably-priced housing, especially for the working class of the Town of Southold has been frequently and continually expressed, both by elected officials, the public and the press. In this DEIS, a distinction is made between "affordably" priced housing, "moderately" priced housing, and "luxury" priced housing. The price for "affordable" housing is determined by the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program developed by the County Executive's Office and for which this project has been approved (see letter of approval dated 3/27/90 to Southold Town Supervisor in Appendix D). The price range for "moderately,. priced units are in the range of $129,000 to $165,000. The price range for "luxury" priced homes are in excess of $195,000. These prices were obtained from the project sponsor's knowledge of the local real estate market. However, it should be noted that, although Cramer, Voorhis and III-4 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) Associates acting for the Lead Agency requested it, Suffolk County's criteria for Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program does not require disclosure of pre-established purchase price limits (see Suffolk County Fast Tracking A~fordable Homes Program in Appendix M on page 3). The price of housing has cumulatively increased on an average of 4 to 5 percent per year since 1945 in spite of greater percentage variations in home values during sporidac peaks and valleys within the economic cycle. Although we are now experiencing one of these periods where values of real estate are on the decrease, we are evaluating the economic factors of this EIS on the long term general trend in housing costs. This is the most realistic, especially since the 3 year time frame required to complete the entire process of approvals, permits, construction and marketing for a project of this type spans the peaks and valleys of the economic cycles. The need for affordable and moderately priced houses has been specifically recognized and addressed by the Consulting Town Planners in the preparation of the Master Plan for the Town of Southold. The concept of higher residential densities was implemented by the Town Board in the adoption of the amended zoning resolution of 1/10/89, wherein it established the "HD" Hamlet Density district so as to permit a higher residential density of moderately and affordably priced mixed housing types appropriate to the areas in and around the major hamlet centers, and in this case within 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport. The average building 10t approximately two years ago costs $80,000.00 and a home $190,000.00. These costs have driven the working class from the community. As a result, Southold is becoming a second bedroom community. The proposed project is not subsidized by any governmental agency. It is created by private capital to bring housing for the public good. Upon III-5 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) completion, $outhold Town will have at least 122 moderately priced, 30 affordably-priced and 19 luxury priced homes which will have been created without any cost to the Town or its taxpayers. In fact, the proposed project will add to the Town's tax base and it will bring new life and vitality to the community. The following information was taken from a magazine entitled "Builder", The Magazine Of The National Association of Home Builders, a Hanley-Wood, Inc. publication dated July 1990. The article is entitled "Out of Reach". According to this article homeownership is down for the first time in our nation's history. At least 59 million people - nearly 25% of the U.S. population can no longer find a place for less than a third of their gross pay, a standard definition of housing affordability. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), 45% of the nation's poor now spend 70% or more of their income on rent. Even the exalted group of homeowners is having its problems. For the same basic reason, prices are outstripping incomes on Long Island where house prices are so high and property, school and associated taxes have skyrocketted in the past 10 years. More and more Long Islanders are moving off the Island in order to find affordable housing and low taxes such as the South. After adjusting for inflation, median new-home prices are up 23.5 percent in 10 years, while median existing-home prices are flat. Median incomes are up about 8%, not enough to close the gap. III-6 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) First, there's been a massive redistribution of wealth tied to tax-code changes, the wage-depressing effects of the baby boomers on the labor market, and the replacement of high-paying industrial (defense jobs on Long Island) jobs with iow-paying service careers. Example: households headed by people ages 25 to 34 earn 6% less than their 1970's counterparts; people under 25 earn 28% less, says the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. "Even if nothing else happened to the housing market," says NAHB economist Michael Carliner, "this guaranteed that people, especially at the iow end, would have a tough time". Homeownership rates are down in nearly every part of the country and for virtually every age group. The twenty and thirty-somethings were hit the hardest. Since 1980, the homeownership rate for young married couples with children fell from 71 to 63%. For people ages 30-34, homeownership fell from 61 to 53%. Ages 35-44 down from 72.5 66.7%. To put it another way, the number of families that could qualify for the typical home fell by more than 12 million between 1984 and 1988, says NAHB. (See Appendix B for Comparison of Income vs. Housing Prices.) 3. Objectives of the Pro$ect Sponsor The project sponsor, Jem Realty Company, owner, has an overall objective to create a well-planned, properly serviced, conveniently-located housing project consisting of 19 luxury homes, 122 moderately priced homes, and 30 affordably priced homes, all architecturally well coordinated, so as to provide an economically homogenous residential community. III-7 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (continued) These proposed dwellings provide an opportunity for a younger family to find a moderate municipally-serviced house so that they and their family could remain on Long Island particularly the North Fork, and as a secondary result help stabilize and potentially increase both the labor force and the buying population for businesses in the Town of Southold. 4. Benefits of the Proposed Action a. Social The proposed project will alleviate the housing shortage in the Town of Southold on several economic levels in that the project will provide housing at the luxury, moderate and affordable price levels, in an architectually coordinated and socially homogenous residential community. b. Economic The Jem Commons Project will provide single-family housing for three levels of socio-economic strata with 100% of private capital. The predominately higher density housing and the three different price levels (i.e. luxury, moderate, and affordable) allows for each level to economically compensate for the existence of each of the other two. This well balanced residential community will generate for the Town of Southold, based on 1989-90 tax rates, $502,730,46 in taxes. (See Appendix C). III-8 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION (Continued) B. Location 1. Site Specific Location Jem Commons is located in the Town of Southold, east of the Southold Hamlet, north of the Village of Greenport, Suffolk County, New York. The project site is located north of Main Road (Route 48), east of Sound Drive, south of the Long Island Sound, west of the Island's End Golf and Country Club. The site is in close proximity to the L.I.R.R. main line travelling west. The L.I.R.R. station is conveniently located just south of Wiggins Street, just west of 4th Street, in the village of Greenport. There are numerous creeks, ponds and harbors located in close proximity to the site. Also the Long Island Sound is located just north of the site. (See Regional and Local Location Maps on the following page). 2. Descrimtion of Access to Site The major arterial roadway serving the area of the project is County Road 48 (Main Road) to the south. As mentioned previously the L.I.R.R. and its station is just south of Wiggins Street. Direct access to the development will be via Main Road (Route 48). The Town of Southold has requested that the project sponsor seek an additional access route via Sound Drive. However, all of the lots between the project site and Sound Drive contain single family dwellings with various garages and sheds, they are privately owned and it is very unlikely a private owner would grant access through their property. There is, however, a Town-owned park located to the extreme III-9 REGIONAL LOCATION MAP Suffolk County State Park Facilities SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAS JEM COMMONS 44 SITE SPECIFIC LOCATIbN MAP... 45 $ 0 U N D OURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY ATLAS 1971 PIPES ~r )LD PROJECT SITE JEM COMMONS STIRLIN COVE ~,tngs Pt F~n 9PE ..\' :....- ENPORT , ? Tach! Club 119B DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) northwesterly corner of the project site and if the Town were to grant access through this lot, the project sponsor would entertain this additional access route. The access road has been indicated on the site plan. (See revised site plan in Appendix A). III-10 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) 3. Description of Existin~ Zonin~ The subject property is currently zoned R-80 (2 acre minimum). It is contiguous to an existing "HD" Hamlet Density parcel to the east. The surrounding residential areas to the west and south are being utilized as high density residential areas as much as 8 units to the acre. At the southeasterly property line, the property is contiguous to a parcel designated as a Limited Business zone. Immediately across from the subject property on Route 48, a Commercial Shopping Center is being planned. As previously stated, the existing zoning for this parcel is R-80. Contiguous along the easterly property line is HD (Hamlet Density) zoning, with LB (Light Business) on the North Road. Contiguous along the westerly property line is R-40, with LB (Light Business) along the North Road. On the southerly end of the parcel and across the North Road, is RO (Residential/Office) and some R-40 and R-80. III-11 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) Irrespective of the existing zoning shown on the zoning map, the actual land use of the surrounding area consists of a mix of uses varying from business to high density residential. Construction site work has begun on the 157 acre parcel contiguous to the east of the subject parcel for 357 hamlet density (high density) residential units along with a 12 acre business area. Contiguous to the westerly property line, except for a one acre park (open space) fronting on the Long Island Sound, the entire length is occupied by bungalow type residential units at a high density of three to four units to the acre. Except for the subject parcel and the 18 acre undeveloped parcel zoned R-80 diagonally across the North Road, the land uses within a half mile radius of the site are predominately high density residential mixed with business, thus not compatible with R-80 (two acre) zoning. The proposed change in zoning will allow the property to be developed compatibly to the surrounding uses and in harmony with, and promote the general intent of the amended zoning resolution, allowing for "HD" Hamlet Density within the half mile distance of the Greenport Business Hamlet. III-12 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) C. Desiqn and Layout 1. Total Site Area The total site area is approximately 2,700,720 square feet or 62 acres. The access roads to the individual lots will encompass 340,480 square feet. The proposed project is to subdivide the site into 171 individual lots. The northern portion of the site fronting on the Long Island Sound will consist of 20 acres with 19 single family dwellings on 45,852 SF lots (1 unit/acre). The southerly portion of the site fronting on Route 48 will consist of 42 acres with 152 single family dwellings on lots averaging 12,036 SF - 3.6 units/acre. Clearing is to be limited to the actual housing site locations with all possible provisions made for natural growth, to be supplemented with additional plantings to provide buffer areas wherever and whenever possible. The roads are proposed to be 24±' wide constructed in accordance with the Town of Southold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swales on either side as well as leaching pools in each iow section of the road; both of which are designed to take full advantage of the recharge capability of the well drained (100%) soil on this particular site. Application has been made to the Village of Greenport for permission to connect this project into the Village Sanitary system on the same basis granted to the adjacent 357 residential and commercial building project. We have been advised that, although the present system lacks sufficient capacity at this time, it is presently being expanded to accommodate additional projects. III-13 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) The alternative to the Village Sanitary system is to construct an on site sewage treatment plant. This plant will meet all of the Suffolk County Health Department's design criteria after first consulting with the Department to determine any varibles due to specific site conditions. The final design and size of the proposed plant will determine the adequacy of the open spaces provided on the site plan. As discussed in the scoping session, the conceptual plan submitted is not intended to be an engineering plan, but reflects only the theoritical maximum number of possible units allowed for the proposed zoning as indicated in Chapter 100 of the Town Code. Upon re-zoning approval, a site plan will be prepared and filed with the Southold Planning Board. This site plan will provide all the necessary engineering information, namely, the size, capacity, setbacks and location of the treatment plant if required; and in addition, all the roads, utilities, recreational facilities, open areas and other design amenities required by the Southold Town Planning Board and other coDcerned agencies. Without the necessary consultations with the concerned agencies, the extent of these amenities and other requirements remain varibles which can only decrease the maximum number of allowable residential units indicated on the conceptual plan and on which this EIS is predicated. a. Proposed Impervious Surface Area As mentioned previously, impervious roads consisting of 340,480 square feet (7.8 A) will be installed to access the proposed individual lots. The total roofs/driveways will consist of 205,200 SF (4.7 A), leaving 85,200 SF (2 A) of natural area, the remaining 2,069,840 SF (47.5 A) will be lawn areas. (See revised site plan dated 11/27/90 in Appendix A). III-14 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) b. Land To Be Cleared As mentioned previously, clearing is to be limited to the actual housing site locations with all possible provisions made for natural growth, to be supplemented with additional plantings to provide buffer areas wherever and whenever possible. Also low-fertilizer dependent grasses will be used for lawn areas and this requirement will be incorporated into deeds/convenants for each parcel. The estimated amount of lawn area will be 2,069,840 SF (47.5 A). Aside from installation of the access road off Route 48, 85,200 SF (2 A) of vegetated buffer will remain along this 576' section of property. c. Open Space As stated above, an 85,200 SF vegetated buffer will remain fronting Route 48. The southerly portion of the property will be lost almost entirely to development, however, the northerly section of the property (fronting the Long Island Sound) will have lots greater than 1 acre, therefore, this portion of the property will have more open space. Out of the entire 62 acre parcel only 12.5 acres of vegetation will be removed for dwellings and roads, leaving 2 acres of natural growth and 47.5 acres of Iow-fertilizer dependent lawn~landscape areas. The vegetation that is removed for construction, as stated previously will be replaced with supplemental plantings. III-15 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) D. Construction & Operation It is anticipated that as soon as all required approvals and permits are granted by all concerned agencies, construction will commence. The approval of the proposed development is also dependent upon the satisfaction of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) requirements. Actual construction will be completed in phases as the need arises and in order to minimize total site disturbance that one phase would create. Every effort will be made to assure that the project will be completed in a timely fashion. III-16 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - (Continued) E. Approvals In addition to the completion of the SEQRA process, other approvals that are required include the following: Approval from the Town of Southold Town Board for change of zone for 62 acres currently zoned R-80 to proposed zone HD (Hamlet Density) for the southerly 42 acre portion of the site and a change in zone to R-40 for the northerly 20 acre portion of the site. 2. Subdivision Approval from Suffolk County. 3· State Road Access-Department of Transportation, NYS. 4. Subdivision Approval from the Southold Town Planning Board. 5. Building Permit from the Town of Southold. 6· Approval by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sanitary facilities. 7. Water Supply Approvals from the Greenport Water District or other sources. 8. NYSDEC SPDES Permit is required for proposed Sewage Treatment Plant if this method for sewage disposal is chosen. It should be noted that the proposed project has been approved for the Suffolk County Affordable Homes Fast Tracking Program by the Office of the County Executive, County of Suffolk. (See Appendix D). III-17 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL S,~ rTING IV. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Natural Resources A. Geoloqy 1. Subsurface & Surface The geology of this parcel proposed for rezoning and development is considered typical of the geology found throughout Southold Township. Upper Pleistocene deposits form the overall land mass of the North Fork, consisting of stratified sands and gravels with some thin beds of clay encountered. These Upper Pleistocene deposits range to approximately 200 feet below sea level. The Jem Commons Project has five types of soils found on the site. They are identified by the United States Soil Conservation Service as Beaches, Riverhead Sandy Loam, Plymouth Series, Haven Series and Haven Loam. Ail are described in the following paragraphs. (See U.S.S.C. Soils map on the following page). Beaches (Bc) Beaches are made up of sandy, gravelly, or cobbly areas between water at mean sea level and dunes or escarpments. Slope is nearly level in most areas. Ail the beaches along Long Island Sound are very gravelly and cobbly. ENVIRONMENTAL sETTING - (Continued) Plymouth Series (PIB 3% 8% slopes) The Plymouth series consists of deep, excessively drained, coarse-textured soils that formed in a mantle of loamy sand or sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level to steep soils are throughout the county on Droad, gently sloping to level outwash plains and on undulating to steep moraines. Native vegetation consists of white oak, black oak, pitch pine, and scrub oak. In a representative profile the surface layer is very dark grayish-brown loamy sand, about 4 inches thick, in wooded areas. In cultivated areas the surface layer is mixed with material formerly in the upper part of the subsoil, and there is a brown to dark-brown plow layer of loam about 10 inches thick. The subsoil is yellowish-brown and brown, very friable and loose loamy sand to a depth of about 27 inches. The substratum, to a depth of about 58 inches, is yellowish-brown, loose gravelly coarse sand. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Plymouth soil. This soil tends to be droughty. This soil is fairly well suited to the crops commonly grown in the county. Some areas were formerly used for farming, but most such areas are in brush or are idle. In the western part of the coumty, this soil is used mainly for housing developments. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Haven Series (HaA 0% 3% slopes) The Haven series consists of deep, well-drained medium textured soils that formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel. These soils are present throughout the county, but most areas are on outwash plains between the two terminal moraines. HaA is mostly level and generally is on outwash plains. Some areas of this soil are on moraines and generally are on the top of Iow-lying hills. Haven soils have high to moderate available moisture capacity. Reaction is strongly acid to very strongly acid throughout. Natural fertility is Iow. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is moderate in the surface layer and subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The hazard of erosion is slight on this Haven soil. Primary management concerns are keeping the soil from crusting after rain, maintaining tilth, and reducing the plowpan. Haven Loam (HaB 2% - 6% slopes) This soil is on outwash plains and moraines, commonly along shallow, intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. In larger areas this soil is mostly undulating. Most areas of this soil are smaller than the areas of Haven loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) In cultivated areas this soil is 2 or 3 inches shallower to sand and gravel than the soil described as representative of the series, and it contains a larger amount of gravel. Otherwise the two profiles are similar. Included with this soil in mapping are small areas of Riverhead and Bridgehampton soils, some of which are in a complex pattern with the dominant Haven soil. These included soils generally are in the larger areas of this soil. Also included are Montauk silt loams that have a very weak fragipan. In places areas of this soil that are mapped near Montauk soils have layers of till deep in the substratum. Also included are areas along the bottom of narrow drainage channels that have a silty surface layer that is thicker than that in the profile described. The hazard of erosion is moderate to slight on this Haven soil. Management concerns are controlling runoff and erosion and keeping the surface loose and free from crusting. This soil is well suited to all crops commonly grown in the county. It generally is farmed the same as adjoining areas of nearly level soils. Crops commonly grown are potatoes, cauliflower, cabbage, and corn. Most areas in the western part of the county are used for housing developments. Capability unit IIe-1; woodland suitaDility group 3ol. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) 2. Topography The Jem Commons Site is relatively flat (with 2% - 8% slopes). There is a bluff along the Long Island Sound. Construction will take place >100' landward of the crest of the bluff in order to minimize erosion to the bluff. (See topographic map in rear pocket of document, as requested by the Lead Agency). The topographic information was taken from a survey by Young & Young dated 9/11/75. The proposed 19 lots to be created on this 20 acre northerly parcel will consist of 1+ acre in size. According to Dr. Robert Johnson, Hofstra University Associate Professor of Biology, the sound beach is rocky and not sandy and varies from 80' to 100' in width with a well defined shelf along the bluff toe for most of the beach length. The bluff face is steep, 35 degrees to 55 degrees but well vegetated and has no significant recent erosion. The shoulder of the bluff is also stable. An additional on site inspection and a more detailed description of the bluff and shoreline has been conducted by Dr. Robert W. Johnson and is shown in Appendix P. The lead agency was concerned by "several depressions" on the site which may contain or has contained water. According to Dr. Johnson's report (Page 7 of Appendix P) there is no evidence of surface water or any sort of wetlands in or around these depressions. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) B. Water Resources 1. Groundwater Groundwater is the principal water resource of concern in an area such as Long Island that has been classified by the EPA as being fully dependent upon a sole, or single, source acquifer for its potable water supply. This designation reinforces the in-place planning criteria and monitoring activities that are utilized to ensure that the groundwater not be contaminated by either point- or non-point sources of pollution. The concern is even more critical in the Town of Southold for, unlike many other areas of Long Island, potable water supply is not available here from both the Glacial and Magothy aquifers. Water underlying Southold within the Magothy formation is generally too saline for potable use. Sands and gravel of the particular soils previously discussed are characterized as highly permeable and yield little run-off during precipitation periods. The upper levels of these, plus the storm deposits, containing fresh water are the primary source of groundwater within the Town of Southold. The surface of the project site is 26-38' above sea level. Since the elevation of groundwater is 2' above sea level, the depth of groundwater at this 62 acre tract, would be approximately 24-36'. a. The site is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV and within the Water Budget Area of the North Fork. (See Hydrogeologic Zone Map on following page;. Zone IV encompasses the North Fork, Shelter Island and the eastern portion of the South Fork; Zone V the remainder of the South Fork. The ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) groundwater underlying the deep recharge areas on the South Fork is generally of excellent quality. The rest of Zone IV and V, as well as Zones VI and VII, and VIII are characterized by shallow flow systems that discharge to streams and marine waters. According to the Draft Long Island Groundwater Management Program, published by NYSDEC, the following is a discussion of the aquifer system and typical groundwater flow patterns on Long Island. "Geologically, Long Island is made up of layers of sand, gravel and clay on top of bedbrock. Figure 1 (on the following page) is a representative geological cross section as viewed from a westerly direction. The bedrock slopes gently from northwest to southeast. The overlying unconsolidated material varies in thickness from zero in the northwest to a maximum thickness of over 2,000 feet in the south-central part of the Island. The sand and gravel layers are moderately to highly porous, while the silt and clay layers are highly impermeable and tend to retard water movement in some areas. Four of the major geologic formations illustrated in Figure 1 - the Upper Glacial, the Magothy, the Jameco and the Lloyd - are the major aquifers which store Long Island's groundwater resources. Tens of trillions of gallons of fresh water are amassed in this underground reservoir. Ail of this water comes from precipitation. The average annual precipitation is 44 inches, which provides a natural recharge in the main portion of the Island of one million gallons per day per square mile. Part of this recharged water contributes to surface water in the form of streams and ponds, part flows deep underground and is discharged under bays and the ocean and another part is withdrawn for use by the population. Figure 2 (on the following page) illustrates the groundwater flow patterns for the aquifer system which underlies Long Island. Groundwater recharge which enters through the land surface JEM COMMONS Figure SOURCE: Geological Cross Section DRAFT L.I. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, SUMMARY, PUBLISHED BY: NYSDEC EXECUTIVE SOURCE JEM COMMONS [)RAFT L.I. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, SUMMARY, PUBLISHED BY: NYSDEC ExECUTiVE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) between points Z and Z1 flows generally downward into the deeper aquifers (Magothy and Lloyd). These flow patterns in the central portion of the Island identify the deep flow recharge areas. Outside of the deep flow recharge areas, the groundwater flow patterns tend to be outward and upward toward the ocean." For the subject site it would be toward the Long Island Sound. "The Magothy aquifer is presently the prime source of public water supply and is likely to remain so in the future. Man's activities at the land surface affect the quality of recharge water to the aquifer system. Once introduced into the groundwater, contamination tends to migrate along with the flow of water in the system. Thus, surface contamination released in the deep flow recharge area is a greater threat to the deeper aquifers than is contamination released in the peripheral "shallow flow" recharge areas." The subject site is located in Zone IV and therefore in a shallow flow recharge area. Also, as quoted from the Draft L.I. Groundwater Management Program is the following: "Contamination of Long Island groundwaters with synthetic organic pesticides has become a serious problem over the last decade. In 1978, wells on both the North and South Forks were sampled for the pesticide aldicarb which had been extensively used on eastern Suffolk County potato farms between 1975 and 1979. An initial sampling survey of 330 wells in the area adjacent to the farms detected aldicarb in concentrations exceeding the DOH recommended guideline in 23 percent of the wells. In 1979, the manufacturer requested EPA to revise the label for Temik (the commercial name of aldicarb), and, thus, effectively ban its use on Long Island. As a result, aldicarb is no longer being applied. Residents whose private wells exceeded the guideline were advised not to use the water and were subsequently provided with activated carbon filtration systems at the expense of the manufacturer. The Village of ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Greenport also installed activated carbon treatment on one municipal well. In 1980, more than 8,000 wells in eastern Suffolk were sampled in areas where aldicarb contamination was suspected. Thirteen percent of the private wells, seven percent of the community water supply wells and eight percent of non-community supplies (restaurants, hotels, etc.) exceeded DOH guidelines. The extent of aldicarb contamination on eastern Long Island is illustrated in Figure 5" on the following page. Therefore, parts of Zone IV on the North Fork has been contaminated as a result of agricultural activities. A few areas of Zone V have also been impacted by agricultural activities. b. Water Supply The Village of Greenport maintains a fifteen (15) square mile franchise area which extends from the east side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold. The entire area is served by the Greenport Water District and has been since the 1940's. As of June 1989 the total Village water plant capacity was calculated at 3.0 mgd (million gallons per day). In addition, the Village of Greenport was and still is under mandate from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to add an additional 1 mgd water supply capability during the year 1988-89. The Village of Greenport has plans and work underway to increase the pumping capacity, including the development of additional wells that will increase the system's capability needs, so as not only to supply additional proposed developments but also to increase the reserve for the Village of Greenport's potable water system. There is also a degree of quality problems, (nitrates & chlorides), at certain wells. Additional water treatment, plus JEM COMMONS SOURCE: DRAFT L.I. GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, EXECUTIVE SUMMARY, PUBLISHED BY: NYSDEC ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) the establishment of new wells is in process to improve both the quality and quantity of the water system so as to continually meet New York State Water Quality Standards and provide the additional quantity required for the franchise area. A request was sent to the Village of Greenport to ascertain whether the Water District could provide water to the proposed project (see Appendix J). A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's Office and Gerry Hickson of the Greenport Water District on 8/31/90 revealed that two new wells are now being installed at the west end of Tuckers Lane, both rated for 500 gallons per minute. Upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. Treatment of well #6 located off Horton's Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Water Quality Standards as per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) C. Air Resources 1. Climate The climate of Suffolk County is humid-continental, however, modified by the Atlantic Ocean. Continental influences dominate the climate because masses and weather systems affecting Long Island have their origin principally over the land areas of North America. Significant, too, is the Maritime influences which are characterized by an extended period of freeze-free temperatures and a reduced range in both diurnal and annual temperature. The moderate temperatures range from an average daily high of 83 degrees F' in July to mild winter temperatures of an average daily low of 24 degrees F in January. The freeze-free growing season is about 200 days. The annual average precipitation is about 45 inches, mostly in the form of rain; only 5 to 10 percent falls as snow or sleet. The sun shines 50%-55% of the time in winter and 60% to 65% of the time from May to October. The wind prevails from the north west at an average yearly velocity from 7-9 miles per hour and is influenced by seasonal and daily patterns. 2. Air Quality Ambient air quality in various parts of the State is monitored by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to assure that they conform with State and ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) National standards. Throughout the New Jersey/New York/Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Regional (AQCR) are air quality monitoring stations that continuously measure the concentrations of major pollutants. These stations are part of the National Air Monitoring System (NAMS) and the State and Local Air Monitgring Systems (SLAMS). Major or "critical" pollutants are defined as: Total Suspended Particles (TSP), Lead (PD), Sulfur Dioxide (S02), Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), Carbon Monoxide (CO), and Ozone (03). Results from these stations are compared with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards (NYSAAQS) to determine attainment or non-attainment status. Achievement of attainment status indicates that the particular pollutant has not exceeded acceptable levels. According to federal and state ambient standards, for TSP, Pb, S02, NO2, and CO the project area is in attainment. It is only recently that Long Island has been dropped from the EPA's carbon monoxide list and probably due to the fact of more newer cars designed for iow emissions. Ambient 03 levels, however, exceed, federal and state standards for the region. Ozone is a form of oxygen that results from chemical reactions between sunshine and nitrogen oxides, the combustion of fossil fuels, and chemicals such as unburned gasoline and certain solvents. Ail areas of the country must reach clean air standards by December 31, 1987. However, Congress has made no determination on what will happen to areas that do not meet the standards by the deadline. In Suffolk County, the ozone problem is partly caused by other areas. The area is downwind of New York City and New Jersey, which are sources of emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen. Together in the presence of sunlight and higher temperature, they increase ozone. The ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) ozone then blows into Suffolk County. The existing NYS standard for Ozone 0.08 ppm has not yet been officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with the new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is applied to determine compliance status. Nevertheless, the pollution level of ozone will not be significantly affected from the construction of the proposed project. Approximately 62 miles to the west in Babylon is the nearest air quality monitoring station. There are no conditions indicative that the air quality from the Babylon reporting station would be significantly different from the project site. Since carbon monoxide levels are not reported by the Babylon monitoring station, the figures taken are from the only reporting station for this parameter which is Eisenhower Park located in Nassau County. (See following ambient state and federal air quality standards and air quality for Suffolk County, Babylon monitoring station.) Existing air quality around the site will not be significantly impacted during construction or as a result of vehicle emissions after development. Carbon monoxide and other pollutants from automobile exhaust are the primary concerns. Fugitive dust from excavation and grading may cause localized particulate levels to rise. The project developer will exercise precautions to control this dust at the site. The release of any pollutants will have only a slight effect on the overall air quality in the area. The air quality of the region will remain well below EPA and State pollution level standards. AMUIFI.II Alii (JUA~.IIY SIAI,IIJAIU"~ § folllllc (~ rederol 51onda~ds Slet. i I 1 I I I AiR ( fl^llYI.t)PI - 51IF FUT,K fAI1AIII~,TKR hie I1F.~: I I'ltlRI, AVF. I1At:E U.UI5 rpm I.I).7 uR/m] Il. Il)_ ] i,i,m U.I)31 I,i,m AAI)~ ~'1 ANI)Alll) 7~U &~R/m.I m,~rp thnu (I-hr).r,t tn .~:rppc% ..~ ,lAy I-hr nvn rnll, p I!, I 2 I,pm t. nxco*,l U.I)5 I,l'm t),]? (,i,nrtn~ly)nvnrnR~, imf I.~ n~c.nJ 1.5 uR/m] per ypnr t1(1. r.) B .~ F, TT¥ II ICIJRS I' V B.I,TIF 2RL~ RGRZa II.ti [ a I1. I) 14 Air Uqmllty flnpott, I)AR-R",-I, 19R] ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) D. Terrestrial & Aquatic Ecoloqy 1. Veqetation The site Was visited on 8/30/90 by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. and at the request of the Lead Agency an additional field visit was conducted 1/91 by Dr. Johnson, and a detailed report describing the vegetation on the site is shown in Appendix P. The parcel proposed for rezoning and development has plant diversity. The 1400+ feet of Long Island Sound frontage adds diversity. The shoulder of the bluff is stable. Both the slope and the shoulder are dominated Dy bayberry, poison ivy, black locust, black cherry, Virginia creeper, bittersweet, honeysuckle, blackberry and various grasses and herbaceous plants. A large old field occupies most of the eastern and central portions of the site inland (or south) of the bluff. This old field is dominated by several golden rods and other herbaceous plants including grasses, but is being invaded by the same woody plants found on the bluff as well as grey birch, red cedar, groundsel bush, various pines and others. The western edge and southern portion of the site support stands of trembling aspen. A few red and Austrian pine, Norway maple, grey birch, European white birch and others occur within these aspens all the way south to Route 48. A hedgerow of mostly large black locusts follows the east border from Route 48 north into the site, then east along the property line. These are the largest (70' to 80' tall) trees on the site. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) There are patterns of shallow holes and old furrow marks (north-south) that along with the plants present, make it obvious that all or most of this site was a nursery following row crop agriculture. The presence of so many poplar trees and their tendency to grow in rows as wells as the presence of other common nursery tree species indicate the idea that the site may have been used as a nursery. The land surface is relatively flat and the bluff crest on the northwest appears to be the highest part of the property. There is an almost inperceptible slope to the southeast. There is no surface w~ter on or near the site and any archeological value has been eliminated by agriculture. It is unlikely that this site was used in precolonial times for more than hunting and gathering. It must be understood that the present vegetation is successional, or transitional and that the site will eventually become dominated by an oak forest. There are few signs of oaks at the moment, but they will arrive and eventually dominate. There were no plant or animal species of any particular significance found on the site by Dr. Johnson. None of the terrestrial species found on the site are included on the Protected Endangered and Threatened Plant lists published by the Department of the Interior or the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. At the request of the Lead Agency, the New York State DEC Natural Heritage Program has been contacted and a response received (see Appendix Q). As stated in their response, they ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Continued) cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or natural communities, however, Dr. Johnson's report (shown in Appendix P) states that "In order to be sure that these or any of the other 350 to 400 species of plants listed by New York State in the above categories, one would have to have a number of real botanical experts that are specialists in a particular plant group. These specialists, probably 2 or 3 persons would have to search the area for perhaps 2 weeks during the spring, summer and fall for several years. These plants have no protection and while they cannot be picked, removed or destroyed without the landowner's permission, the landowner can destroy them at will. 2. Wildlife The Jem Commons property contains typical oak-pine woodland habitats of small mammals and birds. The following is a list of avian populations which are expected to visit the site at various times during the year. Avian species found within the oak/pine associations include, but are not limited to those listed below. Those species with an asterisk were actually observed on the site. At the request of the Lead Agency, grassland species and hawks are discussed in Dr. Johnson's additional field visit and in shown in Appendix P on pages 9 thru 11. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Avian Populations Common Name Latin Name Bobwhite Whip-poor-Will Colinus virqinianus Caprimul~us vociferus Pu~le Martin Flicker Hairy Woodpecker Eastern Kingbird Blue Jay* Common Crow* Black-capped Chickadee White Breasted Nuthatch Starling Eastern Wood Peewee Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Common Grackle Northern Oriole Red Breasted Nuthatch Robin* Ring-necked Pheasant American Goldfinch Ovenbird Carolina Wren Wood Thrush Hermit Thrush Black & White Warbler Red-tailed Hawk Proqne subis Colaptes auratus Picoides villosus Tvrannus tyrannus Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Parus atricapillus Sitta carolinensis Sturnus vulqaris Contopus virens Cardinalis cardinalis Pheuticus Ludovicianus Quiscalus quiscula Icterus qalbula Sitta canadensis Turdus miqratorius Phasianus colchicu~ Carduelis tristis Seiurus aurocapillus Thryothous ludouicianu~ Hylocichla mustelina Catharus guttatus Miniotilta varia Buteo ~amaicensis ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Northern Harrier Red Fox (tracks~ Meadow Lark Field Sparrow Song Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Circus Cyaneus Vulpes fulva Sturnella maqna Spizella Dusilla Melospiza melodia Ammodramus savannarum Mammalian populations in general consist of game mammals, small mammals and hoofed browers. These animals are almost totally dependent on vegetation as a primary food source. The following list of mammals have either been identified on this site or are expected to visit this site. Those species with an asterisk were actually observed on the site. Mammals Common Name Latin Name White-tailed Deer Eastern Cottontail* Grey Squirrel Norway Rat White-footed Mouse Meadow Vole Eastern Vole Pine Vole Oppossum Raccoon Eastern Chipmunk Deer Mouse Odocoilei$ vir~inianus Sylilaqus floridanus Sciurus carolinesis Rattus norveqicus Permyscus leucopus Microtus pennsylvanicus Scalopus aquaticus Microtus Pinetorum Didelphis virginiana Procvon lotor Tamias striatus Peromyscus maniculatus ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Oppossum, Eastern Chipmunk and all mice, moles and rats make up the unprotected species found on the project site. The following species of reptiles may be found on the site: Reptiles Common Name Latin Name Spring Peeper Red-backed Salamander Eastern Garter Snake Hyla crucifer Plethodon cinereus Thamnophis sirtalis E. Agricultural Resources 1. Soils There are five (5) soil types on the subject site as follows: 60± percent are Haven Loam (HaA), 20 percent are Plymouth Series, 10 percent are Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB), 5 percent are Ha~en Loam (HaB) and the remaining 5 percent is Beaches (Bc). The slope for these range from 2%-8%. See Section IV A.1 "Environmental Setting - Geology" for detailed descriptions of soil types and location of each soil type on site. Ail of the above soil types except Bc are suited to crops. IV-20 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Human Resources A. Transportation 1. Transportation Services The principal transportation arteries servicing the North Fork of Long Island are Middle or North Road (County Route 48) and Main Road (NYS Route 25). Route 25, an east-west roadway, is a two-lane improved roadway passing through the hamlet centers of the North Fork, including Mattituck, Cutchogue and Southold within the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport. Middle or North Road (County Route 48), also an east-west artery, runs along the northern section of the North Fork. County R~ute 48 is a four-lane roadway from Mattituck to Southold and a two-lane roadway from Southold to Greenport. County Route 48 adjacent to the site has three lanes. Vehicle access to the site is from County Route 48 on the south. There is a center turn lane and east and westbound through lanes. There are also paved shoulders. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas west and south of the site. A traffic study (See Appendix E for entire Traffic Study) prepared by George B. Michos, P.E. in August 1990, indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway; the key intersection providing access to the site can accommodate the added traffic with the existing geometry and the proposed entrance to the site will have a satisfactory level of service. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) 2. Public Transportation Other modes of transportation to the North Fork include ferry, train, bus and air service. Direct access to the South Fork of Long Island by way of Shelter Island is available on a regular basis from Greenport via the North Ferry Company, Inc. and the South Ferry. In addition, the Cross Sound Ferry, located some eight (8) miles east of Greenport, provides a direct route to New England for automobiles, trucks and walk-on passengers. Passenger rail service to Greenport is limited to two (2) trains eastbound and two (2) trains westbound per day, with more frequent bus-train service. Sunrise Coach Lines, Inc. provides direct bus service from Greenport to New York City - three (3) round-trips per day. Kennedy International Airport is located ninety-one (91) miles west of the project site, while Long Island's MacArthur Airport and Suffolk County's Airport at Westhampton are, respectively, forty-nine (49) and thirty-one (31) miles distant. The parcel proposed for development has 576± feet of frontage on County Route 48 and 1441± feet of frontage along the Long Island Sound. 3. Pedestrian Environment There are no sidewalks adjacent to or around the subject site. No pedestrians were observed in the area during the on site visit in August 1990. IV-22 ENVIRONMENTAL S~TTING - (Continued) B. Land Use & Zoninq 1. Existinu Land Use & Zonin~ a. The 62 acre parcel proposed for development is a tract of vacant land previously farmed, but not in the last 15 years based on the information availaDle. The tract has no improvements and has been overgrown in recent years since the cessation of agricultural use. As previously stated, the immediate surrounding area consists of varying uses and lot sizes. (See Zoning Map on the following page). The subject parcel is currently zoned R-80 (Residential District). Under this zoning classification a one-family taxed dwelling is permitted on a lot, with a minimum land area of 80,000 square feet or 1.84 acres, which classification is generally referred to as two (2) acre zoning. b. Affected Aqricultural District The lead agency, (Town of Southold), requested a discussion on "utilizing more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil". However, the subject site is presently zoned Residential and although an R-80 district allows for an agricultural use, it can not be presumed that it is a viable use. This site has not been farmed for the past 18 years. Over the past several years, numerous attempts have been made by the project sponsor to lease this parcel for farming but to no avail. The lack of an adequate farm labor force on the North Fork, along with the negative economics of farming small farms in general, has permanently precluded the use of this site for agricultural purposes. IV-23 SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING MAP JEM COMMONS PROJECT SITE FI' AHI3 HO R~-80 LEGEND ~( ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) 2. Land Use Plans As per a telephone conversation with Melissa Spiro at the Town of Southold Planning Department, on 9/11/90. The Town uses the Zoning maps and Ordinances to determine land use. See Section III.C. "Design and Layout". C. Community Services The community services reviewed in this section include educational, police protection, fire protection, health care facilities, social services, recreational facilities, utilities, and public water supply. Educational Facilities. The proposed development lies within the Greenport Union Free School District. This district is relatively small, housing one school building. The enrollment at this school is stable and serves approximately six hundred students K-12. The school district employs approximately one hundred full and part-time employees. The development of this project would contribute approximately 64 school age children to the Greenport School District, and the Superindendent of Schools feels the District can accommodate the additional students the proposed project would create. (See Appendix F). IV-24 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Police Protection. Police protection to the proposed development is the responsibility of the Southold Town Police, located on Route 25 in Peconic. State Police protection is available from the Riverhead Barracks on Route 24. Ability to provide protection to the proposed development is contained in a letter from the Chief of Police as Appendix G. The proposed project is located in Sector 804 of the Southold Town Police Department. Fire Protection. The proposed development is located within the Greenport Fire Department District, which maintains two fire stations, the closest of which is approximately 1 mile from the project site. Their equipment consists of the following: Four Class A pumpers, One Aerial Ladder (75'), One Heavy Rescue/Floodlight Truck, Two ALS equipped ambulances, and a 13' boat with a 15 horsepower outboard motor for water emergencies. There are approximately 200 members in the Department at the present time. Their average response time is very good. The Assistance Chief, Andrew Ficurilli, feels the Fire Department can accommodate the proposed project. (See Appendix Health Care Facilities. The Eastern Long Island Regional Hospital is located on Manor Place within the Village of Greenport, a very short distance 5outh of the proposed project, providing both scheduled and emergency medical services on a 24-hour per day basis. In addition to a full IV-25 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) complement of local medical, dental and related personnel, Southold residents are also served by the Central Suffolk Hospital some twenty-two (22) miles distant in Riverhead, and the Riverhead Health and Mental Health Centers. Social Services. There are an abundance of Social Service Organizations available in the local area that range from animal shelters, consumer services, legal facilities, employment agencies, housing, human rights, public assistance, tax information, veterans, and voter service organizations. A complete list of each of these, by locale and phone numbers is listed in Appendix I. Recreational Facilities. The Town of Southold offers a variety of recreational opportunities for its permanent residents and seasonal visitors. Representative of more than 574 acres of parkland and preserve available for passive and active recreation are the following facilities: NAME AND LOCATION APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Southold Town Beach Orient Beach State Park at Orient Goldsmith's Inlet Park at Southold Inlet Point Pond Park at Greenport SCOPE Peconic Dunes at Southold Founder,s Landing at Southold Moore's Woods Nature Study Area Truman Town Beach, E. Marion 5.9 357 34 36 37 1.8 101 1.7 IV-26 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Utilities. Utilities that are available to the project site include public water supply under the Village of Greenport's franchise and the Long Island Lighting Company's electrical primary distribution line, both of which are located on Route 48-Middle Road. A Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) gas main is also located along Route 48. Water Supply. The Village of Greenport maintains a fifteen (15) square mile franchise area which ex~ends from the east side of Shipyard Lane in East Marion to Peconic Lane in Peconic, including the Bayview peninsula in Southold. As previously discussed in Section IV.B.b (Environmental Setting, Water Resources, Water Supply), as of June 1989 the total Village Water Plant Capacity was calculated at 3.0 mgd· In addition, the Village of Greenport was and still is under mandate from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to add an additional 1 mgd water supply capability during the year 1988-89. The Village of Greenport has plans and work underway to increase the pumping, including the development of additional wells that will increase the system's capability, so as not only to supply additional proposed developments, but also to increase the reserve for the Village of Greenport's potable water system. There is also a degree of quality problems, (nitrates & chlorides), at certain wells. Additional water treatment, plus the establishment of new wells is in process to continually meet NYS Water Quality Standards and provide the additional quantity required for the franchise area. IV-27 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) A telephone conversation between Middleton Environmental's Office and Gerry Hickson at the Greenport Water District on 8/30/90 revealed that two(2) wells are now being installed at the west end of Tucker's Lane, both rated for 500 gallons per minute. Upon installation they must be tested for quality, which should be completed by the end of the year. Treatment of Well #6 located off Horton'$ Lane has been completed and test results meet NYS Water Quality Standards as per Mr. Hickson at the Greenport Water District. As previously stated, a request was sent to the Greenport Village to ascertain availability of water supply to the proposed project (see Appendix J). Specific reference is also made to the North Fork Water Supply Plan, Suffolk County, New York, dated April 1983. Groundwater supply conditions in Zone 4, Greenport-Southold are critical, but there is some extra supply available (0.9 mgd available vs. 0.63 mgd required by the year 2000 as depicted in Table 1-1 on the following page). For identification purposes, Zones 1 through 5 are depicted following Page #IV-7 in DEIS, contained herein. Table 8-27 (following Page #1-V-29) makes a comparison of alternatives for the Greenport-Southold demand center. The recommended alternative is Level III, which is a municipal type distribution system. Implementation of the Level III is recommended, with the report stating: "...adequate supply exists in Zones 3 and 4 to meet Greenpert,s needs." IV-28 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) In order to estimate the total quantity of groundwater that may be withdrawn from larger capacity public supply wells from each water supply zone, water budget areas were delineated. Substantial amounts of groundwater are available outside of the budget areas but, to avoid saltwater intrusion, can only be withdrawn by small, domestic capacity wells. In Zones I and II, the budget areas were defined as those locations where the groundwater level is 5 feet or more above sea level. In Zones III, IV, and V, the availability of groundwater is more limited, so the budget area boundary was defined as the 2-foot groundwater contour. A total of approximately 41.2 mgd of fresh groundwater is available from the budget areas. ~ additional 10 to 20 mgd is available for domestic wells outside the budget areas. The results of the water budget analysis, by zone, are shown below in Table 1-1, which also includes consumptive use projections for the year 2000. Conclusion. Sufficient fresh groundwater is available to satisfy the needs of the overall planning area. However, critical water supply conditions exist in Zone 5 (Orient) where projected requirements are approximately equal to available supply. Groundwater supply conditions in Zone IV (Greenport/Southold) are also critical although there is some extra available supply (0.9 mgd available versus 0.63 mgd required). IV-29 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Con tinued) TABLE 1-1 WATER BUDGETS AND CONSUMPTIVE USE PROJECTIONS Permissive Domestic Agricultural Water Sustained Yield, Consumptive Use, Consumptive Use, Supply Budget Area Year 2000 Year 2000 Zone (mgd) (mgd) (mgd) 1 29.4 2.25 3.06 2 5.6 0.97 3.06 3 4.9 1.18 2.80 4 0.9 0.59 0.04 5 0.4 0.11 0.35 TOTALS 41.2 5.10 9.31 IV-30 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) D. Demography 1. Population Characteristics According to the United States Bureau of the Census, the Town of Southold experienced growth of 2,368 persons, or 14.1 percent, during the 1970-1980 decade. Generally this growth rate has continued through the 1980's, but has now started to slow down because of several factors, including cost of land and availability of public utilities. The most populous hamlet in the Town is Southold, Census Tract 1702.01 which grew 27.2% since 1970 to 4,770 persons. There are 1,957 households with only 2.4 persons per household. The median family income is $19,320. This is the Town's lowest, but can be partially offset by the household size. Southold has 2,871 housing units. Sixty-eight percent (1,952 units) of these are year-round occupied units. Twenty-seven percent (804 units) are considered seasonal dwellings or second homes. The age structure of this hamlet's population is older than most. There is only a small percentage of young children under the age of 5 and the school aged children (5-17) are 16% of the population. Additionally, 26% of the population is over 65 years. The combination of these two factors results in the median age of 47.4, which is four (4) years higher than the Town median. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) E. Cultural Resources Visual Resources. The visual resources of this particular site include the northerly section of the parcel which consists of the Long Island Sound and the vegetated stable bluff. A large old field occupies most of the eastern and central portions of the site inland (or south) of the bluff. The western edge and southern portion of the site support stands of trembling aspen. The presence of these species and their tendency to grow in rows as well as the presence of other common nursery tree species support the idea that the site was used as a nursery. There are patterns of shallow holes and old furrow marks (north-south) that along with the plants present, indicate that all or most of this site may have been a nursery, following row crop agriculture. Historic and Archeological Resources. Since this site was used primarily for farming in the past, it can be safely assumed that the site had been previously disturbed over 70+ years. An on-site inspection conducted by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. on August 30, 1990 revealed that the site had not been used for agricultural purposes within the past 10 to 15 years, based on the soil disturbance and vegetation present on the site. At the request of the Lead Agency, the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Presevation (OPRHP) was IV-32 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) contacted and a response received (see Appendix 0). Dr. Robert W. Johnson conducted an additional field visit in 1/91 and this visit revealed no indication of archeological resources present on the site (see page 7 and 8 of Appendix P). Dr. Johnson's report refers to a 1955 aerial photograph of the site which can be found in Appendix N. Dr. Johnson has stated in this report that "in the case of a high dry site with no visible evidence of precolonial habitation (or logical reasons for it) there seems to be no reason to do an expensive archeological survey. Instead it might be better to have someone examine the deeper excavations made during normal construction processes after each day's work." Noise. Noise complaints are often related to land use· Most complaints are made in residential areas during non-working hours. Vehicle traffic is the major source of noise in the project area. Minimal noise is caused by the residential areas nearby. Additional noise from cars and residential activities, etc. will not noticeably increase noise levels throughout the area. IV-33 V. SIGNIFICANT . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS V. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The resources listed below have been identified by the Lead Agency (Town of Southold), as possibly having a significant environmental impact. 1. Groundwater Resources The primary expected impact to the groundwater from rezoning and development would be from the nutrients that may enter the groundwater table via individual leaching pools, (if this alternative is chosen), and from fertilization of lawns and other grass areas. Because parts of the groundwater in this area is already considered contaminated from nitrates and temik, pursuant to the L.I. Groundwater Management Program, published by NYSDEC, there is some question as to whether the proposed development wou]d create an adverse impact, when compared to its previous agricultural use (see Environmental Setting - Groundwater Section). In order to reduce nitrogen loads from fertilizers, the deeds for each lot will have a covenant on them that iow-fertilizer dependent grasses will be planted. The project does, however, have a potential to have an adverse impact over and above the present non-use of the property. Proposed mitigation measures described in Section VI are such that it is anticipated that potential contamination of recharge groundwater will be minimized, avoided or eliminated. Groundwater Quantity As previously stated, the proposed project will utilize approximately 51,300 gallons per day. If 171 units were constructed at 200 gallons per day per unit, 171 units X 300 gpd = 51,300 gpd. The estimated yearly total usage based on 51,300 gpd X 365 days = 18,724,500 MGY. V-1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) The amount of water reaching the water table over the 62 acre site during an average year is 26 million gallons. (16 inches is recharged to the groundwater per year.) 62 acres X 26 inches X 43,560 sq ft. X 1 ft X 7.48 gal year acre 12 in cu.ft. = 26,899,171 After development evapotranspiration is estimated by use of evapotranspiration rates for the different cover types. Recharge for the site is as follows: Impervious 98% Lawn 26% Landscaped 40% Naturally Vegetated 35% (Ref. USDA-SCS, 1986, p.2-5) The weighted evapotranspiration rate for this development is 53.8% given below: Impervious 0.202 X 2 (ET) = 0.40 Lawn 0.383 X 74 (ET) = 28.34 Landscaped 0.383 X 60 (ET) = 22.98 Wooded 0.032 X 65 (ET) = 2.08 Total 1.000 53.80 After development, the amount of recharge for the site is 20.8 inches annually. V-2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) Recharge = 45 in. - (45 in. X 0.538) = 20.79 inches Annual precipitation recharge for the site after development is 34.9 million gallons. 20.8 in X 62 A X 43,560 SF X 1 Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in. cu.ft. = 34,968,922 Total recharge to the aquifer consists of three components; rainfall runoff that recharges back into the ground, that portion of'irrigation not lost to evapotranspiration and the sanitary discharge from the wastewater treatment system. As stated above, the precipitation recharge is 34.9 million gallons per year. The irrigation requirement for Long Island lawn areas is 7.09 inches of water per growing season (Ref. Toro Co., Irrigation Dept.). Since the lawn and landscape areas for this project is .77 acres, irrigation water needed annually is: 7.09 in. X .77 A X 43,560 SF X Ft X 7.48 gal A 12in. cu.ft. 148,034 gallons Of the 148,034 gallons 74% is used and 26% is recharged giving 38,488 gallons.. 0.26 X 148,034 = 38,488 gallons V-3 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) The sanitary component of recharge (if on-site) for the proposed project is: 171 units x 300 gpd = 51,300 gpd Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gallons per day, the annual flow is 51,300 gpd X 365 days or 18 million gallons. The total projected recharge to the aquifer after development would be approximately 53.6 MGY: Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge 34.9 MGY .04 MGY 18.73 MGY 53.67 MGY Groundwater Quality Nitrogen Nitrogen is the prime water quality indicator according to Long Island's 208 Study. Human activity within the effected areas have a direct correlation with the occurrence of nitrogen in the groundwater. Results from nitrogen analyses are compared to the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Nitrogen loadings are based on concentration estimates for various land use conditions, and the volume of expected recharge. The estimated amounts of recharge before and after development conditions are 26.8 million gallons per year, and 53.6 million gallons per year, respectively. V-4 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) Nitrogen will be introduced to the groundwater through sewage disposal and lawn fertilizers. However, nitrogen will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system (if an on-site sewage treatment plant is chosen) will be approximately 468 lbs. The sanitary component of recharge for the proposed project is 51,300 gallons per day. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gpd, the annual flor is 365 X 51,300 gpd, or 18.7 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be: 18.7 MG X 8.345 lb/Mq X 3 mg/1 = 468 lbs. mg/1 Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch. 8, p.3). Thus nitrogen loading for the proposed project (.76 acres) is 36 lbs. given below: 2 lbs N X 43,560 SF X .76 A X .55 = 36 lbs. 1000 SF Acre V-5 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) The water for this project will be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 18.8 million gallons of water will be needed per year. 148,034 18,724,500 18,872,534 gal (irrigation requirement) gal (sanitary sewage) gal (total water usage) Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge Total recharge Less Total Water Usage Net recharge to aquifer after development 34.9 MGY .O4 MGY 18.7 MGY 53.64 MGY 18.8 MGY 34.84 MGY Given the annual site recharge 53.64 million gallons per year, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 504 lbs. (468 lbs. from wastewater treatment and 36 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average concentration is 1.13 mg/1 given below. 504 lbs 8.345 lb/MG = 1.13 mg/l 53.64 MG' mg/1 V-6 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) 2. Public Water Supply The only community service that is determined to be potentially adversely impacted by the proposed action is public water supply. As previously indicated, the Village of Greenport, which services this franchise area, has available to them an estimated 3.0 million gallons per day. This project will add an anticipated 51,300± gallons/day. As stated previously, however, the Village of Greenport has specific proposals and plans that would potentially improve the quality of water in existing wells (treatment) and also add to the supply by installing new wells. V-7 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENT~J~ IMPACTS - (Continued) 3. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat The rezoning and development of this particular site will result in a change of vegetation from present common herbaceous old field species and nursery crop to lawns and shrubbery. As there are no known protected, special concern, rare or endangered species of vegetation, the changes are considered cosmetic in nature only. Also, since there are no known rare, threatened or endangered species of wildlife utilizing the site, there will be no impact to these species. At the request of the Lead Agency, the NYS Natural Heritage Program in Albany was contacted and a response received (see Appendix Q). Although the Natural Heritage Program could not provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or natural communities, an additional field visit was conducted by Dr. Robert W. Johnson and a detailed description of terrestrial and wildife habitat is included in this report (see Appendix P). Since there is a bluff located to the north of the site, construction activities do have a potential to de-stabilize the bluff and cause erosion. However, as stated in the Mitigation Measures section of this DEIS, construction will not take place within 100' of the crest of the bluff and haybales and/or a snow fence will be installed along the landward side of the crest of the bluff for the length of the property during construction to avoid erosion to the crest of the bluff or the bluff face. The snow fence and/or haybales will stay in place until the construction activities are complete and the area of disturbance is stabilized. V-8 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) 4. Aqricultural Resources As previously stated, according to the Town of Southold's Zoning Map adopted 1/10/89 last revised 12/27/89, the closest agricultural site is located >4 miles west of the subject site. The proposed project will have no environmental impact on the agricultural site. Therefore, it is determined that the loss of this area as an' agricultural resource is not the result of this rezoning and development, but of other unrelated actions. 5. Archaeoloqical Resources Since this site was used primarily for farming in the past, it can be safely assumed that the site had been previously disturbed over numerous years. An on-site inspection conducted by Robert W. Johnson, Ph.D. on August 30, 1990 revealed that the site had been used for agricultural purposes, particularly nursery crop, in the past based on the soil disturbance and vegetation present on the site. An additional on-site inspection was conducted 1/91 by Dr. Johnson and the results can be found in Appendix P. 6. Open Space As stated previously, all efforts will be made to keep clearing for construction to a minimum. A two acre vegetated buffer will remain along Route 48's entrance to the proposed subdivision and all efforts will be made to keep as much of the black locust along the eastern property line of the site as a buffer area wherever and whenever possible. V-9 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued 7. Traffic Developments of any kind, including residential development, generate increased vehicle trips. It is also understandable that local and adjacent residents who are used to and enjoy the low population urban density feel that any increase in vehicle traffic is an adverse impact. However, the traffic study indicates that the surrounding streets, roads and intersections have adequate capacity for the projected increased vehicle trips without adverse impact from the increased traffic generated by the project. (See Appendix E for Traffic Study). The traffic study prepared by George B. Michos, P.E. indicates that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway; the key intersection providing access to the site can accommodate the added traffic with the existing geometry and the proposed entrance to the site will have a satisfactory level of service. 8. Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts; The Lead Agency, (Town of Southold) has stated in their Positive Declaration that "the project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined,,. Cumulative Impacts or a precedent setting nature should not be an issue for this proposed site. When looking at the adjoining properties, there is high density development completely surrounding the subject site. The proposed project V-10 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) is consistent with the development adjoining the subject site in all directions. The existing zoning for this parcel is R-80. Contiguous along the easterly property line is HD (Hamlet Density) zoning, with LB (Light Business) on the North Road. Contiguous along the westerly property line is R-40, with LB (Light Business) along the North Road. On the southerly end of the parcel, across the North Road, is RO (Residential/Office) and some R-40 and R-80. The substantially large parcel diagonally from the southeast corner of the subject site across the North Road and Manhasset Avenue is zoned R-80, yet its land use is a cemetery, which by law cannot be used for any other purpose. Irrespective of the existing zoning shown on the maps, the actual land use of the surrounding area consists of a mix of uses varying from business to high density residential. Construction site work has begun on the 157 acre parcel contiguous to the east of the subject parcel for 357 hamlet density (high density) residential units along with a 12 acre business strip along the North Road. To the north of the parcel is the Long Island Sound. Contiguous to the westerly property line, except for a one acre park (open space) fronting on the Long Island Sound, the entire length is occupied by bungalow type residential units at a high density of three to six units to the acre. Except for the subject parcel and the 18 acre undeveloped parcel zoned R-80 diagonally across the North Road, the land uses within a half mile radius of the site are predominately high density residential mixed with business, thus not compatible with R-80 (two acre) zoning. V-ii SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS - (Continued) Also, due to the fact that the Town of Southold has created Hamlet Density Zoning and approved previous developments under Hamlet Density for properties located within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet, it can be assumed that this site which is located within 1/2 mile of the Greenport Hamlet is consistent with that zoning. v-12 VI. MITIGATION MEASURES VI. MITIGATION MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Natural Resources The natural concerns for which mitigation measures are to be implemented include: o Geology o Water Resources o Terrestrial Ecology o Agricultural Resources A. Geoloqy Ail top soil material is to be stockpiled during the construction and used for the restoration and landscaping around the new housing units. In addition, every reasonable effort will be made to preserve in place the natural growth which exists on the site. Additional plantings of shrubs and street trees will also help preserve the topsoil. Also, during the construction period the contractor will be required to surface the streets as soon as grading and compacting is complete so as to preclude erosion in the designated street areas. B. Wa~er Resources 1. Groundwater Mitigation measures to prevent groundwater contamination include the following: VI-1 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) a. A site construction restriction that allows no underground fuel storage tanks. This action has been previously supported and publicly agreed to by the Southold Town Planning Board. b. Historically it has been proven that the indiscriminate application of lawn fertilizers can, and will, result in the contamination of groundwater, particularly by increased nitrogen levels. Mitigation measures, in the form of restrictions to limit the application of such lawn fertilizers, will insure the use of these nutrients by plant growth and not allow them to be applied to the extent that they will percolate into the groundwater recharge zone. A covenant will be incorporated into each deed for each lot that only iow-fertilizer dependent grasses may be planted to create lawns, in order to reduce nitrogen loading to groundwater resources. According to the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook, published by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, in 1984, limitations of soils for lawns has been established under three categories; severe, moderate and slight constraints depending upon the soil present on the site. The subject site would fall into the category of slight since the site has Riverhead sandy loam (3-8% slopes), Plymouth Series (3-8% slopes), Haven Series (0-3% slopes) and Haven loam (2-6% slopes). A 0 - 8% slope is used for this category in the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook. VI-2 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) In the section where the soil is classified as Beaches (Bc), no construction will take place and, in fact, construction will not take place within 100' of the crest of the bluff. Haybales and/or a snow fence will be installed along the landward side of the crest of the bluff for the length of the property during, construction to avoid erosion to the crest of the bluff or the bluff face. These lawn constraints are related to turf quality rather than groundwater or surface water impacts. A "slight constraint" indicates no limitations or a few that can be overcome with relatively little cost, a moderate constraint indicates that the limitations are more difficult and expensive to correct, while severe constraints indicate the soil is very poor and will require excessive modification or maintenance if used for lawns. There are recommendations in that report to establish or rehabilitate lawn areas only when the presence of the following conditions indicates suitability for turf: o nearly level or moderately sloped terrain; (<8% slope) o moderately drained soils; (a moderate permeability rate) o a moderately fine or medium textured surface; o a small or a moderate amount of stony or sandy soil o a seasonal high water table more than 12" below the surface; o soil or soils listed under "slight constraints". The subject site meets all of the above conditions to fit into the category of "slight constraints". The report also suggests alternatives to lawn areas such as native woodland species, iow growing deciduous or evergreen groundcovers, or VI-3 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) gravel as a groundcover, etc. to limit the use of fertilizers. Also, in areas where conditions are suitable for lawns, selection of a type or types of grass requiring the minimal use of fertilizers, which can minimize nitrogen leaching to groundwater, such as fine rescues, perennial rye grass and varieties of native grasses that adapt to iow nitrogen levels will be used on this site. Since the proposed change of zone and the development will be utilizing public water supply, there is little localized impact to the groundwater from pumping or other methods of withdrawal expected to occur as the result of this proposed development. C. Air Resources Not applicable. D. Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecoloq~ The maximum potential development of one hundred and seventy-one (171) dwelling units will cause the removal of existing vegetation in areas where roadways and utilities are to be installed and homes located, and, as a consequence, local wildlife will be temporarily disrupted. It is expected that similar populations will return to the developed parcel as it matures as a residential community. None of the terrestrial species found on the site and identified in this DEIS are included on the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plant lists published by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, or the New York State Department of VI-4 MITIGATION MEASURES (Continued) Environmental Conservation. An additional inspection was conducted by Dr. Robert W. Johnson in 1/91 to provide an additional vegetation and wildlife list (see Appendix P). Where natural areas are disturbed, bushes, trees and shrubs which fit the natural habitat and are suited to the conditions of the area will be planted to provide shade, define the grounds and soften the architectural elements. As part of the landscaping and planting plans, trees and shrubs will be planted around the homes and along the roadways. The row of black locusts along the eastern property line will be left in its natural state wherever and whenever possible. Areas with newly constructed homes will be replanted as soon as possible. A significant mitigation measure to the terrestrial ecology of the site will be the maintenance of the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and native type grasses. E. Agricultural Resources There is no known mitigation measure that is available to reduce the impact on agricultural resources. On this particular site, the land is already out of farm type production and has been for some time. It has not been zoned agricultural, or placed in the Farmland Preservation Program, nor is it being presently used for agriculture by the Owner, and therefore there is no intention of returning it to agricultural production. The project sponsor has made numerous attempts to lease this parcel for farming, but to no avail. The lack of an adequate farm labor force on the North Fork, along with the negative economics of farming small farms in general, has permanently precluded the use of this site for agricultural purposes. vi-5 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) Human Resources The human resources addressed for which mitigation measures are to be implemented include: o Transportation o Land Use and Zoning o Community Services o Cultural Resource VI-6 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) A. Transportation The proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact on traffic conditions within or along the major routes serving Southold, specifically State Route 25 or County Route 48, (See Appendix E). The proposed development can readily accommodate the additional traffic flow generated and will not effect the current level of service, therefore, mitigation is not required. B. Land Use and Zoning There are very few mitigation measures that can be implemented when changing a land use from iow-density residential to a higher-density residential use. The most logical and practical measure is to develop the site to be consistent with the residential character of the adjacent properties to the east, west and south, and also to lay out the proposed development to permit the installation of suitable residential infrastructure, which includes municipal water and properly developed local streets that will provide a well planned residential type environment. Included in this would be the landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual resource. C. Community Services 1. Public Water Supply No definite response has been received from the Greenport Water District and it is unknown if mitigation is required. VI- 7 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) 2. Other Community Services As it has been determined that the proposed rezoning and development will not create any adverse impact to other Community Services, no mitigation action for these are required. (See Appendices F, G & H). D. Cultural Resources 1. Visual Resources The only mitigation measure considered worthy of consideration is to arrange the tree and shrub plantings they will enhance the visual impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Also, to leave as much of the existing vegetation and trees on the site as possible. 2. Historic and Archeoloqical Resources so that As stated in Dr. Robert W. Johnson's Report (Appendix P), the 1955 Aerial Photograph of the site (Appendix N) indicates the entire site was plowed and cultivated at that time. This would have disturbed the soils down to a depth of at least 8 or 10 inches. Sin~e then (during the past 25 years), the nursery operation disturbed the soils down to 24 to 36 inches. In the case of a high dry site with no visible evidence of precolonial habitation (or logical reasons for it), there seems to be no reason to do an expensive archeological survey. Instead it might be better to have someone examine the deeper excavations made during normal construction processes after each day's work. VI-8 MITIGATION MEASURES - (Continued) 3. Noise To avoid disturbance to the surrounding residences, site construction will be limited to normal daylight working hours. Included in the final plat submittal will be shrubs and landscaping plans that will reduce noise transmission from the project site. 'Reference Southold Town Code A-lO6). VI-9 VI,ADVERSE ENVIRONN..NTAL EFFECTS VII. ~VERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED There are several minor but unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the development of the Jem Commons residential subdivision. None of these will be so severe as to render the project infeasible. Among the environmental impacts associated with the development of this project are the loss of vegetation and open space, temporary displacement of small mammals and birds, energy consumption, vehicular traffic (although not significant), demand upon the public water supplier, insignificant air pollution, minor increase in ambient noise levels, increase in solid waste generation, minor disruption of the groundwater regime and impact on the visual character of the site. Based on a comprehensive review of IV, v, and VI, the only adverse environmental impact that will occur regardless of mitigation measures will be the loss of open space, the use of an already stressed public water supply system, and the higher density land use proposed. VII-1 VIII. ALTERNATIVES VIII. ALTERNATIVES A. No Action The "no action" alternative examined in this instance would be for the Town Board's rejection of the Change of Zone and the Planning Board's decision not approve this site for moderate and affordable housing. It is believed that this would frustrate the efforts of the owner to undertake the development of this particular site to include moderate and affordable housing lots that will assist in helping fill the existing demand for Moderate and Affordable Income Housing. The end result to this no action alternative would be that the applicant would withdraw his request for rezone and the property would continue to be in two (2) acre zoning. This would mean that the plans for moderate and affordable housing would be discontinued for this particular site. As previously discussed there are no significant environmental impacts pertaining to this proposed action, that would be avoided if the Town Board and the Town Planning Department were to pursue the no action alternative. Not only would there be a great loss for moderate and affordable housing to the citizens of Southold, but the Town of Southold would not benefit from the tax revenues that the proposed project would generate. viii-1 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) B. Alternative Size (32 Units; An alternative to constructing 171 units would be to construct 32 units on two acre lots. This alternative meets the existing zoning and therefore would not require a change in zone. Lot clearing would be reduced substantially, water usage would be reduced and vehicle trips around the proposed subdivision wou~d be decreased. However, this alternative has been determined as infeasible since it is not consistent and compatible with the surrounding high-density use which already exists adjacent to the subject site. Moreover, it is not economically feasible, not only for the project sponsor, but also for the Town of Southold, which would receive $363,698.29 less in tax revenues if this alternative is implemented. (See Schematic Plan "B" for this alternative in Appendix A). Groundwater Quantity This alternative would require 9,600 gallons per day. Thirty two units X 300 gpd = 9,600 gpd. If 32 units were constructed at 300 gpd per unit, 32 units x 300 gpd = 9,600 gpd. The estimated yearly total usage based on 9,600 gpd x 365 days = 3,504,00~ MGY. The amount of water reaching the water table over the 62 acre site during an average year is 26.8 million gallons (16 inches is recharged to the groundwater per year.) 62 acres X 16 inches X 43,560 sq. ft. X 1 ft X .7.48 qal year acre 12 in cu.ft. = 26,899,171 gallons VIII-2 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) After development evapotranspiration is estimated by use of evapotranspiration rates for the different cover types. Recharge for the site is as follows: Impervious 98% Lawn 26% Landscaped 40% Naturally Vegetated 35% (Ref. USDA-SCS, 1986, p.2-5) The weighted evapotranspiration rate for this development is 61.8% given below: Impervious O. 078 X 2 (ET) = O. 15 Lawn 0.453 X 74 (ET) = 33.52 Landscaped 0.452 X 60 (ET) = 27.12 Wooded 0.017 X 65 (ET) = 1.10 Total 1. 000 61.89 After development, the amount of recharge for the site is 17.19 inches annually. Recharge = 45 in. - (45 in. X 0.618) = 17.19 inches VIII-3 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) Annual precipitation recharge for the site after development is 28.9 million gallons. 17.2 in. X 62 A X 43,560 SF X 1 Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in cu.ft. =28,916,609 Total recharge to the aquifer consists of three components; rainfall runoff that recharges back into the ground, that portion of irrigation not lost to evapotranspiration and the sanitary discharge from the wastewater treatment system. As stated above, the precipitation recharge is 28.9 million gallons per year. The irrigation requirement for Long Island lawn areas is 7.09 inches of water per growing season (Ref. Toro Co., Irrigation Dept.). Since the lawn~landscape area for this project is .90 acres, irrigation water needed annually is: 7.09 in. X .90 A X 43,560 SF X Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in cu.ft. =173,027 gallons Of the 173,027 gallons 74% is used and 26% is recharged giving 44,987 gallons. 0.26 X 173,027 = 44,987 gallons VIII-4 .ALTERNATIVES - '(Continued) As stated previously, the sanitary component of recharge on-site for this alternative is: 32 units x 300 gpd = 9,600 gpd Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,600 gallons per day, the annual flow is 9,600 gpd x 365 days or 3.5 million gallons. The total projected recharge to the aquifer after development would be approximately 32.4 MGY: Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge 28.9 MGY .04 MGY 3.50 MGY 32.44 MGY Groundwater Quality Nitroqen Nitrogen is Long Island's 208 Study. Human activity within the areas have a direct correlation with the occurrence in the groundwater. Results from nitrogen analyses to the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. the prime water quality indicator according to effected of nitrogen are compared Nitrogen loadings are based on concentration estimates for various land use conditions, and the volume of expected recharge. The estimated amounts of recharge before and after development conditions, for this alternative, are 26.8 million gallons per year, and 32.4 million gallons per year, respectively. VIII-5 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Nitrogen will be introduced to the groundwater through sewage disposal and lawn fertilizers. However, nitrogen will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system (if on-site sewage Disposal is chosen) will be approximately 88 lbs. The sanitary component of recharge for the proposed project is 9,600 gallons per day. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,600 gpd, the annual flow is 365 x 9,600 gpd, or 3.5 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be: 3.5 MG X 8.345 lb/Mg X 3 mg/1 = 88 lbs. mg/1 Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch.8, p.3), Thus nitrogen loading for the proposed project (.90 acres) is 43 lbs. given below: 2 lbs N X 43,560 SF X .90 A X .55 = 43 lbs. 1000 SF Acre VIII-6 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) The water for this alternative would be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 3.6 million gallons of water will be needed per year. 173,027 gal 3,504,000 ~al 3,677,027 gal (irrigation requirement) (sanitary sewage) (total water usage) Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge Total recharge Less Total Water Usage Net recharge to aquifer after development 26.80 MGY .04 MGY 3.50 MGY 3O.34 MGY 3.67 MGY 26.67 MGY Given the annual site recharge 30.34 million gallons per year, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 131 lbs. (88 lbs. from wastewater treatment and 43 IDs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average concentration is .51 mg/1 given below. 131 lbs 8.345 lb~MC = .51 mg/1 30.34 MG' mg/1 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project. Although land use density is decreased under this alternative, clearing and construction activities will occur and less tolerant species will leave the area regardless of whether 171 units or 32 units are constructed. VIII-7 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Agricultural Resources As stated previously, agricultural use has a greater impact to groundwater resources, (due to pesticides and herbicides being applied to farm fields), according to the L.I. Groundwater Management Program, than would single family dwellings, particularly since there will be a covenant in the deeded lots that only Iow-fertilizer dependent grasses (for lawn areas) may be planted on each lot. Having this requirement in the deed would prevent or lessen nitrogen loading to the groundwater that fertilizer dependent grasses cause. Archeoloqical Resources At the request of the Lead Agency, the NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) was contacted and a response received (see Appendix 0). They have indicated in their response that the project area "may" contain an archeological site, unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented.. Dr. Robert W. Johnson conducted an additional field visit 1/91 (see Appendix P, Page 7 & 8). A 1955 Aerial Photograph (Appendix N) indicates the entire site was plowed and cultivated at that time. This would have disturbed the soils down to a depth of at least 8 or 10 inches. Since then (during the past 25 years), the nursery operation disturbed the soils down to 24 to 36 inches. Special attention was paid to the exposed soils throughout this site; particularly along bare soil ATV trails and within the holes left by the nursery operation. These hundreds of holes range from one to three feet in depth and two to four feet in diameter. Dr. Johnson scraped the soils away from the sides of about 15 holes scattered around the VIII-8 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) property and found nothing resembling quartz chips or shell fragments (which is one of the criteria which may indicate an archeological site). Also OPRHP Das indicated in their response that the area has not be professionally surveyed for historic buildings or structures. As can be seen in the 1955 Aerial Photograph of the site, there are no buildings or structures on the entire site and in fact the majority of the area was farmland. Open Space If this alternative is chosen, there would be 32 units constructed along with 172,160 SF (3.9 A) of road area, 38,400 SF (.88 A) of impervious surface for roofs/driveways, for a total of 4.8 acres of impervious surfaces, leaving 57.2 acres for lawns and landscaping. Because this alternative meets existing 2 acre zoning for the site, 32 units would be permitted and therefore there would not be a 2 acre buffer area along Route 48's entrance as the proposed project provides. Economics This alternative would not generate the tax revenues that the proposed project would generate. The tax bases of the County, Town and School District would receive $363,698.29 less VIII-9 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) in tax revenues than the proposed project would generate. Also this alternative would not provide the moderate and affordable priced housing that the proposed project provides. Traffic Since the traffic study conducted for the proposed project (171 units) indicated that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway, it is unlikely that this alternative would have an adverse impact. Land Use and Zoning Although this alternative meets the existing zoning for the site, the existing land use is quite different. As stated previously, the majority of the parcels surrounding the subject site is high density development (see Significant Environmental Impact Section - Land Use & Zoning for detailed description of the existing land use). VIII-10 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) C. Alternative Size (31 Units - Cluster; An alternative to constructing 171 units would be to construct 31 units in a cluster fashion. This alternative meets the existing zoning and therefore would not require a change in zone. Lot clearing would be reduced substantially, water usage would be reduced and vehicle trips around the proposed subdivision would be decreased. However, this alternative has been determined as unfeasiDle since it is not consistent and compatible with. the surrounding high-density use which already exists adjacent to the subject site. Moreover, it is not economically feasible, not only for the project sponsor, but also for the Town of $outhold, which would receive $363,698.29 less in tax revenues if this alternative is implemented. (See Schematic Plan "D" for this alternative in Appendix A). Groundwater Quantity This alternative would require 9,300 gallons per day. Thirty one units X 300 gpd = 9,300 gpd. If 31 units were constructed at 300 gpd per unit, 31 units x 300 gpd = 9,300 gpd. The estimated yearly total usage based on 9,300 gpd x 365 days = 3,394,500 MGY. The amoun~ of water reaching the water table over the 62 acre site during an average year is 26.8 million gallons (16 inches is recharged to the groundwater per year.) 62 acres X 16 inches X 43,560 sq. ft. X 1 ft x 7.48 gal year acre 12 in cu.ft. = 26,899,171 gallons VIII-ii ALTERNATIVES (Continued) After development evapotranspiration is estimated by use of evapotranspiration rates for the different cover types. Recharge for the site is as follows: Impervious 98% Lawn 26% Landscaped 40% Naturally Vegetated 35% (Ref. USDA-SCS, 1986, p.2-5) The weighted evapotranspiration rate for this development is 61.8% given below: Impervious 0.048 X 2 (ET) = 0.10 Lawn 0.371 X 74 (ET) = 27.45 Landscaped 0.~71 X 60 (ET) = 22.26 Wooded 0.210 X 65 (ET) = 13..65 Total 1.000 63.46 After development, the amount of recharge for the site is 16.47 inches annually. Recharge = 45 in. - (45 in. X 0.634) = 16.47 inches VIII-12 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Annual precipitation recharge for the site after development is 27.7 million gallons. 16.5 in. X 62 A X 43,560 SF X 1 Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in cu.ft. =27,739,770 Total recharge to the aquifer consists of three components; rainfall runoff that recharges back into the ground, that portion of irrigation not lost to evapotranspiration and the sanitary discharge from the wastewater treatment system. As stated above, the precipitation recharge is 27.7 million gallons per year. The irrigation requirement for Long Island lawn areas is 7.09 inches of water per growing season (Ref. Toro Co., Irrigation Dept.). Since the lawn~landscape area for this project is .74 acres, irrigation water needed annually is: 7.09 in. X .74 A X 43,560 SF X Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in cu.ft. =142,267 gallons Of the 142,267 gallons 74% is used and 26% is recharged giving 36,989 gallons. 0.26 X 142,267 = 36,989 gallons VIII-13 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) As stated previously, the sanitary component of recharge on-site for this alternative is: 31 units x 300 gpd = 9,300 gpd Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,300 gallons per day, the annual flow is 9,300 gpd x 365 days or 3.4 million gallons. The total projected recharge to the aquifer after development would be approximately 31.1 MGY: Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge 27.7 MGY .04 MGY 3.39 MGY 31.13 MGY Groundwater Quality Nitrogen Nitrogen is the prime water quality indicator according to Long Island's 208 Study. Human activity within the effected areas have a direct correlation with the occurrence of nitrogen in the groundwater. Results from nitrogen analyses are compared to the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Nitrogen loadings are based on concentration estimates for various land use conditions, and the volume of expected recharge. The estimated amounts of recharge before and after development conditions, for this alternative, are 26.8 million gallons per year, and 31.1 million gallons per year, respectively. VIII-14 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) Nitrogen will be introduced to the groundwater through sewage disposal and lawn fertilizers. However, nitrogen will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system (if on-site sewage disposal is chosen) will be approximately 85 ids. The sanitary component of recharge for the proposed project is 9,300 gallons per day. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,300 gpd, the annual flow is 365 x 9,300 gpd, or 3.4 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be: 3.4 MG X 8.345 lb/Mg X 3 mg/1 = 85 lbs. mg/1 Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch.8, p.3), Thus nitrogen loading for the proposed project (.74 acres) is 35 lbs. given below: 2 lbs N X 43,560 SF X .74 A X .55 = 35 lbs. 1000 SF Acre VIII-15 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) The water for this alternative would be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 3.5 million gallons of water will be needed per year. 142,267 gal 3,394,500 qal 3,536,767 gal (irrigation requirement) (sanitary sewage) (total water usage) Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge Total recharge Less Total Water Usage Net recharge to aquifer after development 27.73 MGY .04 MGY 3.39 MGY 31.16 MGY 3.53 MGY 27.63 MGY Given the annual site recharge 31.16 million gallons per year, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 120 lbs. (85 lbs. from wastewater treatment and 35 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average concentration is .46 mg/1 given below. 120 lbs ~ 8.345 lb/MG = .46 mg/1 31.16 MG' mg/1 Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project. Although land use density is decreased under this alternative, clearing and construction activities will occur and less tolerant species will leave the area regardless of whether 171 units or 31 units are constructed. VIII-16 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Agricultural Resources As stated previously, agricultural use has a greater impact to groundwater resources, (due to pesticides and herbicides being applied to farm fields), according to the L.I. Groundwater Management Program, than would single family dwellings, particularly since there will be a covenant in the deeded lots that only low-fertilizer dependent grasses (for lawn areas) may be planted on each lot. Having this requirement in the deed would prevent or lessen nitrogen loading to the groundwater that fertilizer dependent grasses cause. Archaeoloqical Resources See Page VIII-8 and 9. Open Space If this alternative is chosen, there would be 31 units constructed along with 97,500 Sf (2.2 A) of road area, 37,200 SF (.85 A) of impervious surface for roofs/driveways, for a total of (3 A) of impervious surfaces, and 585,000 SF (13.4 A) of open space, leaving 42.8 A for lawn and landscaped areas. VIII-17 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Economics This alternative would not generate the tax revenues that the proposed project would generate. The tax bases of the County, Town and School District would receive $363,698.29 less in revenues that the proposed project would generate. Also this alternative does not provide the moderate and affordable priced housing that the proposed project provides. Traffic Since the. traffic study conducted for the proposed project (171 units) indicated that the traffic generated by the proposed project will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway, it is unlikely that this alternative would have an adverse impact. Land Use and Zoning Although this alternative meets the existing zoning for the site, the existing land use is quite different. As stated previously, the majority of the parcels surrounding the subject site is high density development (see Significant Environmental Impacts Section - Land Use & Zoning for detailed description). VIII-18 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) C. 171 Units, 20 Acre Cluster of Northern Section; ~ alternative to constructing 171 units would be to cluster the northern 20 acre section. This alternative would also require a change in zone. Lot clearing would be reduced somewhat in the northerly section of the site, leaving 610,200 SF (14 A) of open space between the northerly and southerly section of the parcel. Water usage would be approximately the same and vehicle trips around the proposed subdivision would be the same. (See Schematic Plan "C" for this alternative in Appendix A). Groundwater Quantity This alternative would require 51,300 gallons per day. One Hundred and seventy one units X 300 gpd = 51,300 gpd. If 171 units were constructed at 300 gpd per unit, 171 units x 300 gpd = 51,300 gpd. The estimated yearly total usage based on 51,300 gpd x 365 days = 18,724,500 MGY. The amount of water reaching the water table over the 62 acre site during an average year is 26.8 million gallons (16 inches is recharged to the groundwater per year.) 62 acres X 16 inches X 43,560 sq. ft. X 1 ft X 7.48 gal year acre 12 in cu.ft. = 26,899,171 gallons VIII-19 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) After development evapotranspiration is of evapotranspiration rates for the different Recharge for the site is as follows: estimated by use cover types. Impervious 98% Lawn 26% Landscaped 40% Naturally Vegetated 35% (Ref. USDA-SCS, 1986, p.2-5) The weighted evapotranspiration rate for this development is 53.2% given below: Impervious 0.205 X 2 (ET) = 0.41 Lawn 0.284 X 74 (ET) = 21.02 Landscaped 0.285 X 60 (ET) = 17.10 Wooded 0.226 X 65 (ET) = 14.69 Total 1. 000 53.22 After development, the amount of recharge for the site is 21.06 inches annually. Recharge = 45 in. - (45 in. X 0.532) = 21.06 inches VIII-20 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Annual precipitation recharge for the site after development is 35.3 million gallons. 21.0 in. X 62 A X 43,560 SF X 1 Ft X 7.48 gal A 12 in cu.ft. =35,305,162 Total recharge to the aquifer consists of three components; rainfall runoff that recharges back into the ground, that portion of irrigation not lost to evapotranspiration and the sanitary discharge from the wastewater treatment system. As stated above, the precipitation recharge is 35.3 million gallons per year. The irrigation requirement for Long Island lawn areas is 7.09 inches of water per growing season (Ref. Toro Co., Irrigation Dept.). Since the lawn~landscape area for this project is .57 acres, irrigation water needed annually is: 7.09 in. X .57 A X 43,560 SF X Ft X 7.48 qal A 12 in cu.ft. =109,584 gallons Of the 109,584 gallons 74% is used and 26% is recharged giving 28,492 gallons. 0.26 X 109,584 = 28,492 gallons VIII-21 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) As stated previously, the sanitary component of recharge on-site for this alternative is: 171 units x 300 gpd = 51,300 gpd Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gallons per day, the annual flow is 51,300 gpd x 365 days or 18.7 million gallons. The total projected recharge to the aquifer after development would be approximately 54.0 MGY: Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge 35.30 MGY .03 MGY 18.72 MGY 54.05 MGY Groundwater QualitF Nitroqen Nitrogen is the prime water quality indicator according to Long Island's 208 Study. Human activity within the effected areas have a direct correlation with the occurrence of nitrogen in the groundwater. Results from nitrogen analyses are compared to the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Nitrogen loadings are based on concentration estimates for various land use conditions, and the volume of expected recharge. The estimated amounts of recharge before and after development conditions, for this alternative, are 26.8 million gallons per year, and 54.0 million gallons per year, respectively. VIII-22 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Nitrogen will be introduced to the groundwater through sewage disposal and lawn fertilizers. However, nitrogen will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system (if on-site sewage disposal is chosen) will be approximately 468 lbs. The sanitary component of recharge for the proposed project is 51,300 gallons per day. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gpd, the annual flow is 365 x 51,300 gpd, or 18.7 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be: 18.7 MG X 8.345 lb/Mq X 3 mg/1 = 468 lbs. mg/1 Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch.8, p.3), Thus nitrogen loading for the proposed project (.57 acres) is 27 lbs. given below: 2 lbs N X 43,560 SF X .57 A X .55 = 27 lbs. 1000 SF Acre VIII-23 ALTERNATIVES (Continued) The water for this alternative would be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 18.8 million gallons of water will be needed per year. 109,584 gal 18,724,500 gal 18,834,084 gal (irrigation requirement) (sanitary sewage) (total water usage) Precipitation recharge Irrigation recharge Sanitary recharge Total recharge Less Total Water Usage Net recharge to aquifer after development 35.30 MGY .O3 MGY 18.72 MGY 54.05 MGY 18.83 MGY 35.22 MGY Given the annual site recharge 54.05 million gallons per year, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 495 lbs. (468 lbs. from wastewater treatment and 27 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average concentration is 1.09 mg/1 given below. 495 lbs 8.345 lb/MG = 1.09 mg/1 54.05 MG' mg/i Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be the same as the proposed project. Land use density is the same under this alternative as the proposed project, clearing and construction activities will occur and less tolerant species will leave the area regardless of whether the 20 acre northern section is clustered with the open space between the southern and northern section or not. VIII-24 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Aqricultural Resources As stated previously, agricultural use has a greater impact to groundwater resources, (due to pesticides and herbicides being applied to farm fields), according to the L.I. Groundwater Management Program, than would single family dwellings, particularly since there will be a covenant in the deeded lots that only low-fertilizer dependent grasses (for lawn areas) may be planted on each lot. Having this requirement in the deed would prevent or lessen nitrogen loading to the groundwater that fertilizer dependent grasses cause. Archeological Resources See Page VIII-8 & 9. Open Space This alternative would also require a change in zone. This alternative would have the same density as the proposed project. However, this alternative provides clustering of the northern 20 acres which would provide 610,200 SF (14 A) of open space between the northern and southern section of the site. The northerly section would have more of an impact to the bluff area since the lot sizes would be reduced in order to cluster the 19 single family dwellings and provide the open space between the north and south sections of the site. Economics This alternative would provide the same tax revenues that the proposed project would provide and would also provide the affordable and moderate priced housing. VIII-25 ALTERNATIVES - (Continued) Traffic This alternative would have the same number of vehicular trips as the proposed project, since the number of units are the same. Since the proposed project will not have an adverse impact on the level of service, this alternative would also not have an adverse impact on the level of service. Land Use and Zoninq This alternative would also require a change in zone, as the proposed project does. However, in leaving open space between the northern and southern section, clustering the dwellings on the northern section would have a higher density (smaller lots) than the proposed project provides. In addition, clustering in an HD Zone is not permitted under the Town's Hamlet Density Zoning requirements, and therefore this alternative is infeasible. VIII-26 IX. IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE IX. IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed development of the parcel will irreversibly and irretrievably commit the following resources to the in~ended project: (1) A 62 Acre tract of non-productive and unused land will be developed; (2) Infrastructure installation and maintenance and individual capital investments will be made in residential premises; and (3) Energy resources will be committed to construction activity and to long-term uses for heating, cooling and related functions. As previously discussed in this DEIS: (1) The water provided by the Village of Greenport will result in increased annual pumpage; At least some of the existing vegetation on portions of this site will be removed, Co be replaced with improved, native, non-endangered species; and (3) Minor loss of residual capacity will be experienced in existing streets and highways. IX-1 IRREVERSIBLE & IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITTMENT - (Continued) There is, however, no irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources identified that would suggest that the proposed project be re-examined or that the proposed action should not occur. The most significant irreversible or irretrievable commitment would be the subdividing of this property for individual moderate and affordable housing lots that would negate the future availability of this property to be used for agriculture or for two acre lots for detached housing. IX-2 X..~ROWTH INDUCING ~SPECTS X. GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS A. Population Based on the proposed project of construction of 171 single family dwellings, and assuming there would be 3.6 persons per household, there would be approximately 616 persons in the project. Therefore, this development of moderate and affordable income housing is expected to result in a resident population of approximately 616 people. This cannot be directly converted, however, into increased population as it is expected that the majority of the occupants will be young working families that will relocate from sub-standard or illegal rentals in other parts of the Town. With limited moderate and affordable housing within the Town, these young working families, out of economic necessity, have had to live in available housing space, which also includes living with parents on an interim basis, until other means of housing could be obtained. Most often a major concern of development is increased population and its impact on local schools. As explained above, there will be a minor increase in the school population. B. Support Facilities It has been determined that existing businesses within the Town are sufficient to serve the new housing units. A~ increase in support businesses often comes about from significant increase in population, but as pointed out above, this is not likely to occur as a result of this particular project. X-1 GROWTH INDUCING ASPECTS - (Continued Probably the most noticeable increase in service type work will be maintenance, including snow removal of the additional roads and streets within the housing area. C. Development Potential The project in itself is not expected to result in any increased development potential, mainly because of its self-contained nature. Because of the urgent need for moderate income housing in greater numbers than would be supplied by previous projects, the success of this project is expected to give encouragement to meet the area's requirements. D. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative Impacts (precedent setting), should not be an issue for this particular site. As stated previously, the surrounding area is already developed with high density dwellings and the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the character of the surrounding community. X-2 ,. [ _:FERENCES REFERENCES Builder Magazine, A Hanley-Wood, Inc. publication, 1990 Johnson, Robert W., PH.D., Associate Professor of Biology NYSDEC, Air Quality Report NYSDEC, Ambient Air Quality Standards NYSDEC, Draft L.I. Summary Long Island Almanac, 1990 Long Island Regional Planning Board, Long Island Regional Planning Board, Handbook Southold Town Code A-lO6 Town of Southold Zoning Map Suffolk County Atlas U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1980 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Groundwater Management Program, Executive L.I. 208 Study, Vol. 1 Nonpoint Source Management Survey of Suffolk County R-1 APPENDIX A E U c> r~ UJ~41T~ 'i r,X.y. , r.,.d y. 'ct. "~ ir 0 J 'FO]Ag ~'O~,ID A~g~=.'_-~ ...~¢,..~..,~, = '~'"7,¢_.oD ¢ APPENDIX B APPENDIX C ASSESSORS Charle~ C. Watts, Chairman Frederick Iii. Gordon, Assessor Robert 1. Scott, Jr., Assessor Telephone (516) 765-1937 SCO! 1 L. HARRIS, Supert~sor Southold Town Hall P.O. Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Tel.ephone (516) 765o1800 BOARD OF ASSESSORS TOVv'N OF SOUTHOLD September 4, 1990 Donald J. Middleton Environmental Consultant 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, NY 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton, Below please find the approximate assessment and taxes based on the 1989-90 tax rate. SCTM#1000-35-1-24 Schematic A 989,000 $502,730.46 " B 273,512 139,032.17 If you have any questions please do not hesitate to call. RIS/cg MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL INC. DONALD J. MIDDLETON. JR. August 29, 1990 Mr. Charles C. Watts, Chairman Board of Assessors Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Re: Jem Commons SCTM# ]000-035-1-24 Dear Mr. Watts: Reference is made to our initial letter to Mr. Fred Gordon dated 6/27/90 and your subsequent reply dated 7/11/90 concerning information required for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Jem Commons project to be located on the North side of North Road and east of Sound Road in Greenport. have enclosed for your information two (2) schematic site plans labeled "A","B" each indicating a different density as listed below. Schematic "A"- 171 total lots- 42 Acres @ 30units @ 1,000.sq.ft building @122units.~.l~660.sq.f[ b~ildin¢' on 1/4'acre sites. 20 Acres @ 19units @ 1,650.sq.ft building on 1 acre sites. Schematic "B"- 32 total lots-@ 2cres /unit 32 Units @ 1,650.sq.ft. building (footprint area) I hope the enclosed information is sufficient to provide us with the necessary projection of assessment and taxes for the proposed project. _Y~ms-_tru 1 y, ;? ~na~d 3. ~liddl DJM/ek eton ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS 66 COMMACK ROAD, SUFFE 103, COMMACK, NEW YORK11725 - 516 462-2236 - FAX 516 462-2237 MIDDLF: ION ENVII]ONMEN]'AL lNG. June 27. 1990 Mr. Frederick E. Gordon, Assessor Town of Southold Board of Assessors Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Jem Commons, Southold, NY Suffolk County Tax Map # 1000-035-1-24 Dear Mr. Gordon The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for an affordable housing project located in Southold. The project is on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and is east of Sound Road. We are in the process of preparing the DEIS for the project for both change of zone and site plan requirements. The project proposes a change of approximately 42 acres of residential (R-80) to Hamlet Density District (HD) to allow for the contruc~ion of 170 family units. An additional 20 acres of residential property (R-80) would be changed to R-40 Residential Low Density District which allows for a one acre minimum. Part of the requirements in the prepartation of this Impact Statement ks the evaluation of change in taxes and assessment that will occur if tht~ property is developed as proposed. Would you please provide a tabulated evaluation and summary of the assessment and taxes of present versus projected if the property is developed as proposed If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Sincerely, DJM:JM APPENDIX D COUNTY OF SUFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE PAl ~II~K (~. HALI~IN Hatch 27, 1990 The Honoroble Scott Harris Suporvioor, Town of Southold Members of the ?own Board 53095 Hain Road Southold, NY 11971 Parcel ~1 - Owner "Jam Realty"/ (Jam ComtnoRs) 62 acres ngN~h O~ ~he vLlla~e og ~ree~por~ on ~ong Island ~ound~ Tax ~ap Parcel #~ - Owner -"~.M. ~ontokosts"; (~outhold Commons) 32 acres north of business hamlet of Southold, ?ax Map 1000-055-05-017 Dear Supervisor Harrls~ The owners of the above captl, onod.property have applied for the Suffolk County Fast-Trackinq Affoldable Homes Proqram. The owners have proposed to develop both parcels as subdivisions where 20% of the units will be affordably priced. The developer {las agreed to Comply with the eligibility criteria O~ ~u~folk County's AffoYdabIe Homes Program and, therefore, tile {tomes will coat. less than $100,000.00. Southold residents will also 9et fi. rat priority. Be advised that, after reviowln~ the application for each of Lbo sub,act parcels, and based on the InfOrmation supplied by t:hO applicant, we have approved boLh projects for tho Suffolk County AffordabJ. e Homes Fact Tracking Program, Very tru].y yours, 'rf Rovi_n S. I~aw Assistant County ~secut. ive APPENDIX E GEORGE B. MICHOS, P.E. CONSULTING ENGINEER 10l Longfellow Lane Port Jefferson. NY 11777 (516) 928-8237 JEM COMMONS Traffic Evaluation Prepared For: Middleton Environmental, Inc. 66 Commack.Rd, Suite 103 Commack, NY' 11725 August 1990 SUMMARY: This report presents an evaluation of the traffic impacts of a proposed "Jem Common~" condominium comp[ex in Greenport, NY. The report considers the existing residential and commercial traffic and the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed use on the adjacent roadway. The result~ of this analysis indicate that: o o The traffic generated by the proposed use wil! not reduce the ]eve~ of service of the adjacent roadway: The key intereections providing access can accommodate the added traffic with geometry. to the site the existin~ The proposed entrance to the site on CR 48 wi]! have a ~atisfactory level of service. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this associated with the in Greenport, NY Into Vehicle access to the This ts also known as adjacent to the site. and westbound through shoulders. The major report is to examine the traffic impacts proposed development of a 62.3 acre site the "Jam Commons" condominium complex. mite is from Hain Road on the south. County Road 48, and has three lance There is a center turn lane and east lanes. There are also paved arterial roadways serving the area of the project are CR48 - Hain Rd. adjacent to the site and SR 25, Hain St. .13 mi west. Local Town roads provide access to the residential and commercial areas west and south of the site. This evaluation is based on the following consideration: ~ Existing traffic counts on the adjacent and area road network. # The effect of the traffic generated by the proposed development on the loca{ street system. # The existing conditions at the key intersections providing access to the site. ]n performing this evaluation we obtained existing traffic data from the NY Stats DOT and field traffic counts. also observed traffic activity at the key intersections around the site. Figure ! is a location map showing the project site, and area road network. An Appendix is provided containing traffic engineering terms which are pertinent to this project, worksheets and calculations and traffic count data. £XJSTING CONDITIONS AND TRAFFIC CONTROLS: At the proposed project site, CR 48 is a three lane hl{hway with a separate center turn lane. The travel lanes are ft. wide and there are paved shoulders of varying width. 2 FIGURe" 1: PROJIECT LOCATICIh/ 3 Traffic controls consist of a stop sign at the Hain St. intersection to the vest and a stop sign at the Sound Rd. intersection ,also to the west. The alignment of CR ~8 at the site is straight and level. Sight distances are good at the proposed driveway location. EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES: To assess the impact of the proposed use on the adjacent roadway network, it is necessary to initially establish existing or baseline conditions. Traffic volumes on the surrounding streets were calculated from on-site counts during the week of July 23-27, 1990. From these sources the following PM peak hour volumes were established as existing conditions: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES PM PEAK HOUR Highway Peak Hour Volume vph E. Bd. W. Bd. N. Bd. S. ;Id. CR 48 228 260 Main Street 200 172 Sound Road 40 12 The existing traffic volumes are shown on Figure 2. GENERATED TRAFFIC: In order to estimate site use and predlot following procedures the traffic generated by the proposed the routes this traffic would use, the 1. Trip Generation: The "Trip Generation Report - Fourth Edition" of the Institute of Transportation Engineers CITE) is the usual source for trip generation data. The data provided for condominiums were used to estimate the trip generation as follows: 4 ~ ! (~URE ~XISTING T~F~iC VOLUMEs # units = Avg. ~ate .44G vph/unit AM .56! vph/unit PM For the Sem Commons site this would give the following traffic distributions= AH peak hour PH peak hour trips = 76 enter = .16 x 76 = 12 exit = .8~ x 76 = 6~ trips = 95 enter = .67 x 95 = 6~ exit .33 x 95 = 31 These values were used in the capacity analysis for the project entrance. 2. Traffic Assignment= CR ~8 provides access to the project site and all traffic was assigned to this road. Inbound and outbound splits were based on the trip generation factors noted above. Traffic splits for the project entrance area based on access road directional splits. All figures are for the PH peak hour, ~-5 PH. The traffic assignment to the adjacent roads is shoun on Figure 3. CAPACITY ANALYSIS= Since this project is in a built up area, the the adjacent intersections is the key factor the capacity of the area roads. Intersection analyses were performed for the unsignalized the project entrance and the CR ~G - Nain Bt. The methodology employed in the analysis in the i985 Highway Capacity ffanual (HCH) Transportation Research Board. capacity of in determining capacity intersection at intersection. is that published of the FIGURE 3: PROJECT TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT 1. CR ~G & Entrance: This will be an unsignalized 'T' intersection with shared turn Janes. Uneignalized intersection capacity analysis of this location was made using turning movements estimated from the traffic generation data and counts on UR 48. The results are shown in Table I be{ow. TABLE 1: INTERSECTIONS LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) Existing U/Project CR 46 & Entrance Lt from Entrance - A Rt from Entrance - A Lt from Hain St. - A eR 46 & Main St. Lt from Main St. B B Rt from Main St. A A Lt from CR 48 A A CR 46 & Sound Rd. Lt from Sound Rd. B B Rt from Sound Rd. A A Lt from CR 46 A A From the data presented in Table 1 it is evident that the traffic from the proposed project will not reduce the LOS at the project entrance. The non-impact of the project is due to the very Iow site generated volumes. It should also be noted that the project will not add a significant volume of traffic to CR 48. Since the traffic counts were made during the summer peak traffic period, this analysis represents a "worst-case" condition. Traffic during the off-peak months on CR 48 will be 16-20% lower than the volume counts presented in this report. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that the development of the proposed Jam Commons condominiums will not reduce the level of service of the adjacent roadway. The unsiEnalized intersection alone CR 48 at the project entrance will have satisfactory ]eve] of service for all turn movements. REFERENCES= t. "Htshuay Capacity Hanual", 2. 3. Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985. Institute of Transportation EnElneers, "ITE Trip Generation Report" - Fourth Edition, Institute of Transportation EnEineers, and Land Development", 1988. 1988. "Transportation APPENDIX: 1. Glossary of Traffic Englneerin8 Terms 2. Traffic Counts 3. Intersection Diagrams and ~orksheets Appendix ii:. Glossary' Ama of Influence (also refecmJ to as service or trade ama). The area from which a business draw~ its customers. Capacity. The maximum number of vehicles that can be expected to travel over a given section of roadway or a sl:~Cifle lane during a given time period under prtmailing roadway and prevailing traffic conditions. Critical Mo'dement Analysis (also referred to as critical lane analysis). A I~.hnique used in certain planning applications to determine level of seruice at a signalized intersection. Design Hour_ The worst-case traffic situation expected to oct-ur within an hour period du~ing a typical day in the design year. Design Year. The year a development is scheduled to open. tics of a roadway (e.g., vertical and horizontal lane align- ment; number of lanes; existence of auxiliary lanes~ and intersections) that affect Its capacity. Pre'vailing Tmf'fic Conditions. The factors that constantly affect the capacity of a roadway, Including traffic volume; percent of traffic volume constituted by large vehicles; nature of conflicting vehicular movements; and pedes- trian/bicycle movements. Signal Phase. That part of a traffic signal's time cyele allo- cated to a traffic movement (e.g., left turns) or a combi- nation of movements remiving the right-of-way simul- taneously. Traffic Warrants. Criteria used to assess the necessity for a traffic signal. Directional Distribution. The percent distribution of sit~ generated vehicle trips on major approach routes to a development_ Level of Service, A measure of the effect on capacity of prevailing road:oay and pre'vailing traffic conditions. Peak Hour. The hour during which the heaviest volume of traffic occurs on a roadway. Pml~ailing Roadway Conditions. 'l'he physical cha.rac°mris- Trip Assignment. The amignment of vehicle trip volumes (sim-generated plus through traffic) to the roadway net- work around a development, and the assignment of site- generated vehicle trip volumes to individual driveways of the development. Trip Ends. The total number of trips entering plus the total number of trips leaving a development. Trip Generation. The number of trips generated by a development; sometimes calct.dated in trip ends, as in ITE's Trip Generation Manual. Level of Service Quality of Traffic Operation A B C D E F Free flow, minimal delay due to random arrival during red traffic signal indication. Queues develop occasionally that may not be delivered during the first green light indication (i.e., wait through a red light). Stable flow (typical design level); approximately 30 percent of the green indications fail to deliver queues forming. Backups may develop behind turning vehicles Approaching unstable flow; approximately 70 percent of the green indications fail to deliver the waiting queues. Delay may be substantial (waiting through two cycles of the traffic signal), but the queues occasionally clear during peak hour. Unstable flow, roadway is operating at capacity with Jong queues the entire peak hour. Forced flow, jammed intersection, long delays are expected with drivers having to wait through more than two cycles of the traffic signal. A! I, VORI($11EET FOR ANAI.¥SIS OF ToINTF.:RSECT'ION$ LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street: ~'~ ~1-~ (~) N Grade __% Dal'e of CounLs:~ Tune Period: '4 -~- P Average Running Speed:. _ LOCATION:~ IIOURLY VOLUMES Major Streel: cLP-~ N Grade ~l&~ V: __% o V~ Dale of Counts:"Z 2/~. e~ T'm~e Period:__ lA- I O Average Running Speed:. PHF:_ Grade LOCATION:___ HOURLY VOLUMES Major SIrcct: N '= F-'-] Grade __ V: .Z.% __ V~.. Dat'e of Counts: Ttrne Period:__ Average Running Speed: PHF:. Grade ON jitter'. .% LOCATION: I ~ ~ ~ J ! IOURLY VOLUMES · Major Street: Date of Coun~:._~.~=fa~ o 'I-u'nc Period: ~1. - ~" P Average Running Speed: Grade PHF:__ Grade LOCATION' IIOURLY VOLUMES Major Sit. t: T~e Period: IZ-I ~ Average. Running Speed: ~ = ~ { Minor ... Strec[: PHF' Grade . % ~ LOCATION: HOURLY VOLUMES Major Street:. Grade __% Dale of Counts, Tune Period:. Average Running Speed: -PHF: Grade t3 STOP O YIELD Street: % 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS P~se-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING )NFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR 48 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Entrance NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. tmn DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/y¥) .................. 7/27/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. A-BP W£th Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SDUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB DEFT 3B 0 -- 3 THRU 228 280 -- 0 RIGHT 0 26 -- 28 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB ~B NB SB 1 I -- I C! ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Pa~e-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS ~ COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND S 0 0 WESTBOUND S 0 0 NORTHBOUND ......... SOUTHBOUND S 0 O CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.S0 S.SO 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB S.O0 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS SB G.SO S.SO 0.00 6.50 C2 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph> p M SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY c (pcph) c = c - v LOS SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT 3 426 413 RIGHT 32 787 787 413 > 724 ) 78T > 410 > A 688 .>a ?SS > a MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 43 8T3 873 873 830 A C~ 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. g AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CE NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Main NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/g0 TIHE PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. ~2-1P Exfst Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECT]ON TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 144 96 -- THRU 156 i~8 0 -- RIGHT 128 0 IGA -- NUMBER DF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I I -- C4 AD3USTHENT FACTORS Page-£ EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND ..... PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 90 20 N gO 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND S 0 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 O NORTHBOUND 5 0 0 SOUTHBOUND ......... CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5,50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS WB S.OO 5.OO O.OO 5.00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6,50 6.50 0.00 6.50 CS CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT RIGHT lOg 446 388 > 388 > 279 > C > 589 > 293 >C 187 846 846 > 846 > 6Sg > A MAJOR STREET LEFT 875 875 875 711 a C6 1965 HCM: UNSIGNAL[ZED INTERSECTIONS PaKe-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/~EST STREET ..................... CR ~0 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... M~in NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/¥y) .................. 7/27/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. ~-SP Exist Cond [NTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECT[ON: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB ~B NB SB LEFT 0 108 92 -- THRU 120., 148 0 -- RIGHT 6~ 0 108 -- NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I I -- C7 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND 0.00 SOUTHBOUND ..... PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 90 20 N go 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES S O O WESTBOUND S O O NORTHBOUND S O O SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS MINOR RIGHTS NB MAJOR LEFTS MINOR LEFTS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (T3ble 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP S.SO S.SO O.OO 5.50 WB 5.00 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 NB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 CB CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c c - v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT RIGHT 112 52~ 478 > 478 > 366 > B > 646 > 402 >A 132 923 923 > 923 > 791 > a MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 132 981 981 981 849 A Cg 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. g AREA PDPULATIDN .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/UEST STREET ..................... CR LB NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Main St NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. TMN DATE DF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/90 TrME PER[OD ANALYZED ............................. ~-SP With Project INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: TYPE: T-INTERSECTION DIRECT[ON: EAST/WEST STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB ~B NB SB LEFT 0 122 92 -- THRU 13g 162 0 -- RIGHT 64 0 127 -- NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB ~B NB SB i I I -- CIO ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 go 20 WESTBOUND 0.00 go 20 NORTHBOUND 0.00 go 20 SOUTHBOUND ........... ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS n N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES EASTBOUND 5 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 NORTHBOUND S 0 SOUTHBOUND ...... % MOTORCYCLES 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 5.50 5.50 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS ~B 5.00 5.00 0.00 5.00 MINOR LEFTS NB 6.50 S.50 0.00 6.50 CII CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) ¢ (pcph) p M SHARED RESERVE CAPACITY CAPACITY c (pcph) ¢ = ¢ - v LOS SH R SH MINOR STREET NB LEFT lOS 48g RIGHT 145 gol > 4~2 > 627 > go1 337 > b 378 7S6 > A MAJOR STREET LEFT 139 g61 961 822 A Ct2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNAGIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. 9 AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR 48 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound Ave, NAHE OF THE ANALYST .............................. tmn DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/¥y) .................. 7/26/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 12-1P Exist Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE; T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTRBOUND; STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES LEFT THRU RIGHT EB WB NB SB i2 0 -- 1~ 288 -- 0 0 0 -- 4 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB ~B NB SB I 1 -- i C13 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS PaBe-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0.00 90 20 N 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ........... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND S 0 0 WESTBOUND 5 0 0 NORTHBOUND ...... SOUTHBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB $.50 S.SO 0.00 5.50 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.00 5.00 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.S0 6.50 0.00 6.50 C14 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Pase-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph} c = c v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT 18 346 343 > 343 > > 386 > 5 792 792 > 792 > 324 > B >B 788 ) A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 892 892 892 878 A Ct5 1985 HCM: UNSIGNADIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. g AREA POPULATION .................................. 2BO00 NAME OF THE EAST/~EST STREET ..................... CR ~8 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound Ave, NAME OF THE ANALYST .............................. tmn DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/26/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED ............................. ~-BP Existln~ Cond INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB QB NB SB LEFT 2a 0 -- 12 THRU ~88 24~ -- 0 RIGHT 0 16 -- 0 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I I -- I C16 ADSUSTM£NT FACTORS Page-2 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND PERCENT RIGHT TURN GRADE ANGLE 0.00 90 CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 20 N 0.00 gO 20 N NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S S % COMBINATION VEHICLES 0 % MOTORCYCLES 0 5 O O SOUTHBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES (Table 10-2) ADJUSTED VALUE SIGHT DIST. ADJUSTMENT FINAL CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB 5.50 5.50 0.00 S.SO MAJOR LEFTS EB S.O0 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.50 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLO~- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY vCpcph} c (pcph) c (peph) c (pcph) c = c v LOS p M SH R SH MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT 14 410 402 > 402 > 389 > B > A02 > 389 >B 0 810 810 > 810 > 010 > A MAJOR STREET KB LEFT 27 901 gO1 901 873 a Ci8 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS P~ge-I IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET .............. 30 PEAK HOUR FACTOR .................................. g AREA POPULATION .................................. 25000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET ..................... CR 48 NAME OF THE qORTH/SOUTH STREET ................... Sound NAME OF THE ~NALYST .............................. TMN DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) .................. 7/27/90 TIME FERIOD ANALYZED ............................. 4-5P With P~o~ect INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES EB WB NB SB LEFT S4 0 -- 0 THRU 266 272 -- 0 RIGHT 0 16 -- 12 NUMBER OF LANES LANES EB WB NB SB I 1 -- I C19 ADSUSTMENT FACTORS EASTBOUND WESTBOUND 0.00 NORTHBOUND ..... SOUTHBOUND 0.00 PERCENT RIGHT TURN GRADE ANGLE 0.00 90 CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 20 N 90 20 N 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NORTHBOUND SU TRUCKS % COMBINATIDN AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES S 0 0 5 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 5 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS SB S.BO B.SO 0.00 S.SO MAJOR LEFTS EB S.O0 S.O0 0.00 S.O0 MINOR LEFTS SB 6.50 6.50 0.00 6.S0 C20 CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 MOVEMENT POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY v(pcph) ~ (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) ¢ = c - v LOS p M SH R ah MINOR STREET SB LEFT RIGHT 0 &O6 398 > 398 > > 780 14 780 780 ) 780 398 > B 766 >A 766 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 27 871 871 871 844 a C21 APPENDIX F GREENPORTUNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 516-477-1950 FAX 516-477-2164 CARL J. NELSON Ed. D Superintendent of Schools July 10, 1990 Mr. Donald J. Middleton Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Co~nack Road, Suite 103 Co~ack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton: In response to your letter of July 5, 1990 regarding the Environmental Im- pact Statement for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold Town, on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road, I am providing you with the following information: A confirlnation that the site is located within the Greenport School District's boudaries. The project is located within the Greenport School District. = The amount of children within the District. A. The stability of enrollment, (i.e. increasing, decreasing or stable. Approximately 600 - K - 12 - stable 3. The amount of employees in the District. Approximately 100 - full and part-time Whether, in your opinion, the District can acco~m~Ddate 64 more students. The District can acco0m~ate 64 more students. 5. Number of school buildings in the District. There is one (1) school building. Should you require additional information, please.~feel free to call me. Superintendent of Schools CON/maw blll.)l)l I I()I',1 I NVIII(.)NMIiN1AI_ INC. July 5, 1990 Dr. Carl J. Nelson Superintendent of Schools Greenport School District Front Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Dr. Nelson: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EI$) for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold. The project will be on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road. One of the requirements of the EIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local school district. It is estimated that approximately 64 children will be added to Southold's schools when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with the following information: 1. A confirmation that the site is located within the Greenport School District's boundaries. The amount of children within the District. A. The stability of enrollment, (i.e. increasing, decreasing or stable. 3. The amount of employees in the District. 4. Whether, in your opinion, the District can accommodate 64 more students. 5. Number of school buildings in the District. Thank you for your cooperation DJM: JM Sincerely, '', C-L- DonaldVJ.~ Middleton APPENDIX G H OANiELWINTERS POLICE DEPARTMENT. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PECONIC, NEW YORK, 11958 TELEPHONE ADMINISTRATIVE:516 765 2600 516 734.6022 July 9,1990 Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Commack Road Commack, New York 11725 Att: Mr. Donald Middleton Dear Mr. Middleton: In response to your two (2) letters dated July 5,1990. Both letters are identical in information needed by you for two {2) affordable housing projects in the Town of Southold, I can answere both letters at the same time. 1- Both sites are within the jurisdiction of the Southold Town Police Department, There is one police officer and one patrol car assigned to each of the sites. The one east of Sound Road is in Sector 804 and the one in Southold near Boisseau Avenue is in Sector 803, The dividing line between the sectors is Chapel Lane in West Greenport. 3- The Southold Town P.D. can with no problem accommodate this project. If ] can be of further assistance to you in this matter p)ease contact Very trj~yours, H. Daniel Winters Chief of Police HDW/jj I'(. )F,I I:FIVII IC)[qMI2N'IAI_. IN .,. July 5, 1990 Chief H. Daniel Winters Police Department Town of Southold Peconic, New York 11958 Dear Chief Win~ers: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an affordable housing project to be located in Southold. The project will be on the north side of North Road (NYS 25) and east of Sound Road. One of the requirements of the EIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local police force. It is estimated that approximately 448 residents will be added to the area when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, would appreciate it if you would supply me with the following information: 1. A confirmation that the site is located within the jurisdiction of the Southold Police Department. The precinct that serves this area. A. The boundaries of the precinct. B. The amount of officers in the precinct. C. The number of patrol cars that are assigned to the area encompassing the project site. D. Availability of specialized skills or equipment. 3. Whether, in your opinion, the Department can accommodate this project. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, ,}~d~&ld J. Middleton DJM:JM APPENDIX H THE GREENPORT FIRE DEPARTMENT September 19, 1990 Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Cu,~ck Rd. Cu~.,~ck, NY 11725 Dear Mr. Middleton: We have received your letter regarding the Environmental Impact Statement for the affordable housing project to be located at Route 25 and Sound Road in Greenport. This site is located in the area known as the "East-West Fire Protection District", which is covered by the Greenport Fire Department. The Greenport Fire Department has t~ stations, the closest of which is approximately 1 mile from the site. Our equipment consists of the following: 4 Class A p~npers, 1 Aerial Ladder(75'), 1 Heavy Rescue/Floodlight truck, 2 ALS equipped ambulances, and a 13' boat with a 15 horsepower outboard motor for water ~nergencies. We have approximately 200 me~bers in the department at the present time. In 1989, w~ answered 356 alarms. Our average response time is very good, u~der 5 minutes from the time the call is received until we are on the scene. It is my opinion that the Greenport Fire Department can accomcdate this project. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 477-9493. Sincerely, Andrew Ficuril li Assistant Chief Mil )1 )1 I.'1 ()N I.!NvIrtONMENTAL INC. July 5, 1990 Greenport Fire District 3rd Street Greenport, NY 11944 Dear Chief: The firm of Middleton Environmental is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an affordable housing project to be located in Sot~thold. The project will be on the north side of North Road ( .... ~5) and east of Sound Road. ~.~ One of the requirements of the EIS is to examine the impact that the project will have on the local fire department. It is estimated that approximately 448 residents will be added to the area when this project is completed. In order to assess the impact that the project will have, I would appreciate it if you would supply me with bhe following information: A confirmation that the site is located within the jurisdiction of the Greenport Fire District. 2 The nearest station that serves this area. 3 Average response time of the Department. 4 Number of active members in the Department. Amount and types of equipment, (including ambulances)_ Whether, in your opinion, the Department can accommodate this project. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, DJM:JM Donald'S. idd t n'' ' APPENDIX I ,- . .,RECORDi. UCEN~EI. CilITIP~C~tB ~ ................ : ......... :,~,,~;. l~4-/llI" llIl~ HIF/~I~ ....................... , ....... ~124~41421 le~)p ............................. ' ......... t ...... ~2 ~4-~lI~.. Rkrh & I~M~ Ce~ll~ceM~ ......... ~,..~24.~4g!: ~,,i,NM IM ................................ 711-1168 ' I mll~q~w~ ....................... ~'. ............ :~60-1g~0 ~ ~ ...~ ............................ ~e3 ~4)00 · .eM. ...................................... I~ce~ ~ doeU~l~ll~ ................... ~49-33~0 Tu ~ ........... ,, .............. C,k,,rd lelp ............................... ~llg. S4~O V.A. Fk~.WI~ & I)~I U~', --"' ~ook ~,~ ................ : ............. r~li! I~i,i~o0- ,,.,,..- c,,,,. .................... ANIMAL BHB.I'~R! · POUND! lsby~ ............................................ ~4'~-0270 ~ .............................. :.)...7B711~0 ~.~ ....... ..,~.,.._~.....~ ........... 053.9'1~Q IB~b~A-WM Old Cm.w~tr Hu,~,~,~ Doff CJ,h. t~.- · · · . II~ SI1, ] ~ W~ ~ .............. lel.llT~ Ke,d AMmM ~ehM ~v~r froM. CM~.wnM,) ...................... 727-171~ W~,~ M' i C~,q~Mmede~ M · . HUMAN RIOI.~ CIffld II~p ................................... 1.4enqp~qeqd .................................... 639-1390 ~w ENFORCEMENT ~ A~ ~.. ......... ................... L.~...' ...................... ;~ ............ ,a.~,.i ....: ............ .'. ................. New Ye~4 I~e PM~e ...................... 789.1170 New Y~.t~ I~ Pe~ ~ Nei~ ~ APPENDIX J G£OR~,E W HUBBARD JEANNE UTILITY OFF]C£ 'I'~.L. (516) 4'/7.1748 I'O ~'~'E R PLANT (516),177-O172 March 15, 1989 Pachman & Oshrin, P.C. Attorneys 366 Veterans Memorial P,O. Box 273 Commack, N, Y. 1i725 Oear Mr. Pachman: HI ghwa y Re: J.E.M. Realty Co. - Water allocation for 60 acres & E. Kontokosta - water allo- cation for 37 acres This letter answers your correspondence or Marcl~ 10, 1989 relative to the lwo parcells outlined above. My previous correspondence requested that iufor'matiorl be furnished In order to begin the approval process for allocating Greenport Village water for the two parcels of land in question. The applications received were incompJele ir1 tidal the one unit did not show a water line connecting iL to the main. Tl~e preliminary plans indicate that one water service wlJJ supply water to a whole cluster which is not in accordance wllh Village Policy. I am available to meet with your client or his representative to work out ~he details. My correspondence of November ]5, ]988 staled that a letter of water availa- bility will be Issued by Greenport Village when sufficient quantities of water are available, The Village of 6reenport does not ~urrently have efficient well pumping capacity to add additional customers. However, the Village Board of Trustees has committed to upgrade and Improve the system. The engineering annalysis has been complete for the Village to acquire a $5 million bond issue to accomplish the upgrade. 1he Village engineers will complete the SEQRA process during the week of March 21, 1989 allowing the bonds to be sold during July & AuguSt J989. Pg. 2 Subsequent to receiving funds the Village will complete the engineering required to activate 3 new water wells which will supply sufficient water for your client. AL a point during this process when tile Village can be assured that the new wells will be on line and sufficient water available to meet your clienLjneeds prior to construction of the developments in question, we wlJl negotiate a contract to supply water as requested. The forgoing is OF course subject to any other extenuating clrcumsLance that max arrise. HBS:Ikm cc: George Hubbard, Mayor All Village Trustees Utility CommltLee Village Attorney Very truly yours, .~H'. B.~l(erman Ass't Supt. oF PubJic UtJJitJes APPENDIX K Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Bo~ 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 SCOT1' L. HARRI Supervisor Fax (516) 765-182 Telephone (516) 765-' MEMORAND~YM_ PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk '-'"""~--. -, .,. FROM: Bennett Oxlowski, Jr., Chairman~cy', Members of the Planning Board RE: Petition for Change of Zone of Emanuel Kontokosta for change from "R-80" to "MD" and from "R-80" to "R-40" on property ~ocated north of SR 25, approximately 564' east Of Sound Drive, Greenport. SCT~ # 1000-35-1-24 DATE: March 27, L990 The Planning Board wishes to go on record as opposing thi~ change of zone application. Following is the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. W'h'EREA$ the ~ubjec% property consists of more than 60 sores of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the currer, t zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that vhe Planning Board racommendm den.iai of the p~oposed petition DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY E:I[ECUTIV~[ 360-5513 ARTHUR H. KUNZ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING May 24, 1990 Mr. Emanuel Kontokoata 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Application of "Jem Realty Co." (#299) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40" and "HD" Hamlet Density, Tow~ of Southold (SD-90-7) Dear Mr. Kontokosta: In response to your letter of 5/21/90 regarding the above referenced, please be advised that since the Suffolk County Planning Commission did not render an official determination within the prescribed 45 day County Administrative Code notification period commencing 4/2/90, said application is considered as automatically approved as submitted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kurtz Director of Planning Gera~i--d'~G. Newman, Chief Planner GGN:mb cc: Southold Town Clerk CuUNTY OF SUFFOLK PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK cour~rY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING ARTHUR H. KUNZ Hay 3, 1990 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Tow'm Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road - P. O. Box 728 Southold, New York [1971 Re: Appllcatiom nf ".?em Realty Co. (~29q) for changes of zone from "R-80" to "R-40' and "HD" Hamlet Density, Town of Southold (SD-90-7). Dear Ms. Terry: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections Al4-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: The total number of dwelling units/lots shall not exceed 170, preferably, less; The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3. The parcels shall be developed Jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emergency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisals of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. *The motion failed to carry. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz Director of Planning Gerald G. Newman Chief Planner GGN:mb APPENDIX L SEQR POSITIVE DECLARATION Notice af Intent to PrepMe a Draft EIS Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Town Board of the Town of Southold Address: Town Hall; 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: April 24, 1990 This notice is is~sued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining,,' to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law.-' The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below may have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be prepared. Title of Action: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons } Change of Zone Petition SEQR Status: Unlisted Action, one involved agency Project Description: Location: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42'~cres fronting NYS Rt. 25 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). North side of North Road (NYS'25),east of Sound Road, Southold, New York Page I of 2 " Town of $outhold SEQR Positlv~ Declaration Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.1.1, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Part~ I, H, and HI, and the following specific reasons: ' 1) The project site contains eroding headlands associated with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. 2) The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. 3) The project will result in a significant increaSe in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. 4) The proposed action could cause substantial erosion. 5) The prOJect will result in wildlife habitat loss and alteration. 6) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. 7) The project may impact cultural resources. 8) The prOJect will impact open space resources. 9) The project will cause an increaSe in traffic generation. 10) The project is not compatible with land use plans baSed upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumul~.tive impacts), aS well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recornmendeddenial. For Further Information: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold, N. ¥. (516) 765-1S01 11971 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Applicant-Jem ReaRy Co. f Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk Coumy Department of Public Works Suffolk County Department of Planning NYc` Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Building Department Village of' Greenport New York c,tate Department of Transportation Page 2 of 2 JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) TELEPHONE ($1.6) 765-1.801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLO TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELO ON APRIL 2q, 1990: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta, has heretofore applied to the Southold Town Board for a change of zone on two parcels located at the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 - the most southerly q2+- acres - from existing 'R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel 2 ~ the most northerly 20+ acres - from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to 'R-q0) Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); now, therefore,, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby declares itself lead agency in regard to the State Environmental Quality Review Act in the matter of the petition of Jem Realty Co., by Emanuel Kontokosta; and be it further RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: 1. That pursuant to the provisions of . Article 8 of the Environmeotal Conservation Law; Part g17 of Title 6 of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, and Chapter q4 of the Southold Town Code, the Southold Town Board does hereby .determine that the action proposed is unlisted and is likely to have a significian t effect on the environment. This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: a) The project site contains eroding headlands associates with the Harbor Hill terminal moraine, a unique physical feature. b) The project may result in impairment of groundwater resources. c) The project will result in a significant increase in water demand, in an area where the Greenport Water District Is experiencing difficulty in meeting current and future estimated demand. The proposed action will cause substantial erosion. The project will result In wildlife habitat loss and alteration. d) e) f) The project will irreversibly utilize more than 10 acres of productive agricultural soil. g) The project may impact cultural resources. h) The project will impact open space resources. i) The project will cause increase in traffic generation. j) The project is not compatible with land use plans based upon the zoning maps. In addition, the precedent setting nature of the project (cumulative impacts), as well as the need for the project in view of other "HD" zoning in the Town, must be determined. The Planning Board has recommended denial. 2. The Town Clerk shall file and circulate the aforementioned law, rules and code. such determination as required by Page 2 - Jem, Commons 3. That the Tewn Clerk immediately notify the applicant, Jem Realty Co. of this determination, and further request said applicant to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, all in accordance with said law, rules and code. u,. In accordance with Chapter tlq, Section 20 and Part 617 NYCRR, the applicant is required to defray the cost o'f reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which includes a scoping session, therefore, the Town Board determines that a deposit of $2,000.00 shall be paid to the Town Clerk prior to the date of the scoping session. April 26, 1990 LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, H AND III JEM COMMONS Southold, New York Review Agen cy~. Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MII'LER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 LEAF Part II1 Jem ReDIW LEAF PART I CRAMER, VOOR HI.,.,S~?~.S,,$ OClAT E S - ,,',%.-16-F. (2/87]--7c : 61771 Appendix A State Environmental Quali~ Review; . " FULL ENVIRONMENTAL AssESSMENT FORM ' Purl~ose: The ~ull E~F i~ ~esi~ned to hef~ a~glican~ and a~encJe~ dete~ine, in an ordecly manner, whe~er a ~r 3Trion may be si~nific~nc The question o~ whe~er an action may be silnifican[ is floc ajway~ easy to ~er. Ftec Iy, ~ere are as~e~ of a ~rojec: :hac are subjective or unme~ureable. It is also understood ~c ~o~ who dete ~i~niiic=nce may have little or na ~o~aJ ~nqwl~e of'~e environment or may be [echnicallV e~e~ in environ~ analysis. In addition, many who have knowl~e in one pa~zcular area may noc be aware pt ~e broader concerns aff~ · e que~on o~ ~i~n~flcance. ';' : ' The lull EAF i~ intended to'provide a me~od whereby aoolicanm and aGencie~ can be assu~ thac ~e dete~ir process has b~n orderly, comprehensive in nature, yet fl~ible co allow incroduc~on of infa~a~on :o fl[ a ~mie~ or a Full 'E~F Camaonenl=: The ~uJl E~F is comarised o~ [hree Da~: Part 1: Provide~ obie~jve dace and info,arian about ~ ~iven proiec: and i~ site. da~. it assis~ a reviewer in The analysis that takes ~lace in Pa~ 2 and Pat~ 2: Focuses on Jdenci~in& ~e ran&e o~ possible imDacM chac may occur {rom ~uidanca as (o whether an impact is likely :o be considered small :o moderate otwhecher large impacT. The ~orm also ?d~ncffies whether ~n impac: can be mid&aced or reduced. Part 3: If anvimoac:in Pa~[s [~nti{ied as oocenc~ally-large. ~hen Part] is used co evaluate whether or n, DETERMINATION OF .SIGNIFICANCE--Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identiiy the Portions pi E.4. F completed for this proiect: ~- Part. 1 I'- Parc" ~Pa~ Upon review o~ The information ;ecorded on this E.~F (Par~ I and 2 and 3 i{ aooro~riac~L a~d any other in~crmac~on, and consi~erm~ =pen':he mag~:uce and importance o~ e~ch imoac:, ic is reasonably aecermined by lead agency .~. The ~roiec: ..v,il hoc ;~sult in any larg~ and important impacts] and_ Therefore.' il one which will have a si~n~iic~nc impact on the envmronmenc. Therefore a neq=tJve declaration will be prepared. ~. Althouqh the arolec: could have a significant effect on :he environment. ~ere will hoc be a si~nific: e~fec: for :his Cnlisc~d Ac:ion because [he mici~acson measures described in PART 3 have been requin Therefore a CONDITIONED negallve declaration will be prepared.' ~ C. The mav result in or large and thor have proiec: one more im~o~anc imoacM may si&riff icone imp; on the env~ro~menL :~erefore a poslrive declaration will be prepared.' 'A Conditioned He,sure DeclaraTion is only valid for UnlisTed Ac:ions JEM COMMONS ,Name of Lead ,-k~ency Print or ryl~e ,',4ame of Re:Dons~ble Ofi:icer ~n Lead Agency Signature of Responsible Oificer m Lead Agency PART 1--PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Pr,oject'Sponsor.~ . NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whet~er Se action proposed may have a significant on the environmenc Please complete U~e ensire form, Parr~ A through E. ^nswer~ to ~ese cluestions will be con: as parr of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any adc information you believe will be needed to complete Parr~ 2 and 3. - .. It is expected U~at completion of t~e full E^F will be dependent on information currently available and will not i new studies, research or investiiatian. If information reqmnng such additional work ts unavailable, so indicate and: each instance. ' ..... · - · " JEM COMMONS. , .' ..... ' North aoa~, East o~ Soun~ Road ~o L.I. Sound, Greenpor.c, surf JEM R~ALTY CO., BY: EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA,PACHMAN & OSHRINr516~ 543-2200 BOX 67 CITY]PO Gze~n~or~, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Rezoning of 62 acre parcel, as follows: PRRC~ [: Hos: sou:he=[y 42+ ac=es E:om ex~s:~n~ Rg0-Res~en:LaL :o~- P~CEL II: Most northerly 20+ acres from existing RS0 Residential Low- Density District (] acre min.) to proposed R40-Residential ~ L~w-Density, DiS~ic~ (k a~e , Vacant lan~Known oo ~Uzroln county 'rax~6)Es Dist.1000~Sec. 35,Blk.! A. ,Site Description Physical strong of overall Droiec:. bo~h developed and undeveio~ed areas. 1. Present land use: ~Urban ~Jncusznal ~CommerciaJ ~Re~idenual [suburban~ ~RuraJ (nor ~Fores: ~Agriculture ~O'ther 2. Total acreage of ~rolec[ area: 62 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREACZ ~ 62 PRESENTLY A~ER CC,~PL~TI ~e'adow or 8rushland (Nan-agricultura0 ~eu~~ -0- acres ac Forested ~o /~ acres a( Aguculzural (Includes orchards, croDland, pasture, e[~ -0- acres " W'edand (Freshwater or ddal ~ per Articles 24. 25 o~ -0- acres ac Unvegeta~ed (Rock. earth or fill] : -0- ,' acres Roads. buildin~ and other paved su~aces -0- acre~ ac Other (Indicate ~el -0- , acres 3_ What is predominant ~oll tvD~s) on project site? . 5ana/a:ave~ ~ a. Soil drainage: ~Well drained [00 % o~ ute ~Moderately well drained ~Poorly drained ~ ot lice b. I~ any agricultural land is invoJved, how many acres of ~oil are cJ~sitied within soil groug 1 [brough 4 o~ Land CJa$liiicatzon Svl[emt -~- acres. [See I NYCRR 4, Are [here bedrock OutCroppinGs on'proiect site? ~Yes ~No a. What is deoth 40 bedrock~ N/A lin feet) 366 Veterans Memorial Highway (P.O. Box 273) crrnPo Commack, J ~TAT;Ny .I n~l~2.c OEc NAME OF OWN~,q (U aillMenn JEM REALTY CO. ( ~ North Road, P.O. '5. Approximate percentage of proposed proiect site with slopes: R'10-10% 9 ~ % i-I10-15% .... ~15% or greater ~; 6. Is project substantially contiguous to. or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Nati Registers of Historic Places~ I-lYes :[:]No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarksi' I-Wes g. What is the depth of the water tablel 30 (in feet) ' g. Is site located over a primary, print[pal, dr sole source aquifer? r'AYes ~No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell flsh[ng opportunities presently exist in the project areal' C]Yes ~]No 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is Identified as threatened or endang~ r'l Yes S'INo According to IdehtJfy each species 12. Ate there any unique or unusual land forms on the proiect site? (i.e.. cliffs, dunes, other geological format I~Yes (2]No Describe .,lO feet -+ h{qh bluffs to L.I. 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation i'~Yes R'lNo If yes, explain 14. Does h~ present site include scenic views known to be important to the 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: Long Island Sound a_ Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name b.~ acres) 17. Is the site served by'~:Sisting public utilltiesl [~Yes I~..No a) If Ye~, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ~Yes~ b) If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection~ ~es ~No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to A~ricuJture and ,~larkets Law, Article Seccion 303 and 304~ ~Yes ~No lg. Js the site located in or substantially contiguous tJ a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant ~o ArticJ ot the ECL and 6 NYCRR 6177 ~es ~No · 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes~ ~Yes B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor 62 acres. bl Project acreage to be developed: 62 acre~ initia~y; acres ultimately. .~ c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped :~0 acres.'L/,a/~a~Oa.t~V ~ 7~f~'- 77'//f-G-~ d. Length of project, in mile~: -- (If appropriate] ,~:~ ~.O~' ~ff'~"~v~O' o/e ~,O~y,,~'~ ./~, ,, e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed : proposed "170 . f_ Number of off-street parking spaces existing - -- g. AAaxJmum vehicular trips generated per hour. 7,5. h. If res~denual: Number and type of housing units: One Farniiy Two Family Initially 170 - Ultimately 28 ;. Dimensions (in feet) ci largest proposed structure height:'; 25 j. Linear feet of Iroptage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy 3 171. (upon comple.(ion of prolccU.' '~L~'-~- Multiple Famdy Condominium · ~idth; '~ 30 length. ft. 2. How much natural material (i.e.. rock. earth, etc.) will be removed f.rom the site? 3. will disturbed areas be reclaimedi' X~,'es f-INo a. If yes, for what intend_- purpose is the site being loci'aimed? b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation~ ~]Yes C]No - c. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamationi' ~:~fes i-I/,,/o none landscape tons/cubic yarO ¥ 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees. shrubs, ground covers} will be removed ~rom site? 32 acres. 5_ Wilt any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? months, (including demolition). month 'fear, (including demolitio, month year. I-IYes I-1No ; after project is complete 5 C]Yes ~]Ho If yes. explain J-lyes E]No 12 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number}. b- Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase I functionally dependent on subsequent phasest 8. Will blasting occur during constructionf C]Yes l~No g. Number of iobs generated: during construction 150 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project none 11. ~Vill proiect require relocation of any projects or facilities? 12. Is surface liquid waJte disposal Involvedt~ I-lYes ~1o a. If yes. indicate type pi waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13_ Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involvedi' w-rlyes C]No Type Sanitary effluen~ 14. Will surface area pi an existing water body increase or decrease bv proposal? I-}Yes []Ho Explain 15. Is protect or any portion o~: prolect located in a ]00 year flood pla,n? EYes I~,Na 16. Will the prolect generate solid waste? ]~]Yes !~No a_ if yes, what is the amount per month '[0 tons b. If yes. will an existing snlid waste facility be Used? (~Yes C]No SOUTHOLD WASTE DISPOSAL. location SOUTHOLD c. if yes, give name , d. Will any wastes nol go into a sewage disposal system or into a.samtary landfill? e. If Yes, explain ~'-r/D,,~,a,f,k,/,4.~l~ /,4/71~ Z-L~'-JI~'/.,4,,'(.., ~OO~ .~ 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid wastei' I-lyes K'INo a. If yes. what is the anticzpated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes. what is the anticipated site life~ years. 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticidest ~-IYes 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour pet day)? I-~Yes ~'lNo 20. Wil! project produce operating noise exceeding t.he. local ambient noise levels~ I-lYes 21. Will prolecc result in an increase in energy use~ ~L"]Yes I-}No If yes , indicate type(s] Ga'a fuel for hea*~nn, electricity. 22. If water supply is from ~vells. indicate pumping capacity . -0- gallonslmmute. 23. Total antic,Dated water usage per dayS.1'__000 gallons/day. 24. Does prolect involve Local. State or Federal fund~ng~ I~Yes R'INo If Yes, e~plam ~:~Ye s E"l N o 4 City, Town, Village Board ~]Yes ONo City, Town, Village Planning Board K'Iyes l-INo City. Town Zoning Board C]Yes City, County Health Department R'lYes r-INo Other Local Agencies OYes J~No Other Regional Age~cies ~Yes ,"~No State Agencies I~'IYes [-No Federal Agencies OYes .I~No Rezoning Site Plan Approval ~/-90 Sewaqe treatment Dot-tie in CR 48 Costal Erosion Ha2 Act. Submitl Dale 12/90 C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decisionf ~Yes i"'lNo If Yes, indicate decision required: ;~]zoning amendment I-Izoning variance []special use permit I-lsubdivision ~site plan Onew/revlsion of master 131an r-lresource management plan r~other CR-8031~esidential Low-Density District (2 ac.r. 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the slier 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning~ 31 residential units PARCEL 5: (~D~ARCEL II: RESIDENTIAL- 4. What is the proposed zon,ng or the s*ter Hamlet Censitv LOW-DENSITY DIST. (± ac, ~ 5. ~¥hat is the maxim¼m potential deve{oprnent of the site if developed as perm,tted by the proposed zonlng~ 170 residential units 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted total land use plansi' ~[~]Yes 7 What are the predominant la.nd use(s) add zoninl~.cJassi/ications within a '4 m,le radius of proposed action~ (HD) Hamlet Density J~zght Bus~nes$, Residential Low-De0~ity Dis~r$c~ Is the proposed action compatible with adjoinmn~surrounding land uses within a ~ mile? ~Yes ' If the proposed acc~on is the subdivision of land, how many IoM are proposed~ ~~ a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? [00~ x [[0" 10. Wilt proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water dJsttictsl ~Y~ [ 11 Will the proposed action create a demand for any c~mmunity provided services (recreation, edu~n, pc fire p~otec~ionJr ~Yes ~No W~ ~Cy . ~ ~ 'a. 'fyes, is existing capacity sufficient to h~ndle arojected demand[ ~Yes ~o ~ 12. Will the proposed action result in [he generation of traffic significantly above present ~eveJs? ~Yes . a. If yes, is the ezisting road network adequate to handle the additional [raffic~ ~Yes ~No- D. Informational Details A[tach any addhional information as ma~ be needed to clarify your prolect. If there are or may be any imDac[s associated w~h your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures ~vhich you propose [o mitiga[ avoid them. g E. VeriHcation I cerc~lV that th~e.~ll'f~p'~ation p/prided above/s true to the best of my knowledge. ^ppllcant/$po,,sor .~m~/JE/~BA-~T3~CO/ BY/: E~NUEL NONmnW~RTA Date Feb. /~ 1' Signature .~//~,' r /c~~ TiHe Partner Owner wilh Ibis 3sseJsmenl. 5 LEAF Part I11 Jem Realty LEAF PART II ~e~b~t T~ r~et b ~ ex~ Co ~ an e~ ¢flv~m~n~l ~v ~r3e :mpact must ~ ~&:uat~ m PAXT ] ia dete~i~ ~Gnifi~e. ~ afl impact in column 2 f~ a Potentiel Lar~ Im~ ffl~, GNm ~i~nl ~ilua~ ~ Pi~ ]. · In ~mifyifl~ impact, c~s~r ~8 td~. ~ term a~ cumlattve Im~m (Read a. ~ each of ~ ~9 qu~t~s ~n PART 2. Answer Yu tf ~e witl ~ a~ ~ b. Ma~ inswe~ s~[d ~ co~ider~ as Y~ aflswefl. c. ~f an~e~a YH to a Ku~tiofl ~n c~c~ t~ appropriate ~ (column N ~ 2) to t~icate ~ ~te~ti~l size of im~ if ~mpa~ ~ld ~uals ~ exc~s any exampJe pro~. c~k c~u~ 2. ~f ~mpact w~]l ~cur but ~ ~r ~fl example, c~ column 1. IUPACT ¢~i ~'.'U~D .... E~Ie chat ~M app~ ~ ~u~n 2 · ~y ~stmction ~ 5lo~s of 15% ~ Ureater, (1S f~t ri~ ~ ~ f~ of len~h~ ~ w~re ~ ~e~ral slo~ in ~ proj~ area ~c~ 10~. · ~ion on la~ ~re ~ ~pth 1o ~ wa~er ~ble is I~ ~n 3 · C~c:ion of ~v~ pa~iflff area fat 1,~ ~ more ~hicl~. 3 f~t of ~istin~ ~r~ ~dace. · C~(~c~Zon that will contin~ for mo~e ~an ~ vuar or invol~.more ~n ~e phase ~ s~ge. · ~xcav:lion for minin8 pur~ses ~h&t ~uld remove more [hah ~,~ to~ of n~turzl mate~GI (i.e.. t~ ~ soil) ~r ye~r. ~ Consuuction or ~pGnsion of I samdt3~ landfill. · Construction in ~ d~siGnGt~ fl~w&y. · ~r impac~ OYes ',','ill t~ere be an effec~ t,. ~,¥ un~quz or unusun~ I-'.nd [o::ns found on ~ ~... t~e since ~i.e.. ciiTfs, dunes, le~loiical foci'nations, ~c '.~,~O '~%'~:.S ) ~4"~ i~'"~ /t~2J~ 4. WII! prooosed Jc1~n affect ~NO ol E~mpt~ ~t w~fd a~ly to colu~ · A 10% ~nctease ~ decrea~ ~ ~ sudace ama of any ~y of water ~ more ~afl a 10 acre ~JeaM or · C~tmction of a ~y of w~ter ~at exce~s 10 acres of suvaco arez. · ~r ~mp~c~: - S. Wi!l Proposed Action nffecl, surface M Kroundwater qu~di~ or quartet · p~ ACI~ ~vir~ ~ of 8 ~rce of water that d~s ~t · Pr~ A~ ~u~ wAMr su~ fr~ · P~d A~ win ad~ aff~ ~r~fldwat~. · t~u~ Qfflueflt Mil ~ c~y~ off %~ · p~ AC~ ~ld ~ water c~tr~:t to natural c~it~ns. · p~ Acti~ will ~uire ~ sf~aRe · Pro~ed Action will all~ reai~ential uses in areas with~t water · Pro.sod Action ~at~s commercial r~uire new or exDans~n of e~ist]ne waste ~ta~e~t and/or stora8~ fac~liUes. PropoMd Ac!ion may czuse u,bstantinl erosH~. Pro~0t~d Acti(m ~s incompatible w,~ ex~st~n~ draina~A Datt~ms/ Prog~s~l Act:on w:ll aEIow development ~ a c.~esi~.nat_MJ f.-','J~v~y. 0 I.~e r impacts: IMPACT "/. Will pmlx~'d ac:ie~ affect air quall~l lr~.ame~ U.at ~;d apply te colum~ 2 Pro~ Action will induce 1.~ or ~re vehicle flips ~ any ~r. Pro~s~ Action will ~esull in ~e incineration of more Ihan ~ ~on of ~fu~ ~r ~r. Emission rate of tolal contaminan~ will exc~d S lbs. ~r ~r or ~at ~urce pr~ucing more than I0 million 3TU'; ~r Pro~ action will allow an incmn~ in I~ am~nl of !n~ commi~t~ lo industrial Pro~ notion wi~l all~ an inctense i~ t~ de~si~ e; ;~usuial ~eve~ment wi~in existin~ i~us~ial ~r ~mpa~: 0 0 n 0 _n IMPACT ON PUV'~i'~ AI~O Will Proposed Action aff~t any L~ate~ ~1 ONO ~YES ~ L~t w~ld a~ m c~umn 2 ' IbL usin~ b~ site. over ~ ~ site m f~ ~ ~ s~[=. · e~vai of any ~i~ of a critical or si~niflcanl wi:dlife ADplica~ion o~ ~stic~e or ~e~ic~e more b%an ~n for aBHcul[ural ~. Other impacts- ~ ,-~7'8r' f~eT'~MK OF..~ Will Pro~ ACSon lubsMntially aff~l ~reat~ ~ndan~er~ ~ci~! ~ampi~ that w~id apply to cn'.umn 2 Pro.ed Action would lubstantially inte~er~ w~,~ any resident or mi~ra~o~ fish. shellfish or wildlile Pro~s~ Action requites ~e ~val of more of ma(ure forest {over 1~ years ~f :~c~ er oL~t ~;~y vegetation. ~%lPACT 0N AGRICULT~P~L ~ I0. Will th~ P~o~s~~ Action ~f[~c~ a~ricu~[u,~l ]nn~ re~ur-~ Ezampl~ that would aDply to column 2 T~ pto~s~ acU~ w~ld ~t. crms or limit acc~ ~ ~:ultural la~ OncJudes ctop;a~, ~ields. ~sture. vin~a~. ~c%~.d. ,=[c.~ CD ',owes O ; ny.. ~-~N( · Construction ac'.wdY w~ld e~cavat~ ~ co~ct ~ ~ ~fi~.~ ~1 .qg~cu~tural . T;~ pro~ed Jcfzon w~ld ~frevefs~Jy CO~ mor~ t~n 10 acres of 4GHcu;tutol T~ M. ~l ~at~ in ~n )4r(c~zutql O~s~ic~ ~om fMfd to ~r~in ~v ~ue to ;ncrea~ IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will ~)ropo5~'~ action affect aest:~tic re~rcc~ (If neces~a~, use t~ Visual lA~ A~dendum in ~ct:~ ~7.~. A~n~ix &) · Pro~ f~ u~s. o~ ptoje~ com~n~ ~ in sh~ con~st to current su.~ndin~ Ta~ u~ ma~3~ ~ natural. · P~ 13~ V~S, of ~rOject c~ 3~]C re:ourc~ which will elim~n~:? ~r s~F'.~::zdy ~u~ r~.4r , Project come.aU ~at will result in L~ el~mi~at~n of significant ~ninq of ~c~c viewl k~n IMPACT. ON NISTORIC AND ARC.~AEOLOG]CAL hist~ic ~ Nl~tololical im~nc~f ~mpl~ that w~Id aPD~ to column 2 Pro~sed Ac:~0n ~currinI wholly or ~anially within M sub~nti~lly cor, ti~uous to any/3cJ]i~ M tire list~ of historic ~lacos. Pro~ A~tion will occm in an area d~sienat~ ~ ~ns~ for archaeo!o~,cal sites on the NY$ Site Iflvel;tory. , Other ' . : I~,?ACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECR -F_,A'~ON ~ 1 3. Wi' Propose~ Action affect fhe quanti~y or .:;-,a~ity o~' e.'-i~Jnc of ( 0 i OYe, i ~Yes ONo D OY~ i-?No t C, future open ,Daces or recreationa~ oe,',ortunitJes; -"a~-mD~s ~_hat would a.Dl¥ to co!umn ;' UNO 14 15 IMPACT 0.~ ~_~I~Y Will ~'o~ed acUo~ alfe~z ~w ce~mu~ity'! ,~23mplel that w~ld a~sIy to Co~unm ~ · Proposed Action will cause a g~eafef ~%an 5% increase ia the use o~ ~ ~ any /orm of energy in ~ munici~.~ii~. ] · Pro~s~ Act~n ~ill f~uire t~ creat~ or e~le~ion d afl eMr~ ~ ~ uansmi~sion M supply s~m ~ M~ ~e i~n ~ ein~le m ~ l:~i~ ]~ NOISE .~.,.mj Will L~re ~ obj~E~able ~, ~i~. o~ 9[~tinq wi;bin 1.~ f~t of a ~spi~J. scSI or od~r sensitive ~i~ ~r~n. 17 IMPACT ON PUBLIC HF. ALTH Wi~l Proposed Actio~ aHect'Public health and gaf .%ty~'/ O · Propo,,ed Action may cause a tis~r of explosion or re!ea..-e of 1~azarrZous suS$ca~ces (i.e. oil. ~sticides. c~mic~ls. acc~e~t ar u~et conditions, dischar~e or emiss~n. · Pro~s~ Action may result ]n ~e ~ri;I of "~5:~rd~s w~stes" in ,~ny ;nfec[ious, etc.) · Stor=~e L~c~li[ies lot one m?11~on :as or oth~ flammable I~u{ds. · Pro~ =orion may result [~ ~ ~c~va~n or o~ d~stur~aflc~ wir~h~n ~.~ f~t of a she ur~ O O O nYes ¢-1Ye$ [~No [-~Yes [-1No .nYes [~N0 ~Yes iAlteration nf present I~terns ol me~.ment ,~f ~le an.:'.~'~ ft-=.,:~s. ~ ~] Prol~sed Action will result m mal~ u=Hic ,~'o,:.]ems. ) [] ~OIK% ts I~Zt~ d I&e~ · Pro~ AC:~ will replace · OeveloDment will cteJ/e ~ demnnd for n~dit~l communi~ semites [e_~. sch~ls. ~lice i~ f~. etc. J · P~o~:~ Act~ will ~1 in im~4nt pr~c~ent fm futme projecU. e P~o~ Act~ will cren~e · Ot~r impact- ~tentt~l Cen Im~4c! ~4 L--.r~fl i NIItlg,~tod By ImDcct ~ :~tOS~,! C~lngdl 0 19 Is t."',ere, ot i~ t,%.er? h"ze!¥ to %e. public contro~r~y potential adver~ envi;O~men~l imp~ct~ ~¥es es ONO · r-lyes ,~es OYes r~Yes ONo ~.! Any A~lon In P~ ~ ;~ iden!!flr~J .:e .: Po'~ent!al tn~e Impact or You Cnnno*. Determine ~h~ .%~.~gn'.~ud~ o~ 'mT~c~, Proceed to P~rt 3 Pnrt 3--~VAL~AT~gN OF T~!~ tn~?ORTANC,~ 'DF ~PACTS Discuss L~ fol~ifl~ f~ each imDoct ~enti~ ~n Column 2 of P~ 2: To .tns~er ~ ques~n of i~nc.. · T~ probabili~ of t~ ~;.~pact - T~e durJtion of ~ · T~ resional con~uence ~; L~ '~m¢~ · W~r kn~n obiect~o~s to ~ moj~ ~te to t~s imqa~ (Continue on a~chmenu) LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS LFMtF Part III Jem Realty PROJECT Jem Commons Located on the north side of North Road (..~R. 48)., east of Sound Road, Somhold, New York APPLICANT Jem Realty Co. North Road, P.O. Box 67 Greenport, New York 11944 DATE April 4, 1990 INTRODUCTION The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves proposed change of zoning of a 62 acre parcel, as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting C.R. Route 48 from R-80 (2 acre density), to HD (Hamlet Density); and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from R-80 to R-40 (1 acre density). Additional detail regarding the proposed project as well as the environmental character of the project site is described in detail m the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. Procedures for completion of a Long EAF are such that a Part.III narrative is completed for impacts which are potentially large. The Part III analyses the impact and its importance, and is used as a basis for a Determination of Environmental Significance, as to whether a Draft Environmental Impact Statement is required or not. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the Jem Realty project, for the Town Board of the Town of Southold to use in deliberation on the environmental significance of this action. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * The project will result in a physical change to the project site. * Therernaybeaneffectuponunusuallandforrnsfoundonthesite. -~.,~\ '::.:A CRAMER, VOORHIS. &ASSOCIATES ENVlRONMENTAI.~.AND PI.~INI,~IG CONSULTANTS Page 1 of 5 LEAF Part HI Jem Realty The proposed project involves a 62 acre parcel which runs between C.R. 48 and Long Island Sound. 'The north side of the stte (bordering Long~ Island Sound), exhibits extreme slopes and is subject to coastal erosion. The eroding face of the Harbor Hills terminal moraine, is considered a unique and sensitive resource which should be protected in terms of land nsi~. The proposed development of the property, if not properly planned, could create significant erosion, through improper handling of runoff, excavation, bluff destabilization, or other means. In addition, the protection of property and sh'uctures proposed to be located on this site is important tn terms of setbacks and planning. Due to the ]proposed density of development, the specific site design, grading, setbacks and cleanng limits, mustbe proposed in order to determine the significance of this impact. A similar project under the name of Greenport Commons was previously under considerauon by the Town Board for a change of zoning of the entire 62 acres to HD Hamlet Density. That project also proposed 170 residential units, which is consistent with the current Jem Realty Co. application. There is significant concern with regard to the specific site design, bluff setbacks, site stabilization, re-vegetation, and other proposedphysical changes which could result in significant environmental impacts. Mitigation includes:preservation of natural buffers, use of clustering~ runoff control, use ofberms, and landscape stabilization. In addition, ~o the proposed action may be appropriate to consider including the No A~T6W3flternative, development under existing zoning, and reduced density. * Theprop,osedaction willaffectsurfaceorgroundwaterqualityorquantity. The proposed action is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV. The site is not located in the water budget area for the North Fork, thereby minimizing the significance of potential groundwater contamination. Site recharge is expected to discharge into the nearshore waters of Long Island Sound. It is recommended that a non-degradation policy for site recharge be utilized, through limiting the anticipated concentration of nitrogen in recharge to less than 6 milligrams/liter. Based upon statistical analysis performed by Cornell University, this will give an adequate safeguard that the drinking water standard of 10 mg/l will not be violated. Nitrogen is a primary water quality concern with regard to residential development, due to sewage treatment plant discharge and fertilizer usage. The proposed project involves a si[gnificant increase in density above what is presently - permitted by zoning. In addition, the reuse of an agricultural field will require landscaping with fertilizer dependent vegetation. Accordingly, the issue of groundwater quality with respect to site development is a significant potential impact whic.h must be exam/ned in detail. Due to the proposed density, the project will reqmre tertiary treatment of sanitar9 effluent. The location of treatment facilities, leaching capability of soils, conformance to siting setbacks, and .potential impacts on . adjacent land use. ~: density reduction, and hmitation o.n the use of fertilizer dependent vegetation.~lternative treatment technologies, locations, and relation to other projects in the area are important additiona, l considerations. The quantity of water available for existing and proposed population is also a significant issue. Water supply on the North Fork is limited due to the elevation of ...~'~ CRAMER, VOORHIS &..iASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL; AND PLANING CONSULTANTS '~ 1,7t/ ,~ Page I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEAF Part III Jem Realty groundwater above sea level, as a function 0fthe depth of the. fresh water lense. Due to the limited natur?, of the resource, the Greenpo~ Water D.tstrict as the local purveyor, has had ddficulty meeting demand. This issue appl.~e.s to projects which have already been approved or are pending approval. In addmon, this issue affects proj. ects which are proposed to be consfi-ucted~n accordance with their existing zomng. · The subject application is for a change of zoning which would significantly increase the development pote.nti~ of the subject property. As a result it is important to consider water supplypIamung issues of th~s density increase, in relation to the water supply and demandexpected within the Greenport Water District as a result of approved, pending and potential projects. Anticipated water needs are in the range of 51,000 ga. llons per day. The water supply needs and impacts must be examined in detail in conjunction with this change of zone. Mitigation includes: density reduction, conformance with the North Fork Water Supply Plan, phased development, and water use restrictions. In addition, the North Fork Water Supply Plan recommends that .n. ew developments provide self sufficiency in terms of water supply, and add additional supply to local water supply systems. This recommendation has become apo. licy of landuse planning in this water quantity sensitive area, and is recognized as a nutigation measure. * The proposed action will alter drainage flow patterns, The control of runoff on .site is extremely important in terms of maintaining stability and setbacks from eroding bluffs. Proposed development could result in alteratmn of drainage patterns, due to gradin~ and clearing of vegetation, which could in turn exacerbate eros. ion potential· .The design .must be considere, d in detail in order to minimize the tmpact on erosion. Mitigation includes: avmd and buffer steep slope areas, pro.vide at least 5 inches of runoff containment, minimize grading and maximize retentmn of natural vegetation. I I I The proposed action may a~fect non-threatened or non-endangered species of wildtife. The proposed action involves the significant alteration of an abandoned agricultural field. The site has had the opportunity to revegetate with pioneer species thereby creating a habitat w. hich is suitable to a variety of species. The wildlife · occupying the s~te must be inventoried, and th.e design of the project analyzed in order to determine impacts. To date, insufficient information is available to assess impacts. The habitat which the site provides is limited in the area due to the large size of this individual parcel and the stage of successio, n .w. hich the parcel is in. Possible mitigation includes: protection of. the more s~gmficant areas of the property, aligning contiguous open space, preservation of buffer areas and greenbelts. CRAMER, VOORHIS. &!;ASSOCIATES ENVlRONMENTAI~.AND P,.F..~NI[~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 of 5 LEAF Part III Jem Realty The proposed project will affect agricultural land resources. The proposed project involves the use of a former agricultural farm, for the purpose of residential housing. The 62' acre site is partially comprised in part of Haven Loam soils which has a high soil productivity rating. This use would permanently foreclose the option of future a. gricultural land use on the site. The tmpact is potentially large due to the foregotng concerns, and cannot be mitigated by a project change. It is recognized that agricultural use in itself can cause significant impacts upon groundwater. In addition, it is recognized that there are numerous other axeas of the Town where agricultural use is occurring, thereby partially minimizing the magnitude of this impact. * The proposed project will affect aesthetic resources. The proposed project will result in a significant change in the existing aesthetic resources of the site. A portion of the site is located on the bluffs overlooking Long Island Sound. This feature makes the site desirable for real estate marketing; however, the site also provides a unique resource which should be considered in planned development. The project site is presently an abandoned agricultural field. This setting provides views across the site in keepingwith the rural character of the area. The project calls for high density housing, which would significantly alter this character. The site is highly visible as it has 580 feet of frontage on a well travelled County Road. Accordingly, the impact is ofgreat magnitude. Possible mitigation includes the following: architectural and site design considerations use of clustering buffering and retention of open space. Project may adversely affect pre-historic resources. There is little irfformation regarding the aboriginal resources of the Town. The North Fork is in an area of intensive aboriginal habitation, in terms of archaeological sensitivity, as determined by the Suffolk County Archaeological Association (SCAA, 1979). Consequently. there is a potential for irreversible loss of cultural resources. A Stage IA, archaeological investtgation is therefore recommended, in order to further document the sensitivity of the site. Mitigation ' cannot be determined until the resources are identified, however, it is expected that the magnitude of impacts can be minimized through site design, resource documentation, and other means to be determined. * TI, e project will cause an effect upon existing transportation systems. The project will result in the generation of traffic commensurate with the project density, and type of land use. Added traffic may have an impact in the capacity or level of service of area roadways, and must he quantified and analyzed, particularly with respect to seasonal traffic flow. Degradatton of the existing level of service is consideredto be a significant impact, which would require mitigatton. ·~.~,~,~ CRAMER. VOORHI$ &.,ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~AND Pl-.~[i;[NIblG CONSULTANTS Page 4 of 5 LEAF Part III Jem Realty Potential mitigation could include: reduction of trip generation; addition of turning lanes; signalization; signage; and intersection improvements, depending upon the magnitude of the impact. * The proposed action will affect the character of the exi.~ting community. The proposed project site is presently zoned for low density residential use (R- 80), which co, uld potentially yield 31 residential units. The proposal calls for a change of zoning to 'HD" Hamlet Density, for a project of 170 units. This is a significant increase in density which is inconsistent with the goals of the community as reflected on the land use map. This dens/t), increase will in turn cause a demand for community and recreational serwces, the magnitude of which must be determined. There is presently a 136+ acre "HD" adjacent to and east of the subject site. Therefore, the appropriateness and need for expansion of the hamlet density zoning in this area is questioned. In .addition, the proposal if granted would tend to create a precedent for additional denstty increases on other properties in the area, resulting in cumulative impacts. The ability of the area to support this grox~th is of concern. The impact and compatibility with adjacent land use must be fially evaluated. The magnitude of the impact cannot be determined until more detail is available regarding the specific project. Mitigation could include: density limitations, on site amenities, and impact fees. CONCLUSION The proposed action is expected to have a significant impact upon the en~ronment, as discussed above. It is recommended that a Positive Declaration be issued in order to provide the proper public and interagency forum, for critical evaluation of the project and anticipated tmpacts upon the environment. CRAMER, VOORHIS, 8~SOCIATES E N VIRO N M E N TA[.c.~',,A~ID:' ~,.'1~'~ Ni~ G CONSULTANTS ~ v/Ill Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX M SUFFOLK COUNTY FAST-TRACKING AFFORDABLE UOHES FROGRAH Developed Suffolk County Executive'~ in cooperation Long I~land Sullder~' Through County Office with Institute Nlchael A. Logrande Suffolk County Executive INTRODUCTION The creation controlling or of affordable housing can be accomplished by reducing certain elements of development. Cost savings can be realized through the folloving actions: 1. Increased densities 2. Adjustments to required ~lte improvements 3. Covernmental subsidies Expedited processing of building plans and subdivisions. The above factors local government. The difficult to enact, while municipality's ability to to stringent income limit are changes all within the purview first t~o items tend to. be the more government sobeidtes may restrict reach moderate income home buyers due requirements. However, the expediting of the review process does present n proven method of reducing housing costs. Hethods to process applications quickly can be implemented at both the County and To~n or Vili'sge level. The savings in time to a developer can be passed along es a financial savings to s potential homeowner, thereby making a house more affordable. All levels of government - County, Town. Village can be Involved with expediting the review of a developer's applications. Governmental cooperation among these municipalities in application revie~ could streamline the process and thereby save time and money. It ia the intent of the SufEolk County Fast-Tracking Program to begin a pilot program ~lth hope of encouraging siml lar pro,rams Vlllsges, In Interested To~ns and/or Specifically, ~ithln Suffolk County it is the object of the affordable homes program to provide a developer with a "fast- tracking" of an application under Article 6, Section 603 and Section 609 of Suffolk County Department of Ilealth Services' Code of Administrative Regulations Concerning Realty Rubdlvtsion, Development, and other Construction Project, Nater St~ppiy and Sewage Disposal Facilities. In conatderationf the developer will specified number of homes within a price to an eligible homebuyer. return for tilts special be required to set aside a subdivision at an affordable The homes built through the fast-tracking process will be for home ownership. Structures can be single family dvelling units, either attached or detached, and can include condominiums. Given the goals of the program, It is clearly more desirable to reduce costs by clustering the housing units on a site, rather than placing them on individual large lots. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF FAST-TRACKING A developer must provide that at least 20I of the housing units in a project be priced significantly below market levels. The remaining 80I of the housing units established o-rchase price limita. built will not have pre- Therefore, at least 20~ of the units in a project uill be priced so that they are affordable to moderate income households: Households with incomes approximately aqua! to or ]ess than 120~ of the median income for a Family of four based on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Section 8 Income Guidelines will be eligible buyers. For Suffolk County this target income group in 1987 would have had incomes less than $48,800 and ideally would have been wl£hin the range of $37,000 to To determine the maximum allowable income for participation in the program the following formula will be used as a guideline only: HUD's current very low income limit for a family of four will be multiplied by two and the resultant uill be multiplied by 120 percent. EXAHPLE: 1987 HUD income limit Haximum Income Allowed - NOTE: Income limits vould be $20,350 x 2 $60,700 x 120~ 948.860 adjusted annually to conform with HUD°s annual income guidelines. Households purchasing an affordable home, constructed through this program, are to be first-time homebuyers or persons who have not owned a home within the last 5 years and live or work in Suffolk County, Other homebuyere would be eligible to purchase any other home In the subdivision other than the 20Z "affordable homes" created through this program. RESALE PRO¥ISIONS; ~/hen each affordable home la resold, the resale price bill be limited to a percentage of the home's market value. For example, if a home vas purchased for $75,000 and 1ts appraised market value at that time of purchase vas $100,000, the resale percentage is permanently established at 75~. ~hen tbs home is to be resold, it ~ould be appraised by a County approved appraiser and sold for up to 25~ of the current appraised value. To further tosure the long term supply of affordable units, the homes constructed through this program viii be resold only to income eligible buyers. In order to Insure that homes purchased through the program remain affordable, the County Community Development Office will monitor resales. A deed restriction rill be placed on each affordable home property in the program, The restriction will notify the County of the resale and incorporate the resale provisions of the program. COUNTY-PRIVATE SECTOR AGREENENT It is understood that the objective of the Fast-Tracking - Affordable Homes Proposal is to facilitate the private sector's creation of affordable homes for Suffolk County's moderate income first time home buyers. It Is also understood that nothing herein indicatea~ suggests or implies any compromising of Suffolk County's principles of groundwater protection, Further, it is I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I understood that once a developer's subdivision plan is determined to be eligible for fast-tracking, all applicable County agencies shall assist tn the implementation of Fast-Tracking - Affordable Homes Proposal to whatever extent appropriate. Finally, it is understood that the Suffolk County Department of Health shall provide support of the program, including the concept of increased densities, as long aa the principles of groundwater protection as protected by Article 6 of Suffolk County Department of Health Services' Code of Administrative Regulations Concerning Realty Subdivision, Development, and other Construction Project, Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Facilities are in no way Jeopardized. COORDINATION ~ITH TO~NS AND VILLAGES The County's Fast-Tracking Program can also be coordinated with affordable housing programs at the town or village level. Coordination at the town or village level is highly desirable. Coordinated efforts will further reduce processing time which will result in cost savings to developers that can be passed along to the homebuyer. When a project for fast-tracking la presented to the County, the County will contact the appropriate town or village to ascertain if they would like to participate. Participation by a town or village can be designed based on the County's Fast- Tracking Program or a combination of a town or village program and the County's program. - 6 - The County and its reviewing agencies uill cooperate uith a town or village program and will consider a local municipality's requirements in determining the number of affordable units to be constructed. DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION A developer who is interested in participating in the Fast Tracking Program must submit an application to the Suffolk County Community Development Office. Rased on the information contained in the application, the community development si[ice will either approve, disapprove or require additional information on the proposed project. Upon approval of the application, a meeting will be held with the County'Departments of llealth and Community Development, the Developer and, it applicable, ~itl~ Town or Village staff where the project is to be located. If necessary, other County departments may be in attendance et this meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be for the developer to present plane for the project to county and town staff. Staff will comment on the proposed project and provide the developer with guidance on receiving the necessary public approvals. This meeting vill also discuss and identify those items to be included tn the Development Agreement for the proposed project. The Development Agreement wlll be entered into by the developer, county and wn (if spplicable). The Agreement wi][ include the requirements and responsibilities to be met by the developer in return for fast-tracking the project through county and town departments. After the Development Agreement is in place, the community development office will notify the appropriate county departments that the project is eligible for fast-tracking. A criteria for consideration application for approval "Applications for Approval" prior to the applications developer whose proposed project meets the eligibility for fast-tracking viii have his/her onder Article 6, Section 603 considered by the Ilealth Department of developers whose projects do not meet the eligibility criteria, A developer who requests a variance to Article 6 under Article 6, Section 609 "Variances" and whose proposed project meets the eligibility criteria for consideration for fast-tracking will have his/her variance application considered by the llealth Department Review Board prior to the variance applications of developers whose proposed projects do not meet the eligibility criteria, IIowever, the two week period necessary for advertising the Heslth Department Board of Revle~ meetings cannot be eliminated. In addition to receiving priority consideration at the Department of Health Services, an affordable housing project will also receive fast-tracking assistance through the County Sever Agency, in Lbe event Lha. more than one developer is eligible for fasC-tracklng, these eligible applications wi41 be considered priority, I.e., applications eligible reviewed based on the time order in based on a chronological for fast-tracking will be vhich they are received. BOMEBUYEE SELECTION GUIDELINES Potential homebuyers will be selected by a lottery conducted by the County or participating municipalities, fi. st-track lottery will be advertised in the lottery applications made available at the community development offices. Notification of a local media with County and Town Lottery applications viii be prepared by the homebuyer and submitted to the County or Town development office. prospective community Upon receipt of the applications, the community development office will review the applications to determine if an applicant meets the eligibility criteria of the program. The County will base its approval primarily on the program's requirements. All applicaets will be notified In writing whether or not they will be eligible for participation in the lottery. If they are not eligible, the reasons for their ineligibility will be stated. If they are eligible, they will be informed as to the time and place of the lottery and the priorities that have been established. - 9 - I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I From the lottery a priority waiting list of potential homebuyers will be developed. Homebuyers will be selected from this list for the affordable housing units. The County will notify the developer of an applicant's eligibility to participate in the program, however, the applicant must still qualify for mortgage financing. Therefore, selection and approval of an applicant as eligible for the program does not mean that the applicant has qualified for a mortgage. a mortgage ia the responsibility of tile homebuyer. If a potential homebuyer does not meet the requirements, the homebuyer can still purchase a home project that has not been set aside as affordable homebuyer meets conventional financing terms. Obtaining Conversely, program's in the if the The developer will notify the County if an eligible applicant has gone to contract and keep the canary informed as to the status of the applicant. Prior to cloeing, the developer will notify the County so that the necessary resale restrictions can be incorporated into tile deed. Should an eligible applicant be unable to obtain financing, the developer rill notify the County so another eligible applicant can be identified. I 0 The chart below participation in the have been in 1987, Illustrates ~hat the proposed guidelines /or fast-tracking affordable homes program would Income Limit 545,800 NOTg: (1) (2) AFFORDABLE IIOFIES PROGRAH Income Limits and Purchase Price Home Purchase Income Range 537,OOO-$48,OOO Prlce Limit 5]00,000 (]) Estimated Honthly Payment Range 5863-51,120 (2) not exceed below price Purchase pries on affordable unit can $100.0OO in 1987. Homes can be priced limits. Payment range based on 2B~ of homebuyer'a monthly gross income. Payment would be applied to principal, Interest, end taxes. Taxes are estimated at 5250 per month. Eligible homebuyers ~lll be selected by lottery. In those instances when a project is being Implemented in conjunction with another affordable housing program ~ith federal, state or local government funding a selection process ~lll be deslgned~ prior to construction of the project, to conform to any special requirements. Each project bill be required to be marketed affirmatively and follow affirmative action guidelines and opportunities. - II AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNIT SALES PRICE CALCULATION The following formulas are to serve as a guideline in determining the sales price of an affordable housing unit: 1) Attached }lousing Units: (Sq. Feec Per Unit) X (Maximum Cost Per Sq, Example: (1,000 Sq. Ft.) X ($75) $75,000 Ft. of $75) - Sales Price 2) ~etached Single Family Unite: (Sq. Feet Per Unit) X (Hsximum Cost Per Sq. Example: (l,O00 Sq. Ft.) X ($80) = $80,000 Ft. of $80) - Sales Price The above schedules represent s guideline to be used tn determining the sales price of an aEfordable unit. The final sales price will be agreed upon prior to County approval of s fast-tracking application. The County may adjust the maximum cost per square foot where the developer can demonstrate that additional, unusual costs have been incurred. Docomenta:lon for such costs must be submitted to the County. In no event shall an affordable sales price exceed $100,000, APPENDIX N APPENDIX 0 Orin Lehmar~ Commissioner New York Slate Ofl'lce ol Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire Slate Plaza Agency Building 1, Albany, New York 12238-0001 Dec~ 27, 1990 ~. Catherine Russell, Project Manager Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Cu~u,~ckRoad, Suite 103 Cu~',u,~ck, New York 11725 Dear HrS. Russell: Re: Information Request J~C~u~ns Southold, Suffolk County 90PR2576 The Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) has r~ceived the documentation you provided on your project. As the state agency responsible for the coordination of the State's Historic Preservation Pro,rams, including the encouragement and assistance of Local Preservation Pr~3~, we offer the following Based on reported resources, it is the opLnion of the OPRHP that your project area may contain an archeological site. Therefore, it is our recommendation that unless substantial ground disturbance can be documented, an archeological survey is warranted. Attached is a list of qualified archaeologists. Dc~umentation of ground disturbance should include a description, illustration and photographs keyed to the project map. In addition, the project area has not been professionally surveyed for historic buildings or structures. We reCunu,~_nd that all buildings or structures more than 50 y~rs old within or adjacent to the project area be identified by the project sponsor and evaluated by this office for historic and/or architectural significance. If you have any questions, please call Tony Opalka of our Project Review Unit at (518) 474-0479. Sincerely you~, ommissioner for X~/~istoric Preservation JSS/TO enc: A Word About Archeological Surveys cc Town of Southold Planning Boazd Hislorl= Preservallon Field Services Bureau - 51;i-474-0479 Urban Curlural Parks · 518-473-2375 ME MIDDLETON Er',IVII:IONMEN-IAL INC. December 6, 1990 New York State office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation The Governor Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza Agency Building #1 Albany, NY 12238-0001 ATTN: Charles Florence, State Historic Preservation Office Re: DEIS Jem Commons Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Dear Mr. Florence: An EIS has been prepared for the above referenced site and comments have been received by the Lead Agency. One of their concerns were for possible historic and archaeological resources which may be present on the site. The proposal calls for the construction of 171 detached single family dwellings on a 62 acre site located north of Main Road, east of Sound Drive in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY (see enclosed site plan). I would appreciate it if you could review the enclosed plan and /et us know of the possibility of historic or archaeological reosurces being present on the site. Thank you. Sincerely, Catherine Russell Project Manager En C · cc: M. Kontokosta APPENDIX P ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - WETL, PERMIT PROCEDURES - ENVIROi',IMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS ROBERT W. JOHNSON, PH.D. R. W. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES 477 ARMOND STREET UNIONDALE, NEW YORI( 11553 January 28, 1990 Middleton Environmental, 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, NY 11725 Inc. Re: Jem & Southold Commons Report on Additional Field Visits Dear Mr. Middleton: I've conducted an additional field visit to the above referenced sites, per comments received from the Town of Southold for input into the DEIS's. List below is a detailed description of the vegetation on the sites, the possibility of wetlands, archeological resources, etc. JEM COMMONS The Bluff and Shoreline The Long Island Sound shoreline of this property consists of an unbroken bluff 30 to 50± feet high and 1400+ feet long (east to west). The angle of repose of the bluff is steep and probably varies between 30 degrees and 50 degrees. The bluff is a remnant of glacial till that once extended some unknown distance north into what is now the Long Island Sound. This till is a mixture of materials from silty soils to large boulders 2 to 5 tons or more in weight. - 1 - During the past 5000 to 10,000 years erosion caused by waves and currents formed the present shoreline. The boulders present on the Long Island Sound beach were released from the glacial deposits as smaller particles washed away. These glacial erratics persist on the beach and in shallow water and act as barriers to further bluff erosion by reducing wave action inland of their location and reducing along shore currents. Sooner or later, however, the boulders will be undermined by erosion around their bases and as they sink, stronger wave action and currents will attack the beach and bluff with more force. This new bluff erosion will result in the release of more boulders from the glacial till and again the erosion will slow down. If sea level rises, the process accelerates and if sea level drops the process slows. Rises and falls of sea level and the submergence of land associated with tectonic processes are very slow. Tide gauge data (Rhodes Fairbridge, personal communications) indicate that no change in land or sea level has occurred at Montauk Point in the last 50 years. Western Long Island and New York city on the other hand are sinking at the rate of about 2 to 3 mm per year. The boulder field seaward of the bluff on the subject property is not in any way uniform. These boulders are not uniformly distributed in glacial till. There are sections of beach with few boulders and sections with piles of boulders. The latter act as natural groins along the entire Long Island Sound shore. Each point (often place named) is a boulder concentration area and each scallop (shoreline concavity) is an area with fewer boulders. - 2 - A mass of boulders about two thirds of the way east along the sound shore demonstrates the above processes. The land to the east, including the bluff, is scalloped inland. West of the boulder pile, the shoreline is fairly straight. One should understand that while the littoral drift is theoretically supposed to result in a net west to east movement of sediment on the North Shore of Long Island, the fetch (open water exposure) to the east and northeast is far greater than the fetch in any other direction. This results in an overpowering effect of northeast storms, that while unpredictable and infrequent completely overwhelms the easterly drift of sediments. Net sediment movement along the subject property shoreline is east to west. This effect is obvious when one observes the sand built up on the. west side of the above rock pile and the scalloped (eroded areas) east of the rock pile. The depth of the concavity is limited by several other concentrations of boulders to the east off the subject property. Looking at the present beach (50 to 100 feet wide from the usual high tide elevation to the toe of the bluff) there is no evidence that significant erosion is occurring or will occur in the near future. The generally woody (shrubs, trees and vines) vegetation that dominates the bluff face is continuous along the beach down to a point where it is limited by storm tides, sand movements, salinity, human foot traffic and other factors. The lack of any recent signs of erosion at the bluff toe such as exposed mineral soil, lack of plant cover or even areas exhibiting early stages of plant succession (indicating a recent recovery from erosion) suggests a stable bluff over at least the past 10 or 15 years. There is no reason that this stability should not persist for another 10, 15 or more years. Over the - 3 - next hundred or thousands of years, however, erosion will continue regardless of anything humans do even without changes in sea or land levels. Orient and Montauk Points will eventually disappear. Another observation that indicates bluff stability is the lack of any zonation or differences in species distribution or plant age on the bluff face. The older, taller shrubs and trees are as likely to occur at the bluff toe, midway or near the bluff shoulder. If the toe area had eroded and recovered recently, one would expect different species and smaller plants in that area. Veqetation It is not really possible to prepare a meaningful vegetation map of the bluff. Again, there are no changes in distribution or plant age that mean very much. Rather it is a mish-mosh of clumps of plants and individual plants of a surprisingly large number of species. A species list of the bluff vegetation would include: Poison Ivy Groundsel bush Black Pine Red Cedar Privet Greenbrier High blackberry Black locust Shad bush Bayberry Beach plum Broomsedge Switch grass Rye grass Dune grass Various domestic grasses Japanese honeysuckle Golden rods (at least 3 species) Queen Ann's Lace Bittersweet Black cherry Winged sumach There are a number of other species that are expected but were not found on this late January field trip. In any case, the plant community is diverse and apparently healthy. Some of the black pines, black cherries, red cedars, privets and black locusts are at least 10 to 15 years old or older and these are scattered over the length and slope of the bluff. While I do not subscribe to the simplistic concept that equates high plant diversity with high ecosystem stability in a general sense, it may be true in this case. There are a number of areas where minor amounts of erosion are occurring. There are several paths leading down the bluff face where human foot traffic has damaged the vegetation. These might be planted with something like Japanese honeysuckle and then mulched and left alone. Any future human movements down this (or any other) bluff face should involve raised wooden walkways (so that light penetrates beneath the walkway or stairs) or should be prevented. There are also a number of areas along the bluff shoulder were erosion is occurring. The soil under the sod on top of the bluff is exposed in these places (10 or 15'). The soil exfoliates (flakes off) as it ab$orb~ moisture a~d then freezes and thaws and this is very difficult to stop. To do so, one must start 5 to 15 feet inland of the bluff edge and regrade it to eliminate the concavity under the edge. One would want a gentile convexity for a bluff edge and this would destroy a lot of vegetation inland of the bluff shoulder and on the upper bluff slope. The main reason for not attempting to repair these upper bluff areas is that these sites are the only place bank swallows can nest in most of Long Island. Kingfishers also use bank swallow holes or dig their own in the exposed soil up under - 5 - the edge of ~ound shore bluffs. These nest holes were ~ by vegetation during the summer and fall (I didn't see them) but are evident now. I took a close look at several and believe that they were used during the Spring and Summer of 1990. These swallows are by no means rare or endangered, but they are not quite common either. Their presence is something of a natural asset and they should be considered. By this, I mean that one should accept the inch or two of erosion each year, leave a natural buffer area inland of the bluff edge (as planned already) and try to keep stairways 50 feet or more from a group of nest holes and, of course, keep people and pets off the bluff face soils and vegetation. One does not have to be fanatical; bank and other swallows are very human tolerant. In summary, the bluff is stable and looks like it will remain so. A few small areas of human damage (pathways) could be protected and planted. Access to the beach from the proposed development should involve raised stairways that do not prevent plant growth beneath them. The proposed buffer strip on top of the bluff is necessary, but I see no reason why raised observation decks could not be built to allow the residents a view of the Sound. If I lived there I would also apply a light application of fertilizer on this buffer strip above the bluff. I would use about a half pound of 5-10-5 fertilizer per 100 square feet once a year. The same a~lication would help the bluff vegetation as well. There is/possibility of any fertilizer~water supply involvement at this particular location. It is seaward of any rational recharge area involving water supply. - 6 - Wetlands Every square foot of the lower portion of the property was examined for signs of surface water or a high groundwater table. Low points (minor hollows) were observed on the rest of the property. There is no evidence of surface water or any sort of wetlands. A low area in the southeast corner near Route 48 was carefully observed. Some sort of excavation occurred here in the past and exposed subsoils occur but not wetness. The Iow area supports scattered Norway maples, black birches, black cherries, black berries, greenbriers, etc. and nothing resembling wetland vegetation. There are also no signs of surface erosion such as dry watercourses on the site even where a great deal of motor-like ATV activity has and is occurring. The soils are obviously well drained (western part supporting so many trembling aspens) or excessively well drained (eastern side supporting fewer aspens more black cherry, wild rose and old field species). Archeoloqical Importance While lacking academic credentials in archeology and anthropology, I have had some experience with precolonial camp sites on Long Island. Ail of the occupied sites I have observed (Shoreham, Northport, Montauk and others) were reasonably close to a freshwater supply and was easily recognized by accumulation of shells and shell fragments, quartz tools and quartz fragments from tool making and occasionally bits of bone. I paid special attention to exposed soils throughout this site; particularly along bare soil ATV trails and within the holes left by the nursery operation. These hundreds of holes - 7 - range from one to three feet in depth and two to four feet in diameter. I scraped the soils away from the sides of about 15 holes scattered around the property and found nothing resembling quartz chips or shell fragments. As the 1955~ aerial photograph indicates the entire site was plowed and cultivated at that time. This would have disturbed the soils down to a depth of at least 8 or 10 inches. Since then (during the past 25 years) the nursery operation disturbed the soils down to 24 to 36 inches. In the case of a high dry site with no visible evidence of precolonial habitation (or logical reasons for it) there seems to be no reason to do an expensive archeological survey. Instead it might be better to have someone examine the deeper excavations made during normal construction processes after each day's work. A typical sDallow hole survey is going to be about useless on this site and a historical document search will probably reveal nothing. There is no doubt that the site was used for precoloniai hunting and gathering, but there are no indications of any possible habitation. The lack of and distance to surface water precludes that. To force the owners to conduct archeological work prior to excavating this site would seem to be merely a form of punishment. Field Species The old field plant community occupies about 25 acres of the 62 acres of the subject property. There are scattered acre to half acre forest openings within the black locust - trembling aspen forest portion. The forest is concentrated on the western - 8 - third and the southern half of the site. The old field areas lie in the northern half and along the eastern boundary. The edges of each type of community are arbitrary. There are no clear edges or boundaries. The reasons for this are because the entire plant community is about the same age and both communities are in transition. The tree area is rapidly filling in the remaining openings in the forested areas and shrubs such as bayberry, young trees such as black pine, trembling aspen, black locust, white bircb and black cherry are beginning to out compete the goldenrod grass (broomsedge, switch grass, etc.) old field community. Poison ivy, blackberry, Virginia creeper and other vines are presently increasing in density at the expense of the grasses. It is not possible to predict the amount of time it will take for the area to become completely forested. It is occurring more rapidly on the eastern and southern portion of the site, probably due to soil fertility differences. It must also be mentioned that this developing black locust, trembling aspen, white birch woodlands will also be replaced eventually by a more typical oak-hickory forest. The old field is thus in a late stage of succession and is in the process of being replaced by trees, shrubs and vines. The present plant community of broomsedge (Andropogon virginiana;, switch grass (probably Panicum verigatum~ and other grasses (no sedges were observed) provides habitat for a number of field-using animal species. There is no question that the deer mouse, meadow vole, cottontail rabbit population attracts raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and harrier. It is doubtful, however, considering the size of the field area and the amount of human activity (motor bikes, motorcycles and other ATV's as well as neighborhood children and neighborhood dogs; that any raptors other than possibly sparrow hawks nest on the site. The interaction between the site and rare or endangered raptors or any other rare or endangered wildlife would be the site's use as a. feeding area. Development, as proposed, would eliminate a source of food. This loss is cumulative in that old field habitat in eastern Suffolk County and Southold Town is either being developed or going through plant succession into one or another forest stage. In other words, we only have old fields for a limited number of years between agricultural abandonment and forest growth. We can artificially maintain old fields by periodically burning or mowing them. If the Town of Southold, for example, wished to take over this property and maintain the old fields in about their present state, intense management would be necessary. The field species particularly meadowlarks, field sparrows, song sparrows and possibly the endangered grasshopper sparrow will be eliminated by development or natural plant succession. The grasshopper sparrow was suspected and a search was made, but none were seen or heard (usually one hears rather than sees them because their sort of thin buzz call is rather distinct). Foxes (reds) use the field for hunting and two distinct tracks were observed in the frozen mud on a January field trip. Both sets of tracks may have been from one red fox. There are also a few domestic cats hunting the area and their tracks are similar, but without distinct nail prints. A fox is about as likely to hunt the wooded areas as the fields because of the rabbit population. The only rabbit tracks found were in the woods or along the woods edge. This doesn't mean anything since - lO cottontails use the old field also. It is possible that avian predators as well as hunters (there are lots of tracks of humans and dogs along with spent shotgun shells (size 6 to 7 1/2 shot which are rabbit loads) has temporarily decreased the open field population and the surviving rabbits are in the aspen-locust-blackberry-wild rose thickets. Whitetail deer also feed in the fields as seen by their tracks and several red cedar "buck rubs". These would be eliminated by development, but would persist through the natural process of plant succession. The shrubby old field and young woodland could be described as eMcellent deer habitat. Similar habitats in central New York State typically support 35 to 50 deer per square mile. Jem and Southold Commons Endanqered Plants These rare and endangered plants present a problem to a landowner or a typical generalist consultant. While no sedges of any sort were found nor were any bushy rockroses located, it is highly unlikely that they would be recognized, if found. I have spent 12 or 15 hours on the site and didn't see the above or other rare, endangered, protected or threatened plants. However, I am not an expert on sedges or rockroses. In order to be sure that these or any of the other 350 to 400 species of plants listed by New York State in the above categories, one would have to have a number of real botanical experts that are specialists in a particular plant group. These specialists, probably 2 or 3 persons would have to search the area for perhaps 2 weeks during the spring, summer and fall for several - 11 - years. Even then one or more of the cryptic and reclusive rare plants may still be present. The question is "why should such an expensive and time consuming search be done"? These plants have no protection and while they cannot be picked, removed or destroyed without the landowner's permission, the landowner can destroy them at will. Most field biologists never see these rare species simply because they are rare. Typically a field biologist describes the plant community so that those involved in planning developments or weighing environmental impacts can at least generally know those impacts. If a consultant found the sedge, Carex hormathodes, through some unusual accident during a vegetative survey of some property and reported it in a draft environmental impact statement, it would seem likely that his or her client would eliminate both the plant or plants and any reference to it before submitting the DEIS. While this may never happen, it seems like it could happen. In order for the Natural Heritage Program to work on private lands, some means must be found physically, legally and economically for a branch of government to census vacant land and locate these plants. Teams of highly trained plant specialists with the help of local botanical groups would have to search each property during the spring, summer and fall. These teams would operate independently of any experts hired by a landowner. Once a rare plant is located, a report would have to be filed on the number of individuals present as well as their - 12 - status. Since rare plants are often present only in the intermediate stages of plant succession (and further plant community development would eliminate them) a decision would have to be made to purchase and maintain the habitat stage or try to convince the present landowner to do so. Ail of this is highly unlikely and plants listed by New York State have no legal protection. I can't imagine, for example, why the State feels that bayberry is exploitably vulnerable. Bayberry is one of the most common late old field and barrier beach plant species on Long Island. Does the State believe that there are armies of people out there harvesting bayberry plants for their wax? I am curious about this whole program as it now stands, but would gladly respect and support an initiative on the part of the State to make it meaningful. It would seem that few property owners would be willing to pay for a plant survey that costs 10 times or more the cost of the entire DEIS. This is particularly the case when there are no penalties involved in destroying the rare or endangered plant. An honest consultant might simply advise a client to plow and disk an area and apply herbicides or even plant potatoes for a year or two before submitting a DEI$. Southold Commons is a couple of years out of agriculture goldenrod and horseweed make up about 95% of the vegetation. The changes of a rare plant being present this early in succession is unlikely. I spent 5 or 6 hours looking around but there is nothing there. No rabbit tracks out in the main portion of the field - almost no grass, no meadow voles either - except for around the edges. No reason for any hawks or other raptors to be present - no foxes - a few house cats hunting birds (there is lots of seed for song3chipping, field and other sparrows) but no nests found. 13 - APPENDIX Q New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Information Services Wildlife Resources Center 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, New York 12110-2400 December 28, 1990 Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner Catherine Russell Middleton Environmental Inc. 66 Commack Road, Suite 103 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Ms. Russell: We have reviewed the Significant Habitat Unit and the NY Natural Heritage Program files with respect to your request for biological information concerning the 3em Commons Project in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Enclosed you will find a computer printout covering the area you requested to be reviewed by our staff. The information contained in this report is confidential and may not be released to the public without permission from the Significant Habitat Unit. Our files are continually growing as new habitats and occurrences of rare species and communities are discovered. In most cases, site-specific or comprehensive surveys for plant and animal occurrences have not been con- ducted. For these reasons, we can only provide data which have been as- sembled from our files. We cannot provide a definitive statement on the presence or absence of species, habitats or natural communities. This infor- mation should not be substituted for om-site surveys that may be required for environmental assessment. This response applies only to known occurrences of rare animals, plants and natural communities and/or significant wildlife habitats. You should contact our regional office(s), Division of Regulatory Affairs, at the address(es) enclosed for information regarding any regulated areas or permits that may be required (e.g., regulated wetlands) under State law. If this project is still active one year from now we recommend that you contact us again so that we may update this response. cc: Reg. 1, Regional Wildlife Mgr. Sincerely, Burrell ~uf f i~gton SignifiCant HAbitat Unit New York Heritage Program is supported in part by The Nature Conservancy ME MIDDLE-f()N IENVII]ONMEN"fAL INC. (-~ I ,'.p ~ ,~ N~SDEC Natural Heritage Program 700 Troy-Schenectady Road Latham, NY 12110 December 7, 1990 ATTN: Burrell Buffington Re: DEIS, Jem Commons, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY Dear Mr. Buffington: An EIS has been prepared for the above referenced site and comments have been received by the Lead Agency. One of their concerns were for possible rare plants (vegetation) that may e~ist on the site. The proposal calls for the construction of 171 detached single family dwellings on a 62 acre site located north of Main Road, east of Sound Drive, south of the Long Island Sound in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, NY (see enclosed location map for specific location). I would appreciate it if you could review your records to determine if rare plants/vegetation exist on the site. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance you provided to me during our December 6th phone conversation. Sincerely, catherine Russell Enc. cc: M. Kontokost~ JUDITH T. TERRY :~' ~/- ~' ','~ ~7 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TO~ OF Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 .qouthold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1B01 November 16, 1990 Catherine Russell Middleton Environmental, Inc. 66 Commack Road Suite 103 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Ms. Russell: The Southold Town Board reviewed the enclosed comments of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates,- with respect to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Realty Co. change of zone petition for their parcel at Route 25, Greenport. . The Town Board requests that the Draft ElS be amended, by incorporation into the text of the document, the response to the comments referred to above. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Jem Realty Company / I'130 11/i4/90 STATEMENT CRAMER, ,VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES 5'4 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331.1455 Southold Town.Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 / #873 BALANCEFORW~.RD RE: Jem Commons @ Stirling. Completion of the Pre- liminary Review of the Draft EIS for scope, content and adequacy. $500.00 BALANCE ;500.00 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ................................................... , N. Y ............................. 19 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Yi, Dr. To ............................. .c?..~ M _~.%..v.o..o ~.U!s_` .~..A.~s. p.c.~AT.~_s, _~....c: ............ Claimant 54 Nor[h Countr7 Road MILLER PLACE. NEW YORK [[764 Address ................................................................................. Fed. I. D. No ..................................... or Soc. SecuriW No ......................... 11/14/90 RE: Jem Commons @ Stirling, Southold, New York. for scope, content and adequacy. TOTAL BALANCE DUE: $500. )0 The undersigne~ActJng on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cros~ ou[ one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no par~ thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. · ~,,~ ........ :%0.~ ....... /.~., ........ ,~..~.O... ~.~ .... $iana[ur, e CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS November 13, 1990 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Jem Commons, Stirling, New York R~CEiV~D Dear Supervisor and Members of the Board: We are in receipt of the Draft EIS for Jem Commons, and have reviewed same. Due to the fact that this project appears to have received endorsement of Suffolk County as an Affordable Homes project, we have attempted to expedite our review of the Draft ElS. Therefore, as per the request of the Board dated October 30, 1990, we have performed a preliminary review of the document for scope, content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - Environmentallmpact Statement Procedures. As stated in the EIS procedures, "if the Draft EIS is determined to be inadequate, the lead agency must identify in writing the deficiencies and provide this information to the applicant." The letter and documentation contained herein addresses the inadequacies of the Draft EIS with respect to scope, content and adequacy. An Environmental Impact Statement is intended to provide a full disclosure of the anticipated environmental affects of an action. Further, an EIS should outline salient features of a project, particularly as regards economic and social issues. Based upon this information, decision making body must weigh the issues and reach a conclusion in order to render a decision on a project. Comments are provided herein which address the project description, environmental inventory, impact evaluations and alternative comparisons. It is our recommendation that the Draft EIS be amended to address the issues included in this review prior to its acceptance for circulation to the general public. These comments pertain to inconsistent or inaccurate information presented in the proposed Draft ElS, as well as omissions of information which was requested during the scoping process. Changes which are made in the Draft EIS, in response to this letter, should be amended into the text of the document be amended as opposed to submission of some sort of addendum. This will provide a cohesive document which will allow a basis for public review upon re-submission. The following comments pertain to the Draft ElS: Background and History ~ 7_ The recommendation of the Planning Board with regard to the proposed change of zoning is a portion of the background and history of project review which should be included. SEQR documentation including the Positive Declaration, Long EAF and scoping documents should also be included. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page 1 Jem Commons Proposed DEIS Review Public Need fo.__r the Project Page 8 The price range of proposed "moderate~ypriced" units should be disclosed. In addition, Page 9 of this section refers to home prices from 2 years ago. The real estate market has changed considerably over the past 2 years. Description o~f Access to the Site Page 13 The site plan included in Appendix A, does not depict the location of a proposed alternate access route as is implied in the last sentence on Page 13. Description of Existing Zoning Page 14 The surrounding area contains a mix of uses including, open space, low and moderately-high density residential zoning, business, etc. The site zoning is low density residential, which is co~npatible with surrounding uses. The reference to the incompatibility of the site to surrounding uses should be deleted. Design and Layout Page 15 A sewage treatment plant is proposed to handle sanitary waste. The location of this plant should be depicted on the conceptual plan. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has expanded required setbacks for sewage treatment plants. Given that the proposed project will consume nearly 100% of the land for single-family dwellings, the location and construction of the sewage treatment plant could significantly alter the project design. Proposed Impervious Surface Are..__~a Page 15 The quantity of impervious surface area cited in Page 15 should include driveways and roof surfaces, as was requested in the scoping documentation. Open Space Page 16 The amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation and the natural area should be quantified, in order to evaluate loss of habitat, and groundwater impact from nitrogen load. Approvals Page 17 The first sentence should be changed to state, "In addition to the cotnpletion of the SEQR process,... '; rather than "acceptance of the DEIS". Topography Page 22 A topographic map should be provided, as was requested at the scoping meeting. The source of information for the bluff line presented in Appendix A should be indicated, as well as whether this is the crest or toe of the bluff. The USGS quad sheet (Greenport), depicts several depressions on site with one in the southwest corner of the site which may contain or have contained water. This should be clarified. Groundwater Page 23 The direction of groundwater flow should be indicated, as well as water use in the area. The last sentence implies that all of Zone IV has been contaminated by agricultural activities. Review of the North Fork Water Supply Plan finds that the area in the vicinity of the project site is not identified as a nitrate contamination area. Vegetation Page 30 The existing vegetation w/thin I00 feet of the crest of the bluff should be described in detail. Page 2 Jem Commons Proposed DEIS Review The New York State DEC Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for input regarding the site and area. A map of existing vegetative cover would assist in review. Wildlife Page 31 Wildlife species identified on Page 31 are primarily woodland species. Grassland species and hawks should be included as was requested at the scoping session. Affected Aericultural District Pa_gg~ 36 It should b~noted that agricultural use is allowable in an R-80-~istrict. Regardless of use and zoning, the site is prime farmland with Haven loam soils -- the proposed project represents a permanent foreclosure of agriculture, which should be acknowledged. Historic and Archaeological Resources Page 45 Reasons provided for lack of cultural sensitivity are not supported. Agricultural fields have been found to yield significant artifacts. The stte is proximate to several freshwater wet[and and pond areas to the southwest and east. The site would have provided a vantage point, with some protection from the elements due to the southward slope. Further, the profile of the bluff in this area would have been significantly different in prehistoric time. Ltterature cited should be referenced. The Suffolk Count; Achaeological Association report (1979) indicates the area as being sensitive. Existing hterature should be further consulted to determine site sensitivity. This should include review of historic maps and contact with State Historic Preservation Officers through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in Albany. Significant Environmental Impacts Page 47 There is no discussion of the impact or potential impact of the project upon erosion, particularly bluff destabilization resulting from development on the north end of the site, as was requested in the scoping meeting. Groundwater Resources (Impact) Page 47 Extensive areas of landscaping will result from the project as proposed. Based on the Conceptual Plan and the text, very little of the existing vegetation on the site will remain and it is assumed that these areas will be landscaped. The effect of increase nitrogen loading due to fertilization of landscaped areas has not been discussed. This impact should be quantified and evaluated in the Groundwater Impact section. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page 48 The impact of the project on site wildlife as determined through additional site inventory (grassland and hawk species), should be determined. Abandoned field habitats are known to support rare plants and diverse avifaunal populations, possibly including several endangered, threatened and species of special concern. One would expect displacement of current wildlife populations, however, there is no information to ~dentify the magnitude or significance of such impacts. Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) Page 50 Page 50 states that the site is completely surrounded by high density development. This is false as north of the site is Long Island Sound, east of the site is presently vacant land (albeit HD zoning), and south of the s~te is vacant land zoned R-80. CRAMER, Vq~R .1'~. ~.,SOC IAT E S E N VI RO N M E NT ',~. __~,~ G CONSULTANTS Page 3 Jem Commons Proposed DEIS Review Alternatives Page 59 The section dealing with alternatives provides no information on the relative comparison of environmental impacts. This document is an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, a discussion of environmental sacrifices must be presented in order to weigh the benefits of the project in view of the social and environmental issues. Without this information, it is impossible for the lead agency to reach an informed, legally defensible decision. An alternative involving a cluster design was requested at the scoping meeting; however, this alternative has not been included. The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk CRAMER, VC~,RI~'~, ~A~SOCIATES ~: N¥1RON MI~NT~.__ _-.~2~_ ~,~G CONSULTANTS Page4 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS November 13, 1990 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Draft Environmental Impact Statement Jem Commons, Stifling, New York Dear Supervisor and Members of the Board: We are in receipt of the Draft EIS for Jem Commons, and have reviewed same. Due to the fact that this project appears to have received endorsement of Suffolk County as an Affordable Homes project, we have attempted to expedite our review of the Draft EIS. Therefore, as per the request of the Board dated October 30, 1990, we have performed a preliminary review of the document for scope, content and adequacy in accordance with SEQR NYCRR Part 617.8 - EnvironmentalImpact Statement Procedures. As stated in the ElS procedures, '~f the Draft EIS is determined to be inadequate, the lead agency must identify in writing the deficiencies and provide this information to the applicant." The letter and documentation contained herein addresses the inadequacies of the Draft ElS with respect to scope, content and adequacy. An Environmental Impact Statement is intended toprovide a full disclosure of the anticipated environmental affects of an action. Further, an EIS should outline salient features of a project, particularly as regards economic and social issues. Based upon this information, decision making body must weigh the issues and reach a conclusion in order to render a decision on a project. Comments are provided herein which address the project description, environmental inventory, impact evaluations and alternative comparisons. It is our recommendation that the Draft EIS be amended to address the issues included in this review prior to its acceptance for circulation to the~eneral public. These comments pertain to inconsistent or inaccurate information presenteain the proposed Draft ElS, as well as omissions of information which was requested during the scoping process. Changes which are made in the Draft EIS, in response to this letter, should be amended into the text of the document be amended as opposed to submission of some sort of addendum. This will provide a cohesive document which will allow a basis for public review upon re-submission. The following comments pertain to the Draft EIS: BaqkgroumJ and History ~ 7 The recommendation of the Planning Board with regard to the proposed change of zoning is a portion of the background and history of project review which should be included. SEQR documentation including the Positive Declaration, Long EAF and scoping documents should also be included. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, 14Y 11764 (516) 331 1455 Page I Jem Commons Proposed DEIS Review Public Nee0 for the Project Page Il The price range of proposed "moderately priced" units should be disclosed. In addition, Page 9 of this section refers to home prices from 2 years ago. The real estate market has changed considerably over the past 2 years. Description of Access to the Site Page 1_3. The site plan included in Appendix A, does not depict the location of a proposed alternate access route as is implied in the last sentence on Page 13. ~of~ Zoning P__.0g~ 14 The surrounding area contain~ a mix of uses including, open space, low and moderately-high density residential zoning, business, etc. The site zoning is low density residential, which is compatible with surrounding uses. The reference to the incompatibility of the site to surrounding uses should be deleted. D_D_D_D_D_D_D_D_D_~ and Layout Page 1~_ A sewage treatment plant is proposed to handle sanitary waste. The location of this plant should be depicted on the conceptual plan. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has expanded required setbacks for sewage treatment plants. Given that the proposed project will consume nearly 100% of the land for single-family dwellings, the location and construction of the sewage treatment plant could significantly alter the project design. Proposed Impervious Surface Area Page 15 The quantity of impervious surface area cited in Page. 15 should include driveways and roof surfaces, as was requested in the scoping documentatton. Open Space Page 1_6 The amount of fertilizer dependent vegetation and the natural area should be quantified, in order to evaluate loss of habitat, and groundwater impact from nitrogen load. Approvals Page 1._27 The first sentence should be changed to state, "In addition to the completion of the SEQR process,... ", rather than "acceptance of the DEIS". T~0~_0~Itll P_~ Page 2~2 A topographic map should be provided, as was recjucsted at the scoping meeting. The source of information for the bluff line presented m Appendix A should be indicated, as well as whether this is the crest or toe of the bluff. The USGS quad sheet (Greenport), depicts several depressions on site with one in the southwest corner of the site which may contain or have contained water. This should be clarified. Groundwater Page 23 The direction of groundwater flow should be indicated, as well as water use in the area. The last sentence implies that all of Zone IV has been contaminated by agricultural activities. Review of the North Fork Water Supply Plan finds that the area in the vicinity of the project site is not identified as a nitrate contamination area. Vegetation Page 30 The existing vegetation within 100 feet of the crest of the bluff should be described in detail. CRAMER, V~ ~/~&SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTJ~'~N~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Proposed DEIS Review The New York State DEC Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for input regarding the site and area. A map of existing vegetative cover would assist in review. Wildlife Page 31 Wildlife species identified on Page 31 are primarily woodland species. Grassland species and hawks should be included as was requested at the scoping session. Affected Agricultural ~ Page 36 It should be noted that agricultural use is allowable in an R-80 district. Regardless of use and zoning, the site is prtme farmland with Haven loam soils -- the proposed project represents a permanent foreclosure of agriculture, which should be acknowledged. Historic i~nO ~ Resources Pa~e 45 Reasons provided for lack of cultural sensitivity are not supported. Agricultural fields have been found to yield significant artifacts. The s~te is proximate to several freshwater wetland and pond areas to the southwest and east. The site would have provided a vantage point, with some protection from the elements due to the southward slope. Further, the profile of the bluff in this area would have been significantly different in prehistoric time. Ltterature cited should be referenced. The Suffolk County Achaeological Association report (1979) indicates the area as being sensitive. Existing hterature should be further consulted to determine site sensitivity. This should include review of historic maps and contact with State Historic Preservation Officers through the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation in Albany. Significant Environmental lmoacts Page 47 There is no discussion of the ihapact or potential impact of the project upon erosion, particularly bluff destabilization resulting from development on the north end of the site, as was requested in the scoping meeting. Groundwater Resources (Impact) Page 47 Extensive areas of landscaping will result from the project as proposed. Based on the Conceptual Plan and the text, very little of the existing vegetation on the site will remain and it is assumed that these areas will be landscaped. The effect of increase nitrogen loading due to fertilization of landscaped areas has not been discussed. This impact should be quantified and evaluated in the Groundwater Impact section. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page 48 The impact of the project on site wildlife as determined through additional site inventory (grassland and hawk species), should be determined. Abandoned field habitats are known to support rare plants and diverse avifaunal populations, possibly including several endangered, threatened and species of special concern. One would expect displacement of current wildlife populations, however, there is no information to tdentify the magnitude or significance of such impacts. Land Use & Zoning {Cumulative Impacts) Page 50 Page 50 states that the site is completely surrounded by high density development. This is false as north of the site is Long Island Sound, east of the site is presently vacant land (albeit HD zoning), and south of the site is vacant land zoned R-80. ENVlRONMENT~~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 Jem Commons Proposed DEIS Review Alternatives ~ 59 The section dealing with alternatives provides no information-~-~ the relative comparison of environmental impacts. This document is an environmental impact statement. Accordingly, a discussion of environmental sacrifices must be presented in order to weigh the benefits of the pro)ect in view of the social and environmental issues. Without this information, it is impossible for the lead agency to reach an informed, legally defensible decision. An alternative involving a cluster design was requested at the scoping meeting; however, this alternative has not been included. The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. Ver~tmlv..~ur~s.. .- t~C~harles j. VmS~fflis - ~ 4_ ~ cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk CRAMER, VO~RI-~ &;J~aSOCIATES E N VIRO N M E N T~AN~/,,~ G CONSULTANTS · Page 4 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box l 179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (51_6) 765-1801 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: FROM: DATE: EMANUEL KONTOKOSTA JUDITH TERRY (212}582-6047 November 1~i, 1990 Number of Pages (including cover): 8 If total transmittal is not received, please call (516)765-1801. COMMENTS: FAX TRANSMITTAL Fa, x Numb~r (510) 331-1~0~0 DaLe: To: From: Re: Number of Pages (including cover): It Lho LoL~l Lrant, miL[~l i~ noL r~.~eivect e~ll I~u~,ber below. Comment.s: 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAO. M, II~L.ER P,L.,~,CE. N,y 117.6:4. {516) 331-1455 IMPORTANT > > File Number: P1--473800--00096 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Lalham. Jr. Richard G. Ward ['.,'lark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORg2qDUM SCOT1' L. HARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New, York [ 1971 Fax 1516~ 765-1823 PD.~EIVED TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk '"Q\! FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. The twenty acres fronting the Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder HD. We find that the FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the following information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be about 27 single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. Ail the comparisons between the County's affordable homes program and the Town's affordable program that were made in our memorandum on the Southold Commons' petition apply to this project as well. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound planning arguments. As with Southold Commons, the argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider clear relevance to the Town. I Board's consideration. some broader issues which have include them here for the Town The Town Board has committed itself to improve the implementation of, and, if necessary, update the Master Plan. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with Southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted. The end result will be wall-to wall development within the hamlets, and unremitting suburban sprawl outside of them. The Town must assess whether to add other tried and proven zoning tools to its Code to encourage a mix of increased residential and commercial development within the existing hamlets while at the same time ensuring the preservation of the agricultural and open space lands around their perimeter. The granting of either of these change of zone proposals is felt to be counter-productive to the Town Board's intent to refine the implementation of the Master Plan so as to achieve its goals for a better quality of life for Southold Town's residents. Jem GaTmons: Page two SEQR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF FINAL EIS Title of Proposed Action: Jem Commons Sound Avenue, Greenport S.C. Tax Map No.: 1000-035-01-24 Lead Agency: Town Board Town of Southold Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: November 12, 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 (and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Thepublic, interested and involved agencies shall be provided an adequate opportunity to consider the document for a minimum period of ten (10) days following acceptance (November 22, 1991). Substantive comments received by the Town Board during this period will be considered in the Statement of Findings and final decision. Description of Action: The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land as follows: the soutern 42 acres fronting C.R. Route 48 acres from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low- Density - 2-acre minimum) to the "HD" Hamlet Density District; and, the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning (Residential Low-Density - 1-acre minimum). The rezoning is to allow construction of 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Location: The project is located north side of North Road (C.R_ 48), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York. Page 1 of 3 Potential Environmental Impacts: * Increase in the intensity of land use above what is currently allowable under existing zoning, with consideration of resulting impacts. * Impact of the proposed project upon existing land use and zoning in the project vicinity, with consideration of resulting impacts. * Public need for the project and the ability of the proposed use to provide necessary alternative housing in the community. * Potential impact upon groundwater resources due to alteration of recharge water quality. * Loss of open space and alteration of existing wildlife habitat and ecological character of existing site. * Potential impact upon cultural resources of the community, particularly visual, historic and pre-historic. Copies of the Final ElS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Address: Phone No.: Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 516-765-1801 Copies of this Notice and Final EIS Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resources Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Southold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Page 2 of 3 Notice of Completion FEIS Suffolk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Superintendent of Utilities, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. E. M. Kontokosta, Applicant, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 54 North Country Road, Miller Place, New York 11764. Southold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 3 of 3 ENVIRONMENTAL~L~) ~t~'~IG CONSULTANTS November 12, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Southold Cormnons Jem Commons Notice of Complete Final EISs RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1991 Sc~uthold Tnw. Clerk Dear Judy: As per our conversation regarding the above projects, attached, please find the Notices of Completion of Final EIS, for Southold Commons and Jem Con'u-nons. If the Board is in agreement, these notices may be xeroxed onto Town Board stationary and adopted by resolution in order to complete the acceptance process. The applicant should also be notified of the need to submit the necessary number of copies of the Final EIS and letter regarding water use estimates. The Final EIS should then be circulated with notice in accordance with Notice and Filing Requirements contained in Part 617. A minimum period of ten (10) days must be provided prior to issuance of Findings and decision on the project. Following this period, the Board should issue a Statement of Findings and Facts on the Final EIS. Subsequently thereafter a decision may be made. The intended time frame for decision in Part 617, is 30 days after completion of the Final EIS. Please discuss with the Board if you would like our assistance in the preparation of the Findings. Please also be advised that additional fees will be required for review of the Final EIS, preparation of the Notice of Completion and preparation of Findings. The first two tasks have been completed with the submission of this letter. It is expected that the total sum for completion of these services will not exceed $500.00 per project. Please call to confirm our meetin$ of November 26. 199l if the Board desires our assistance in the preparation of the Findings Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. eric: Notices of Completion yours,~ 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Tov. n HaH. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box llTq Sonthold. New York 1197 I Fax ~516) 765-1823 Telephone 15161 765 [801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON NOVEMBER 12. 1991: RESOLVED that notice is hereby issued, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act of the Environmental Conservation Law, and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, that a Final Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted .for the proposal of Jem Realty Co. to rezone a 62 acre parce'l of land located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, as follows: the southerly 42 acres fronting NYS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density 2 acre minimum) to the "HD" Hamlet Density District, and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning (Residential Low-Density - 1 acre minimum); said rezoning is to allow construction of 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes, and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is authorized and directed to cause the Notice of Completion of Final ElS to be made available for comment by the public and interested and involved agencies for a minimum period of ten (10) days from this date, and substantive comments received by the Town Board during this period will be considered in the Statement of Findings and final decision. ~ -SL~i~'~'T. Terry ;/ Southold Town Clerk November 13. 1991 MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Environmental Consultants DONALD J MIDDLETON JR November 8, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall 5309 So. Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED NOV 1 2 1991 .~.~,,d,,,4A T ..... RE: November 1, 1991 letter from Cramer, Voorhis and Associates to Southold Town Clerk re: Jem Commons and Review of Final EIS Dear Ms. Terry: We are in receipt of a copy of the above referenced letter and would like to submit the following response to the comment in the letter regarding the Final EIS for the Jem Commons proposed project. Our analysis of "Response #14" leads us to conclude that the final EIS should also include the following "Alternative Water Demand Analysis" which is predicated upon our past experience with the requirements of the Greenport Utilities Company of the Village of Greenport: WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS As calculated by Generally Accepted Design Criteria) Average Daily Flow Rate (SCDHS Design Flow) 171 (3 Bedroom) units @ 300 gpd = 51,300 GPD Maximum Daily Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982)= (4 x average daily flow rate) 34,800 GPD = 205,200 GPD Maximum 1-hour Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982; SCDHS) (9 1/2 x average daily flow rate) 51,300 = 487,350 GPD = 20,306 GPH = 338 GPM. Fire Flow Demand (ISO Requirements, AWWA, Manual M-31) I000 GPM (Requirements for buildings 11-30 feet apart) 754 DEER PARK AVE. NORTH BABYLON, NEW YORK 11703 · 516 321-4348 · FAX: 516 321-4349 REFERENCES AWWA, Manual M-31, Manual of Water Supply Practice, Distribution Requirements for Fire Protection, M-31 (Insurance Services Office Method). Salvato, Joseph A., 1982, Environmental Engineering and Sanitation, John Wiley & Sons, NY. SCDS, 1991, Personal Communication by C. Voohris, Robert Farmer, Ass't Public Health Engineer, 10-28-91. ALTERNATE WATER DEMAND ANALYSIS - (Based on criteria previously submitted and accepted to Mr. H. B. Sherman, Supt. of Utilities, Village of Greenport on 11-26-88). Daily Water Consumption= 171 (3 Bedroom) units @ 300 gpd = 51,300 GPD. Peak Water Demand = (2 x daily demand) 51,300 = 102,600 GPD Annual Demand = Daily Anticipated Demand x 360 days = 360 x 51,300 = 18,468,000 Gals. Fire Flow Demand = 500 GPM/Hydrant (MIN) personal communication per Mr. James Monsell Greenport Utilities. We have provided, herein, twenty copies of this letter and hereby request that this letter be considered as an Addendum to the Final EIS for the proposed Jem Commons project. Inclusion of this Addendum would serve to expedite final review by all concerned agencies. I thank you for your consideration and hope that this Addendum is sufficient to initiate final review of the Jem Commons EIS. Sincerely, D~ald J.- ~ld~lOtoh~ Vic~-Pre$ident DJM:sm '-,I ~i:..-~_._, ON Eb,fVIF~Ohlf,.-IE!'4TAL, lNG. ~_nv;f,r.n?.?rt~,~,~ C'o.ez:~,!iants November ~, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry Sou~hoId Town Cl~rk Town Ha I, 1 5309 So, Mair! Ro~d S~uth~ld. ~;ew Dear with th~ reqJir.~:~ts .~f :he Greanport Utilitle:~ c.3~pany of the Village:of Gr~enp~rt: As calc'qla~ed by Genera!fy Acceptec Design cfi'to, cia) Average Maximum o.~ily Flow Fa~e [Sa!va~,D,~8._/~'~ ~'-: :~1; ,' ~te; 34~00 GFD 205. 1- -'-~,,~-~ ' ;~. '~ · P, ac~ Salvato, 1982; ,CC'Di~S; ~9 L/2 x ,-'~:,'~.z-a.:/,--, _!al2'~' flow rate) _,,./_.o0 407,.~,') 20,306 GP!I = 338 GPM. GPD ,SPD := Fire Flow D..'~mand ('isa Requirements. ~.¢A. ,~,Va/:Hal M-S1] lO00 F;p,~ (Require?ient.{~ £c'r .bui!,~in?$ 11-30 feet apart) :. ~.. 4~o F~, 3£T 4349 hereby veques~ that this the Final ~ ' ~ ...... ' ' , E_~ for ~h~ proposed .Tern Com~:,~ns pz'~.3~<c. Inclusion cohcerned agencies. commons RTS. OJM:sm /k'./ r.r.[ 5 TAT EM EI',IT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental And Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 oAT~_November 1, 1991 Ms. Judith Terry Southold To%~ P,O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 #1054 RE: Je_m Review final EIS submission and provide recc~amendations $297.50 $297.50 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. Fed. I. D. No ..................................... or Soc. Securitv No ......................... I RE: Jem Cc~mons Invoice ~10~4 Review final EIS submission and provide recommendations. S?q7 5~ The undersigned (~J~,x,~z,3d{(Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the (Cross out one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ..................... ~9Yg~DK..l...,19...~ ..... Signature CRAMER, V~ d~OCIATES ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS November 1, 1991 Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Office of the Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED NOV 4 lggl Re: Jem Commons Review of Final EIS Dear Judy: I am in receipt of the Final ElS submission for the above referenced document, and have completed a review as requested in your letter of October 16, 1991. The Response to Comments addresses the comments generated on the Draft EIS in a satisfactory manner, with the exception of Response #12. In this case we have contacted the Village of Greenport Water Superintendent of Utilities, and the SCDHS Bureau of Drinking Water Supply, as well as standard references for guidance in determining peak water demand. Basedon our findings, it is recommended that the following be provided in place of the response contained in the document. RESPONSE ~ 12 Water Demand Analysis; Average Daily Flow Rate (SCDHS Design Flow) - 116 (3 bedroom) units @300 gpd = 34,800 GPD Maximum Daily Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982)- - (4 x average daily flow rate) 34,800 GPD = 139,200 GPD Maximum 1-hour Flow Rate (Salvato, 1982; Personal Communication SCDHS, 10-28-91) = (9 1/2 x average daily flow rate) 34,800 = 330,600 GPD = 13,775 GPH = 230 GPM Fire Flow Demand (ISO Requirement, AWWA, Manual M-31) - 1,000 GPM (Requirement for buildings 11-30 feet apart) References AW%'A, Manual M-3 i, Manual of Water 5_~ ~ Distribution Requirements for Fire Protection, M-31 (Insurance Services Office Method) 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page Jem Commons Review of Final EIS Salvato, Joseph A., 1982, Environmental ~ and Sanitation. John Wiley & Sons, New York SCDHS, 1991, Personal Communication, Robert Farmer, Assistant Public Health Engineer, 10-28-91 It is our understanding that once the appropriate information is supp. lied, the Village of Greenport will provide a response regarding the expected water availability schedule for this project. This information would be useful to theTown Board in reaching a decision on this project. It is recommended that once the Final ElS is complete, it should be circulated to the Village of Greenport in order to provide an opportunity for a response regarding anticipated water availability. If the Board is in agreement with this review, this letter should be furnished to the applicant for use in revising the Final EIS. Given the fact that we have supplied the necessary revisions in this correspondence, it is not necessary to perform further review providedthese revisions are incorporated into a revised document. Accordingly, if the Board is in agreement, the applicant may submit the requisite number of copies for notice, filing and circulation requirements. If you have any questions concerning this correspondence, please do not hesitate to call. Very~13Y~y~rs, -12harles J~_-~oorhis, CE~ AIC? Pag~ ~ TOWN BOARD: For Your Information - 11/q/91 I called E.M. Kontokosta today and read him the attached review (Jem Commons ~. Southold Commons are identical) rather than hold this for the 11/12/91 Board meeting. Mr. Kontokosta advised he will most likely have the additional information documented by 11/12/91 for the Board's review. JUDITH T_ TERRY TOW~q CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: E.M. KONTOKOSA FROM: J.T. TERRY DATE: November q, 1991 Number of Pages (including cover): 3 If total transmittal is not received, please call (516)765-1801. COMMENTS: Da. re: To: Fro m: If the i. oLz3 r .... :' '' ~3 r,-- ."'=~'.'~: ~ ': ...... Judith T. Terry Southo'.'d T,..'.w~'~ Cie[k Office of fl;e Town Clerk Tow~ Hal!, 5?°5 M~'.'~ Re~.~ P.O. Box l ~ 79 Scuthold, NY ll?l Jem '" ' t. ,",gl Ell O P, 5 Dear Judy: Sons, New York call · . : L~U? VOLIr4 To: Fro nl, ~ JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS M~,RRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. [}ox 1179 Soulhold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-I801 October 16, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Southold Commons Jem Commons Dear Mr. Voorhis: In accordance with our telephone conversation this morning, I am enclosing herewith the Final Environment Impact Statement for Southold Commons, and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons, received today from Middleton Environmental, Inc. I understand you will review same and advise whether they can be accepted as complete by the Southold Town Board. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board Town Attorneys MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Environmental Consultants DONALD J MIDDLETON October 15, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OCT, 1 6 1997 Re: Final Environmental Impact Statements For Jem Commons & Southold Commons Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find twenty copies each of the Final Environmental Impact Statements for the above referenced projects. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Catherine Russell Project Manager Enc. cc: E.M. Ko~Loko~ta (w/ eno.) Jem Realty (w/enc.) 754 DEER PARK AVE, NORTH BABYLON, NEW YORK 11703 · 516 321-4348 · FAX 576 321-4349 MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. Environmental Consultants DONALD J MIDDLETON FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NY October 1991 Applicant: Jem Realty Company 754 DEER PARK AVE, NORTH BABYLON, NEW YORK 11703 · 516 321-4348 · FAX. 516 321-4349 RESPONSE ~18 Same as Response #11. COMMENT ~19 Land Use and Zoning Page VI-7 "The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, "...landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual impact." What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals (i.e., street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement." (CVA-12) RESPONSE ~19 A well engineered site plan implementing proper landscape design will allow for a pleasing and desirable visual impact. The use of street trees and planting throughout the site in general and on the individual lots specifically at key and prominent locations at various contours or grade elevations will transform the developed site into a pleasing visual impact. Said landscape design to be submitted during the design stage of the project. COMMENT ~20 Public Water Supply Page VI-7 "With the update of the water supply status for the Final EIS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined." (CVA-13) -18- RESPONSE ~20 It is the intention of the project sponsor to comply with the Greenport Utility Company's requirement that all plumbing fixtures consuming water shall be equipped with water conservation devices. (See Response #13). -19- ADDENDUM TO DEIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMMENT ~21 Additional Alternatives - R-40 Cluster Page 11 "The discussion regarding the configuration of units associated with an R-40 Cluster Development is over simplified. The comparative impact assessment reasons that clustering which preserves the old field is not acceptable because the old field will cease to e~ist due to succession. Further the discussion concludes that clustering to the south near Route 48 is not acceptable due to marketability and visual impacts, and clustering to the north is not acceptable due to steep slope areas. The concept of clustering 62 units on the 62 acre sit is to preserve, not destroy environmental resources. A more viable evaluation could involve clustering 62 units on 30,000 square foot lets in the central portion of the site, allowing for preservation of nearly 20 acres of land, while providing a marketable sized lot under the increase in site density from what is presently allowed. This would allow for preservation of visual and slope sensitive areas to the north, and would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded and grassland areas adjacent Route 48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town if dedicated. A comparative alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the Final EIS." (CVA-14) -20- RESPONSE ~21 A "brief" discussion was provided in the DEIS and its Addendum for this alternative. If this alternative is chosen, further details will be provided at the site plan stage for detailed analysis and design. COMMENT ~22 Additional Alternatives - STP Page 13 "The Addendum indicates that "...small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size..." Please describe the type of operational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project." (CVA-lS) RESPONSE ~22 As stated on Page 13 of the Addendum, this information was obtained from Mr. Gebert of the SCDH on 4/4/91. He stated that "it has been their experience that small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size and cost to construct and maintain." Smaller capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operational problems because they are generally maintained by outside maintenance contractors retained by homeowners associations or other homeowner entities. Larger sewage treatment plants require a full time on-site maintenance staff. Outside maintenance contractors are not considered as reliable as on-site maintenance personnel who devote all their time to keeping the system in proper operating condition. The proper maintenance of any sewage treatment plant will not allow for "environmental consequences". -21- COMMENT ~23 Alternatives - STP Paqe 13 "Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered." (VG-4) RESPONSE ~23 Application was made to the Village of Greenport in 1987 for connection to the Greenport Sewer System. Subsequent to that time, contracts were entered into between the Village and the developer of 357 residential units to the east of the subject site, wherein the sewer system capacity is to be expanded and the sewer lines are to be extended further east, past the Jem Commons project. In the letter of 8/30/89 from the Village of Greenport to Kontokosta Associates (sponsor's design consultant), the Village stated that "this project has the potential to take advantage of the sewer expansion program". -22- JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 /:ax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF ~FHE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTItOLD September 13, 1991 E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects q3 West 5qth Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Jem Commons Southold commons Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Enclosed is the packet I faxed to you today, representing the comments on the Jem Commons and Southold Commons Draft ElS documents, as well as the attachments which I did not fax containing the codes referred to in Charles Voorh[s' comments on the respective drafts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures CC: Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorneys Howard E. Pachman, Esq. C. Russell, Middleton Environ~ CRAMER, VOOFIHIS, &.,~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL~pN_D P~NiNG CONSULTANTS · ~ ,?! · September 12, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE~IVED SEP 1 1991 Re: Jem Commons Comments on the Draft ElS Sou~ Tow~ ~e~ Dear Judy: As per the directive of the Town Board, we have compiled and synthesized the comments on the Draft EIS for Jem Commons. At this time it is necessary to complete a Final EIS on this project. As you are aware, it is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS regardless of who prepares it. Based on the Work Session of September 10, 1991, the Town Board feels it would be most expedient and beneficial to direct the applicant lo prepare a response to the comments generated as a result of the public hearing and written conunents received to date. Once complete, the responses submitted on behalf of the applicant would be submitted to the Board to determine the adequacy and accuracy for filing of thc Final ElS. Enclosed, please find all of the comments received in connection with this project. In order to provide the lead agency with a satisfactory preliminary Final EIS submisston for review, it is recommended that the applicant complete the following: 1) 2) 3) 6) 7) The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference. All original comment letters and transcripts should be included as a portion of the Final ElS. Comments should be separated to identib~ whether the comments were received in the context of the hearing or as part of the written record. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. Comments may be summarized w/thout detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comment. A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. The most encompassing comment document should be addressed first in the responses - subsequent comments which are duplicative may refer to a previous response. Attached are thc comments on the Draft ElS for Jem Commons for your use. The applicant should proceed to prepare the required documentation in order to complete the processing of this application. SEOR Regulations indicate that a Final ElS should be prepared within 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. Based upon this, it is not necessary to adhere to the 45 day time frame, if the applicant requires additional time to provide an adequate and accurate response. Upon receipt of the prelim/nary Final EIS, we will make every effort to review submitted documentation in a timely fashion in order to determine adequacy. Upon completion, the applicant should submit sufficient copies for the Board and consultant to review the Responses. The full number of documents needed for circulation should not be submitted until the document is determined to be acceptable by the lead ~yenCy. When determined to be complete, additional copies may be requested or prepared. ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. eric: Comments on the Draft ElS CRAMER, VO6.' ~'R~HI'~ &'f~'~; S O C I ATE S E NVIRONM ENTA~. ~iI~/G CONSULTANTS ~ 'W/Il '~\\\ COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS JEM COMMONS Greenport, New York INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft ELS), for the project known as Southold Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17, 1991. A public hearing on the Draft EIS has been scheduled for August 13, 1991, and comments on the Draft document were accepted for a period of ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing. The document was circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing comments on the document for use by the decision making agency in the preparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. At this time written comments and comments received as a result of testimony at the public hearing have been collected by the Town Board, and forwarded to Cramer,.Voorhis & Associates, Inc. for review. This letter synthesizes and categorizes substantive comments on the Draft EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS and the Draft ElS Addendum are separated under subheadings as found below. In addition, the source for each of the cornments is identified with the initials of the party that provided the comments, followed by consecutive numbers for each substantive comment made by that party. Comments were received from the following parties: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. (CVA) Village of Greenport (Superintendent of Utilities) (VG) Town of Southold Planning Board (PB) Jane Gohorel (JG) Public Hearing Transcripts, August 13, 1991 (T) The full text of comments is included as an attachment. The tent is annotated in order to identify each substantive comment by number. The comments have been synthesized in the follovang section, and the source for each comment is provided. COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ElS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Comment 1: Public Need for Project, Pa~g~ Ili-5, The Draft EIS notes that the project addresses a long term need in the Town of Southold; however, the project is currently under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. Has the downturn in the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate housing considering the current availability of lower priced housing, and what affect does this have on the stated need for this project at the time of proposed but/clout? (CVA-1) Page Sero Commons Comments on the Draft EIS Comment 2: Pul01i¢ Need for P~ P__0~ lll-$, The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in GreenporQ to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the Ii ,mits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town s program set~ comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add mote dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Planning Board position is that the change of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of the Town. (PB-2, JG-1) Comment 3: Design ~ Layout: Total Site Area. Page III-13. The Draft EIS states 'The roads are proposed to be 24+__' wide constructed in accordance with the town o£ Soathold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swa!,es on either side as well as leaching pools in each low section of the road... '. Please explore the feasibility of this drainage design as compared to recharge basins. If both methods are feasible, please include a brief assessment of the environmental considerations for each type of design in either this section or a latter section of the Draft EIS. (CV^-2) Comment 4: Total Site Area, Page III-13, The proposed project proposes connection to the Greenport Village sanitary system. The Draft ElS indicated that the district did not have sufficient capacity; however, the capacity is being expanded to accommodate additional projects. Please provide an update with regard to the Village STP capactty and plans for expansion, as related to the project. For the purpose of the Final ElS, please outline the expected form of sanltary disposal. (CVA-3) Con'u'nent 5: Total Site Area, Page III-13, The Trustees for the Village of Greenport have passed a resolution creating a moratorium on sewer hookups, effective, February 21, 1991, for a period of one year. (VG-3, JG-3, T- 2) Comment 6: Design and La¥oul;: Land tO be ~ Page III-D, Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants m4.ght be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession, particularly on individual lots? What is the proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetation is proposed to be present subsequent to development? (CVA-4) Comment 7: Construction and Operation, Page III-14, Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanitary connection and utility installation, specifically identifying intent .regarding phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and ~mprovements. (CVA-5) Comment 8: Approvals, III-17, A letter was received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated May 3, 1990, which was read into the CFIAMER, VO,.i~l~, 8i~aSOCIATES Page 2 Jem Commons Commenls on the Dralt ElS record at the Draft ElS public hearingfor Jem Commons. This letter is included as Appendix K in the Draft EIS and was considered during the preparation of the Draft document. (T-I) ENVIRONMENTAL SETYING Comment 9: Water Resourccs: Wilier Supply. Page IV-10, The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussions in the Draft EIS. What is the current andpredicted water supply availability for the proposed project? (CVA-6) Comment 10: Water Resources: Witter Supply. Pilg~ IV-10. The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this, point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District s additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life st},le of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements ol other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts toprovide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity. (VG-1, JG-3) Comment 11: Traffic, Page IV-21, With the addition of high density land use in the area of the proposed project site (including the development under construction and the proposed project), additional pedestrian activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pe.d.est.rian environment and what mitigation measures can be used to n'umrmze these impacts? (CVA-7) SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Comment 13: Public Water Supply. Page V-2, The Draft ElS indicates that public water supply is a resource which will potentially be impacted. The current impact should be determined as related to the proposed project. What water district and/or Health Department polioes (if any)apply to increase in water demand resulting from pr.op, osed rezoning and what mitigation measures can be employed to minimize impacts? (CVA-8) Comment 14: Public Water Supolv. ~ V-2. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the apph~afit show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. (VG-2) Comment 15: Open Space, Page V-9, What affect will the loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values, particularly in consideration of the degree of development proposed and occurring in the area. Will the project be CRAMEFI, VO,~'~, ,~,¢ASOCIATES Page 3 Corm'nent 16: Comments on [he Dr~R EIS visible from Long Island Sound, and can mitigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this viewshed. (CVA-9) Land Use and Z n_Z~L~ ~ V-11, The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Greenport hamlet should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of e~dsting affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. (PB-1, JG-2) MITIGATION MEASURES Comment 17: Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecolo~. Page VI-4, Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and permanently natural open space on common areas, through covenants or other means. This Js a possible mitigation measure for minimizing impact to terrestrial ecology of the site by maintaining the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and nauve type grasses. (CVA- 10) Comment 18: Transportation, Page VI-7, What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such rmtigation is needed based upon analysis.'? (eVA-11) Comment 19: Land Use and Zoning. Page V1-7, The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, "...landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, ami other related types of landscaping that would transform the developed site into a pleasing visual impact." What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement. (CVA-12) Comment 20: Public Water Suoolv. Page VI-7, With the update of the water supply status for the Final EIg,-avaflable water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. (eVA-13) ADDENDUM TO DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comment 21: Additional Alternative~; - R-40 Cluster, Page 1L The discussion regarding the configuration of units associated with an R-40 Cluster Development is over simplified. The comparative impact assessment reasons that clustering which preserves the old field is not acceptable because the old field will cease to exist due to succession. Further the discussion concludes that clustering to the south near Route 48 is not acceptable due to marketability and visual impacts, and clustering to the north is not acceptable due to steep slope areas. The concept of clustering 62 Page 4 Comment 22: Comment 23: CommenH on the Draft. ElS units on the 62 acre sit is to preserve, not de. stroy environmental resources. A more viable evaluation could revolve clustering 62 units on 30,000 square foot lots in the central portion of the site, allowing for preservation of nearly 20 acres of land, while providing a marketable sized lot under the increase in site density from what is presently allowed. This would allow for preservation of visual and slope sensitive areas to the north, dad would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded and grassland areas adjacent Route 48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town if dedicated. A comparative alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the Final EIS. (CVA-14) Additional Alternatives: STP. ~ 19, The Addendum indicates that "...small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size...". Please describe the type o[ operational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the env/ronmental consequences with regard to the proposed project. (CVA45) Alternatives: STP, Page l_.& Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered. (VG-4) CRAMER, VQ~R~I~'~x~ .,~,,.SOCIATES Page 5 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE Ol~qCE R / OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box ll79 Soulhold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-18.23 Telephone (516) 765-1801 August 29, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 5q North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Jem Commons $outhold Commons Dear Chick: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this date, scheduling 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 10, 1991, Southold Town Hall, to meet with the Town Board in their work session to discuss the next steps, and certain questions the Board has with respect to the environmental process of Jem Commons and $outhold Commons. I am enclosing herewith a copy of your August 13, 1991 review of each DEIS, the Planning Board's comments of August 13, 1991, letters received during the comment period from Jane Gohorel and the Village of Greenport, and the minutes of the public hearings on each DEIS. By copy of this letter I am also sending those enclosures and notifying Mr. Kontokosta, Middleton Environmental, and Howard Pachman, Esq. of the scheduled September 10th meeting, and inviting them to be present to listen to and observe the Town Board's discussion with you. Very truly yours, Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. C. Russell, Middleton Envir.r Howard Pachman. Esq. 236 THIRD STREET · P O. BOX 20~5 GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 August 1991 Judith T. Terry, Southold Town 53005 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Clerk Jem..Realty~Company (Jem Commons) North'Road'Greenport SCTM: 1000/35/1/24 Dear Mrs. Terry: This will acknowledge receipt of the July 17, 1991 SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with respect to the referenced proposed action. WATER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this proposed project. Numerous'factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess'capacity. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. at SEWER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Sewer System. Enclosed is a copy of a February 21, 1991 Resolution of the Board of Trustees for the Village of Greenport which is self explanatory. Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered. . %Vecy truly you~, Superintendent of Utilities WHEREAS the Vii]age Board is concerned about the system's ability to meet future demands, and NOW TI[EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village Board allow no further connections for se~er service to be located outside the incorporated limits; ali present contracts ~xll be honored, and BE IT FURTIIER RESOLVED that the Village Board will L'equire a study for any comrne[cial or industrial consumer ,ithin the Village limits, and that this Resolution is not intended to BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the moratorium provided herein shat[ take effect February 21, 1991 for a period of one year for the date hector. Roll Call: Trustee Allen Yes Trustee Clarke Yes Hayor Hubbard Yes Hotion made by Trustee Clarke, seconded hy Trustee Allen and Mayer Hubbard: Any questions? Ceorge. I am going to vote against this. I feel that be have that study ............ I~otion made by Trustee Allen, seconded by Trustee Clarke to Mayor Hubbard: Any questions? Tr. Horton: Ye~, ~here is the money to pay far that report Mayor Uubbard: Good question. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND pLAN'NING CONSULTANTS August 13, 1991 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Jem Commons Review of the Draft ElS Dcar Scott: We have comp eted our review of the Draft Environmental hnpact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter document ng our comments on the report. Please review this information with the. Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward same to the app!icant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the Final ElS for this project. If. you h.ave any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft EIS, p~ease oo not hesitate to contact this office. - ' eric: Review of Draft ElS 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516)331-1455 CRAMER. VOORHIS & ASSOCIATE( ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS Date: Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the Town of Southold Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. August 13, 1991 Scm Commons Review of the Draft ElS The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Jem Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on JuN 17, 1991 A nublic h...arin,, on the Dra,t EIS has been scheduled for August 13, 1991, and comments on t~e Draft document will be accepted for a period of ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing. The documenl has been circulated to involved agencies and oardes of interest, for the ~urDose of providing comments on the document for use by the dec'ision making agency in thg - preparation of.a Fi.hal EIS, and ultimately a decision on lhe project.-,& cop~, of the Draft EI5 ri_sas bee, e.n su,b~ttea [o Cra. re. er, Voorhis and Assoc. iates, l'ne. (CVA), as consultants to the ~own ~oaru, mr re,new ut me SEQR documentation. This letter constitutes the re,,-iew of the Draft ElS for .leto Commons by CVA. The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are provided: DR &FI' EN'V1RON.%, IENTAL 15IP.A~T ~qTATEMENT DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Public ~ for ~ ~age The Draft EIS notes that the pr.oj¢ct addresses a long term need in the Town of Soulhold; however the proiect s currently, under review, and lhe need should be related to .expected deman3 at the conclus,on of the review process. Has th~ ~VA - I oownturn tn the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate dhousin, l~ c.onslderm.g the current availability of lower pr/ced housing, and what affect ocs tins nave on the stated need for this !5roject at the time of pro~l~Osed bulldoze? ~ and Lak~ul: ~ ~ A rq::t ~_xq.g.~ .llf. l~ The D. raft EI.5 sea res 'The roads are pro£osed to be 24, ' vide cotuwacted in accordance w~th the town of $outholdHighn,ay Sp¢ci/~-~arioits and Io include cunt;t,,,,,,,, recharge swa[es on either side as :veil as ieachin .... t..'.. , · , . · ...... 6 ~'~,,~ ,,, eac~t ~ow secttot! oJthe road... ". Please eplgro l be re.a .ib.9{ty of this .drainage design as con:oared ,p recharge basins, If both are te.~smm, pmase include a brief assessm,~nt of lhe environmental considerations for each type of design in either this sect/on or a latterscction of the Draft EIS. CV4- 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAO. MILI_Eq PLACE, NY 11764 (5~) 331.1455 Page I of 4 Review ,of Dr. fl ElS The proposed project proposes conne?tion to the GreenEgrt Village sanitary system. The Drat]t ElS indicated that the distrtct did not have sutficient capacity; however, the capac ty ts being expanded to accommodate additional projects. Please provide an undate with re~ard to the Villa~ze STP capacity and plans for expansion, as related to thee.project. Fo°r the purpose of'the Final ElS, please outline the expected form of san,taw disposal. ~ grid Layout: Land to be Cleared ~ ILL13 Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clear, lng, what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reducUon of extensive lawn OvA areas andprcmote natural succession, particularly on individual lots? What is the proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetation is proposed to be present subsequent to development? Construction ~p~ _Operation Page Ii'r-14 Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanita~ connection and utiliLv installation, specifically ~dent,fymg intent regarom,:, ~V4--~"' phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and improvements. EN'VIRONMENTAL SETTING ~ Resources: 'u,'ale~; Suppl~ ~aee ly-lO ' The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous &scussions in Ihe Draft EIS. Wh'at is the current and predict'ed water supply availabilily for the propo~.ed project? 7. Tri~ffi;: a,~ Jr-21 .W. ith t.h.e addition of high density land use in the area of the proposed project site (,nc. lud,ng the.development under construct/on and the proposed project), additional peoestrmn acnv~ty ~s expected. What ~mp. act ~,;fll the proposed project hav. e pa the pedestrian environment and ;vhat mitigat,on measures can be usedlo min,m~ze these ~mpacts7 C..VA - 7 SIGNIFICANT EN'~TRON,'MENTAL IMPACTS 10. Pub}lc Water Suppl.~ ~ V-2 ~-eh?2ra£.t E. IS_/ndicates that public walcr supply is a resource whkh ,,'ill potent al y pactea, i ne current impact should be determined as r,elatcd to the proposed project. What water district and/or Heallh Department pohcics 0f any) apply to increase in water demand resuh{ng fr, om proposed rezomng and what mitigahon measures can be employed to minimize impacts7 Open Space Page V-9 What affect Mil thc loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding -- Page 2 of 4 Review of Draft EIS community in terms of vlsual and aesthetic open space values, particularly in consideration of [he degree of development proposed and, occurring in the area. Will lhe project be vistble from Long l.sland Sound, and can mttigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this v'iexvshed. MITIGATION blEASURES 10. Terrestrial and Aquadc Ec01n&W' VI-4 I1. Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and permanently natural open space on common areas, through covenants or other means. This is a possible mitigation measure for minimizing impact, to terrestrial ecology of the site by. maintaining th.e original type ground cover whtch serves as a habitat for animal, b,rd life, and nam'e bpe grasses. Transportation Pa~e VI:7 12. What rnitleation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to'pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis.'? eva-II ~.¢nqt LTF~ ,",nO Zoning ~ YT-7 The docum.nt re&cares that land use intonation IS proposed to include "...landscaping and plantingr, especially' street trees, and other related .O',ocs of landscaping that would tra~form the developed site into a olemin¢ vtxual impact "Wh at landscape i.mprovemcnts can be incorporated into the subdivision and infr'astr~cture approyals [].~e. s.trect trecs, recharge plantings, common area cnhancemen,' (for 86- t',,a -t> Unlt allernatlve). '"'"~ '~- 13. Public Water Supply ,Page VI-7 W. ith the update of the water supply status for he F/nM EIS, available water supply mit gat/on and water saving measm:es should be outlined. ~. DDENDI~_ .TO DE~$ FQR ,.~~D {_CO51'MON~ PROJECT DESCRIPTION Additional Altcrn0,~,i,:¢~ - ~R-4O Clusler . P p ed. The comparative impact assessment reasons that clustering which prese~es the old field is not acceptable because the old field will ~e t~,emst d~e to s~c~ssion. Further It~e dis~ss/on concludes that clustering to me soum near ~oute aO :s not acceptable due to marketability and visual impacts, and clustering tq the north ~s not acceptable due to steep slope areas. ~e concepl of clustering 62 urals on the 62 acre sit xs to prcscm'e, ant destroy environmental resources. A more viable evaluation could im'o]ve clustering 62 units on 20,000 square foot lots in t~e central portion of the site, allowing for prcsemation of nearl~ Page 3 of 4 J'cm Commons P.e¥1e~.v of D~rt 20 acres of land, w.hile prov/ding a marketable sized lot under the increase in site density/'rom what is presently allowed. Tnls would allow for preservation of visual .and slope sensitive areas to the north, and would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded andgrassland areas adjac, ent Route 48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town if dedicated, A comparative alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the Final EIS..~ I' Add tional Alternatives: STE ~_~ 13 The Addendum indicates that '...small caFaCl,~ selvage treahnent ~olantS tend to have operatnlgproblems due to the~rsee .... Please describe the ~e ot operanonal problems such plan~s have been documented as having, and ~elate to the environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project. RAMER, V~tS, ~'%SOClATES 4 V i 'q O N M E N TA~. ~--'~¢X:E~0,,",/G CONSULTANTS ~ W,.,/ \,;,.~\ Pugc .4 o¢ 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Sen.err Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Rilchie Laiham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kennelh L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-19iS PLANNIN~ BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO']-F L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold. New York 11971 Fax {516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Members of the Town Board Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~.~'~S Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements for Southold Commons, Southold SCTM ~ 1000r055-5-17 and for"~EM'~e~it~ ~G?eenport SCTM ~ 1000-035-1-24 DATE: August 13, 1991 With regard to each of the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. 2.' The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's comparable limits to the County's program, add more dwelling units in the same price seem to reflect the real housing needs of program sets the proposal to range does not the Town. PB The Board's position on this Droposed change of zone remains as it w~ in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zon~ill not meet the affordable housing needs of this Town. 2l ~ugust 1991 East Marion, N. ¥. The Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, Southold Main Road, 11971 Dear Sirs: The proposal by developer Kontakosta to build some 316 "homes" in Greenport and Southold, dependent upon not one, but two, zone changes in both sections, in each case downgrading the area, is outrageous. The Master Plan, painstakingly wrought over a long period--and considered by many residents to be flawed in some respects--was designed to guard against this kind of blatant misuse of our open space and fragile ecology. Such zoning restrictions as we have are there to be enforced and to protect Southold Town from unwarranted and chaotic development. It appears, at least to this ~.~riter, that the developer, with pure profit motives, is out to exploit to the maximum these two properties in the guise of providing "affordable housinG'. We have read recently--and it seems documented--that perhaps this kind of new housing is not really affordable for local young people, or elderly pu6ple; and therefore that alternatives such as rehabilitating existing housing and empty structures should be considered. In fact, recent newspaper surveys bring into question the purported need for new "affordable" housing. The Cedar Fields project in Greenport is an example. Few prospecive buyers have been able to qualify. It is rumored that the developers, unable to unload properties, have bought in for their own families. In the case of the 20 acres along the Sound in Greenport, what can be possibly the justification for down-zoning from 2 to 1 acre for "luxury housing"? And then, how can the Town sanction all those uther houses, more than 100, on 1/4-acre lots when the zoning calls for 2-acre lots? This would be a betrayal of all that we have worked and hoped for. There are very serious reasons for 2-acre zoning--for heavens sake, we've been through all this for years now! Can the law be overturned with not even an extensive SEQRA study, just an affirmative nodfrom the Town Board? It was reported that the protesting residents at the hearing did not address the main issue, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so concerned were they with the encroachment on their open space, the danger to groundwater, the down-grading of their area, traffic, noise, pollution, and the violation of the Master ~an. If ~his is not environmental impact, what is7 These citizens of Southold Town deserve to be listened to. It is they who will pay- higher taxes each time a development of this type is allowed; their quality - 2 - of life will diminish, as will the special aura and attraction oF the North Fork. Mr. Kontakosta has blithely aAnounced that water and sewer hook-ups will be provided by Greenport Village, yet that Village, ~vith all it can handle and more at the moment, has proclaimed a moratorium on any new ~'~-2 requests outside its borders.,.. Please heed the Planning Board's negative recommendation and deny the two requested zone changes. Sincerely, ~Oane ~ehorel PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOJYN BOARD August 13, 1991 4:30 P.M. IN THE_MA~r'I~ER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JEM'REAI~TY"COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE. Supervisor Scott L. Harris Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Latson Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This is a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Companywith respect to petition for a Change of Zone. The proof of publication, and verification will be read by Councilman Tom Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 4:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (il "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-BO" Residential Low Density District to "R-t10" Residential Low Density District (i-acre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: July 17, 1991. Judith T, Terry. Southold Town Clerk," I have before me an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, that she has affixed a notice to the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, here in Southold Town Hall, duly stating this Environmental Impact Statement. We, also, have a legal notice that appeared in The Traveler-Watchman, and another one that has appeared in The Suffolk Times. Communications, I have one communication in front of me from..memorandum from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold to, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, from Bennett Orlowski, J~::, Chairman of the Planning Board regarding the Review of the Draft Environmental Impact State for Jem Realty, dated August 13, 1991. With regard to each of Pg 2 Pt4 DEIS Jem Realty the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Hoard should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Oreenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the ?,mount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Hoard has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable imits to the County's program, and proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's postion on this proposed change of zone remains as it was in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zone will not meet the afordable housing needs of this Town. That was dated the t3th of August. We, also, have a letter dated May 3, 1990, from the Department of Planning of the County of Suffolk. Dear Mrs. Terry, Pursuant to the requirement of Section A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: 1. The total number of dwelling units/lots shall not exceed 170, preferably less; 2. The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3. The parcels shall be developed jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; ~I, Emer- gency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisal5 of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, There is a footnote on this that the motion failed to carry. This was a review of the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve it subject to those conditions. However,' there's a footnote that the motion failed to carry. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning. We, also, have a memo from the 5outhold Town Planning Board, dated March 27, 1990. The Planning Board wishes to go on record as apposing this change of zone application. Following if the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and HE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petiton. I /lave, also, before me the schedule A, that outlines the mets and bounds of this applicant. That's all that I have with me. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We also have one other document, that came in, that should be entered into [he record. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This a Petter addressed to Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the The Town of Southold, regarding Jem Commons Review of the Draft ElS. Dear Scott: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the Final ElS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft ElS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants. These are rather lenglhy. The Town Clerk has proposed that they be photocopied, and made available to everybody. P9 3 - PFI [gElS Jem ~;.ealty TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's especially true since they relate to specific pages of the DEIS, and unless people had the DEIS in front of them, and I don't as matter of fact, I can't relate to what sections they refer to. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: These comments will be available in the Town Clerk's Office. Thank you, Tom. At this time, this part of the public hearing is for the public to give input in reference to this public hearing, and environmental assessment. At this time, I'd like to turn it over~I Is there any members of the audience, that would like to address this, and make comments on the record? If so, would you please come forward to the microphone, and state your name, please. STEPHEN CLARK: Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Clark. I represent the Village of Greenport. I wish to make remarks on two topics here. One in regard to a request for sewer issue. At the present time the Village of Greenport has a moratorium on hookups to our sewer plant. We can respond this, and then we'll probably respond to this in writing. The second is we are grafting at the present time a complete, and somewhat detailed response, regarding a water supply, the impact on the water supply managed by the Village of Greenport, and you will get that in writing sometime within ten days. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other members? The applicant will make a comment on the record. HOWARD PACHMAN: I just want to indicate for the record, that on behalf of the applicant Jem Commons Realty Company. My name is Howard Pachman. I'm the attorney for the applicant, and I just wanted to let the Board know, that we are present. The principal Mr. Kontokosta is here. We, also, have present with us the agency, that prepared our Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Middleton Environmental Inc., Donald Middleton the principal, and the project person, Catherine Russell, so are here to hear what is being said, and we hope that after the Board concludes the public hearing, we'll have an opportunity to review the items, that you read into the record, which we hadn't seen before, and obviously we would be pleased to, after we see the record transcribed to respond to any statements, that are made publicly at this particular meeting. Thank you very much. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Howard, one quick question, on a preparation of a rEIS, if it's the feeling of the Board, that they wish to have Cramer ~, Voorhis do the rEIS, what's your clients position in that regard as far as funding? I just went through that with another applicant here, where there were some divergence, and we felt that there was an agreement between counsel, someone you know quite well, and that it would be best if left in the hand of Cramer & Voorhis, and they did the final based upon the information imparted to them by the individuals who do the DEIS. I'm not saying that's what this Board wants to do. I just want to know what your clients position would be. You don't have to comment now, but I would ask you to take that under advisement. HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like to reserve making a comment until I consult with my client. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to give you a response without having spoken to them. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Fine. I just wanted to present that to you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Town Attorney, I would assume that yo'u will consult with your client also. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Oh yes, I just wanted to know what position there was in regard to it, and I wanted to plant the seed, that's all. I was doing that, because we had problem that went on a long time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other comments for this public hearing? (No response.) If not, I'll declare this public hearing closed. Judith T. Terry(~ Southold Town Clerk LOCATION: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York OI~T, 1 6) lgg! APPLICANT: Jem Realty Company 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Town Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Southold, New York CONTACT: Judith T. Terry Town Clerk PREPARED BY: Middleton Environmental Inc. 754 Deer Park Avenue North Babylon, New York 11703 Donald J. Middleton, President (516) 321-4300 DATE OF PREPARATION: October 1991 DATE ACCEPTED: COMMENT PERIOD: NOV ~. ~ 1991~ Copies of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) are available for public review and comment at the office of the Lead Agency. Written comments should be submitted by ~OV '2 ~ 1991 to be in the public record. TABLE OF CONTENTS FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JEM COMMONS, SOUTHOLD, NWW YORK Page Nos. SUMMARY OF FEIS .................................. Summary - 1 thru - 2 Responses to Letters and Comments Received From the Following: Charles J. Voorhis, AICP ......................... CVA Cramer, Voorhis & Associates (Consultant to Town) 54 North Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 (Comments dated 8/13/91 & 9/12/91) Village of Greenport, Supt. of Utilities ......... VG 236 Third Street, P.O. Box 2095 Greenport, NY 11944 Comments dated 8/21/91) Town of Southold Planning Board .................. PB Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 (Comments dated 8/13/91) Jane Gohorel ..................................... JG No Street Address Provided East Marion, NY (Comments dated 8/21/91) Public Hearing Transcripts ....................... T Southold Town Board (Public Hearing 8/13/91 ~4:30 p.m.) SUMMARY OF THE FINA$ ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR THE PROPOSED JEM COMMONS This report summarizes and provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed construction of single family dwellings on a 62 acre site in Southold, Suffolk County, NY. The site is located in the Town of Southold and is bounded on the south by Route 48, on the north by the Long Island Sound, east of Sound Drive and within a 1/2 mile of the Village of Greenport. The project applicant is Jem Realty Company The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (October 1990, revised January 1991 and its Addendum June 1991) prepared by Middleton Environmental Inc., and this report, together, constitute the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), in accordance with regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Approximately 20 copies of the DEIS were submitted and distributed to Town officials, state and county agencies and interested parties. The DEIS was also available for public inspection and review at the Town of Southold offices at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. A public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was held before the Town Board on August 13, 1991 at 4:30 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall. The official deadline for receipt of written comments on the DEIS was August 23, 1991. Summary - 1 SUMMARY OF FEIS - CONT'D. The applicant's consultants have reviewed the written comments and the transcript of the public hearing received during and after the comment period. Substantive comments have been summarized, addressed and translated in~o a comment and response format in this Final Environmental Impact Statement. Summary - 2 COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS TOWN OF $OUTHOLD DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION - DEIS COMMENT Public Need for ProTect: Page III-5 "The Draft EIS notes that the project addresses a long term need in the Town of Southold; however, the project is currently under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. Has the downturn in the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate housing considering the current availability of lower priced housing, and what affect does this have on the stated need for this project at the time of proposed buildout?" (CVA-1) RESPONSE See Response #2. -1- COMMENT ~2 Public Need for ProTect Page III-5 "The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Planning Board position is that the change of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of the Town." (PB-2, JG-1) RESPONSE ~2 In referring to the article published by the Suffolk Times on Page 1, dated 8/1/91 entitled "Affordable Housing: Who Needs It". The Southold Community Development Director, Mr. James MacMahon, states that "in many cases, people are not qualifying at the bank for mortgages." Mrs. Harroun, one of the buyers at Cedarfields is quoted in the article as saying "People would love to pick up a house right now, but they can't afford it. We are in a recession". The fact that people cannot meet the minimum eligibility requirements indicates an even greater need for affordable housing. Per a telephone conversation between Mr. MacMahon and the project sponsor he also stated "that even though Cedarfields-Affordable Housing Project of 39 units are almost sold out, (only 4 remaining) and Highpoint-Affordable Housing Project of 27 units are almost sold out, there still remains an unsolicited list of 80 families as of 9/26/91 who are looking to purchase affordable homes. The Southold Villas-Affordable -2- Housing Project of 17 potentially available units will only satisfy 20% of the present need." Mr. MacMahon indicated that he intends to advertise the affordable housing program so as to better inform the general public of its availability. Once the advertising is completed, he feels that the list for families needing affordable housing will double, thus indicating the true demand. Further, once the economic recession has turned around and the employment picture improves, the families not able to meet the minimum requirements will now be added to the list, thus increasing the list furtDer. when this project comes on line in 1994/95, assuming no other affordable housing project is approved besides Jem and Southold Commons, and assuming the need for affordable housing does not increase (very unrealistic), these two projects will only meet 40% of the present demand. -3- COMMENT ~3 (DEIS) Desiqn and Layout - Total Site Area Paqe III-13 "The Draft EIS states "The roads are proposed to be 24!' wide constructed in accordance with the town of Southold Highway Specifications and to include continuous recharge swales on either side as well as leaching pools in each low section of the road..." Please explore the feasibility of this drainage design as compared to recharge basins. If both methods are feasible, please include a brief assessment of the environmental considerations for each type of design in either this section or a latter section of the Draft EIS." (CVA-2) RESPONSE ~3 The swale system is commonly referred to as a non-structural drainage system which is appropriate in areas where the soil conditions allow for a substantial amount of storm water runoff to percolate into the ground as its being channeled to and eventually collected in leaching pools, permanent ponds, or basins. Variables to be considered in the selection of this system are soil type, topography, the groundwater table, and anticipated physical capacity of the system. The most commonly used system is the curb-recharge basin system. It is referred to as a structural system which uses curbing and fixes conduit to channel the storm water runoff into a recharge basin. There the runoff either percolates into the soil or evaporates into the air. This system is used on sites where the soil type and soil conditions do not possess high percolation factors. -4- The final selection for the preferred system for use on this site can only be determined during the engineering design stage of this project. COMMENT Total Site Area Page III-13 "The proposed project proposes connection to the Greenport Village sanitary system. The Draft EIS indicated that the district did not have sufficient capacity; however, the capacity is being expanded to accommodate additional projects. Please provide an update with regard to the Village STP capacity and plans for expansion, as related to the project. For the purposes of the Final EIS, please outline the expected form of sanitary disposal." (CVA-3) RESPONSE ~4 It is expected that Jem Commons will be connected into the Village of Greenport's Sewage Treatment Plant. The Village has already contracted with the project developer to the east to expand the sewage treatment plant and extend the sewer system so as to accommodate the proposed 357 residential units that are to be built on the site to the east. It is expected that once the Greenport Sewer Plant expansion has been completed, its excess capacity will also accommodate the sewer needs of Jem Commons. -5- COMMENT ~5 Total Site Area Paqe III-13 "The Trustees for the Village of Greenport have passed a resolution creating a moratorium on sewer hookups, effective, February 21, 1991, for a period of one year." (VG-3, JG-3, T-2) RESPONSE ~5 The sewer moratorium resolution passed by the Trustees of the Village of Greenport was for one year and is due to expire on February 21, 1992. The projected schedule for Jem Commons anticipates that sewer hook-ups will be made during the period of early 1994 to late 1995. COMMENT ~6 Desiqn and Layout - Land to be Cleared Page III-13 "Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession, particularly on individual lots? What is the proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetation is proposed to be present subsequent to development?" (CVA-4) RESPONSE ~6 As indicated in the DEIS, it is the intention of the project sponsor to limit clearing during construction and to keep extensive lawn areas to a minimum for the initial purchaser. It was suggested that this could be accomplished by -6- means of covenants in the deed of each 10t (see Addendum Page 4 "each deeded lot will have a covenant incorporated into it to limit lawn areas and utilize alternative groundcovers...etc." Further mitigation measures on future owners limiting lawn areas to promote natural succession of the landscape, can be imposed on all property owners by Town Law Legislation passed by the Town Board. This will allow for the proper and effective policing and enforcement of these mitigation measures and will assure uniform and substantial compliance. The proposed form of ownership of the buffer will be as a common element owned by the homeowners association. Natural vegetation will be allowed to develop subsequent to site plan development. COMMENT ~7 Construction and Operation Page III-14 "Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanitary connection and utility installation, specifically identifying intent regarding phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and improvements." (CRA-5) RESPONSE ~7 It is anticipated that the site work for this project will commence sometime in early 1994 and be completed in late 1995. Site sanitary and utility distribution lines will be installed during that period. Sanitary and utility connections to the individual residential units will be made as the units are constructed. It is anticipated that the 171 units will be constructed on an "as needed basis" over a period of five years. Road access has been provided as shown on the plan. See Page 17 & 18 of this document for mitigation measures. -7- COMMENT ~8 Approvals Paqe III~17 "A letter was received from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, dated May 3, 1990, which was read into the record at the Draft EIS public hearing for Jem Commons. This letter is included as Appendix K in the Draft EIS and was considered during the preparation of the Draft document." (T-i) RESPONSE Also included in Appendix K is a letter dated May 24, 1990 from the Suffolk County Department of Planning, which was also considered during the preparation of the DEIS. -8- ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING COMMENT Water Resources - Water Supply Page IV-10 "The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussions in the Draft EIS. What is the current and predicted water supply availability of the proposed project?" (CVA-6) RESPONSE ~9 Past correspondence with the Village of Greenport (see paragraphs 1 thru 3 below), indicates that the Greenport Utility Company is anticipating the additional water demand created by this and other future projects being planned within the boundaries of their system and are seeking to satisfy this demand through the acquisition of new sources. (See reference below to the 5" well located on this site and offered for additional water capacity). On 3/23/87 the project sponsor met with the Utility Committee of the Village of Greenport at which time the sponsor offered the Village of Greenport the use of a 5" well on the subject property to be connected to the entire water supply system. This well, when added to the system, would appreciably increase water availability for this project and many future projects which may come on line. The Village of Greenport was to have the well tested so as to determine whether it complies with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services water quality standards. -9- A letter from the Village of Greenport dated 3/15/89 to the project sponsor's attorney, Mr. Howard Pachman of Pachman & Oshrin, indicates that the Village is planning to add three (3) new wells which will supply sufficient water for "his" client for both projects. A letter from the Village of Greenport to Kontokosta Associates (sponsor's design consultant) dated 8/30/89 requested additional information on water and sewer hook-up for the proposed project because the "Village is currently on an ambitious expansion program for water hook-ups". In addition, the letter stated that the proposed project "has the potential to take advantage of a sewer plant expansion project". The current availability of water supply is not significant since the project sponsor does not expect to require water supply until late 1994 early 1995. It is difficult to predict the future availability of a water supply at the time when this project will go on line (1994/1995). However, based on the continuing effort of the Village of Greenport to add new sources of water supply to the system, (such as the possibility of adding the existing 5" well located on the property), the project sponsor is proceeding to obtain the necessary approvals for this project with the confident anticipation that the Village of Greenport's short term year to year expansion program will continue to meet the water supply requirements generated by the population growth in the Town of Southold. The sponsor had made application for connection to the Greenport water system back in 1987. It is anticipated that by the time this project reaches the site planning stage, the -10- sponsor's position on the water allocation list will entitle them to negotiate the typical water service contract with the Village of Greenport, making available the necessary water supply for the project in 1994/95 or soon thereafter. COMMENT ~10 Water Resources - Water Supply Page IV-10 "The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity." (VG-1, JG-3) RESPONSE ~10 Same as Response #9. COMMENT ~11 Traffic Paqe IV-21 "With the addition of high density land use in the area of the proposed project site (including the development under construction and the proposed project), additional pedestrian activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedestrian environment and what mitigation can be used to minimize these impacts?" (CVA~7) -11 - RESPONSE ~11 As per Page IV-22 of the DEIS (Pedestrian Environment) - No pedestrians were observed in the area during the site visit in August 1990. This statement does not indicate that there are no pedestrians. Although the project is relatively close to the Village of Greenport (within 1/2 mile), it is anticipated that people will use automobiles to travel to Greenport for shopping and other errands which would be more convenient for carrying packages, particularly during the cooler months. COMMENT ~12 - NONE -12 - SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS COMMENT ~13 Public Water Supply Page V-2 ,'The Draft EIS indicates that public water supply is a resource which will potentially be impacted. The current impact should be determined as related to the proposed project. What water district and/or Health Department policies (if any) apply to increase in water demand resulting from proposed rezoning and what mitigation measures can be employed to minimize impacts?" (CVA-83 RESPONSE ~13 The current impact as related to the proposed project cannot be determined at this time since as previously stated, the anticipated commencement of this project will not be until 1994/95 and there may (by that time) be none or minimal impact. In regard to increasing the water demand, see Response #9. Mitigation measures which could be employed to minimize "potential" impacts would be to utilize the most stringent water saving and conservation devices into the plumbing fixtures of the units being construction. In addition, as previously stated in the DEIS and its Addendum, limiting water use on lawns by utilizing alternative groundcover (such as iow-fertilizer, iow-maintenance vegetation, i.e., fine rescues, wild flower sod, bluegrass and perennial rye grass, etc.), which does not require intense watering, would also decrease water use. -13- COMMENT ~14 Public Water Supply Paqe V-2 "Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands." (VG-2) RESPONSE ~4 Water Demand Analysis: Daily Water Consumption - 171 (3 bedroom) units ~300 gpd = 51,300 GPD Peak Water Demand = (2 x daily demand) 51,300 GPD = 102,600 GPD Annual Demand - Daily anticipated consumption x 360 days = 51,300 GPD x 360 days = 18,468,000 gallons. Fire Flow Demand - 500 gpm/per hydrant -14- COMMENT Open Space Page V-9 "What affect will be the loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values, particularly in consideration of the degre~ of development proposed and occurring in the area. Will the project be visible from Long Island Sound, and can mitigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this vi~wshed." (CVA-9) RESPONSE ~15 Ther~ will be a minimum effect on the character of the surrounding community due to the loss of open space since the general area is either presently or proposed to be developed at a density comparable to the Jem Commons Project. In regard to the project being visible from the Long Island Sound, this will be minimal since construction will be taking place 100' landward of the bluff, the existing contours of the site decrease away from the Long Island Sound, and particularly since the vegetation along the bluff crest will not be disturbed and should maximize screening of the development. The visibility from the Long Island Sound would also depend on the size of the craft and the distance the craft is from offshore. In addition to the above, it must be noted that the lot sizes on the northern section of this site are greater than one quarter acre allowing for less visibility and greater open space. -15- COMMENT ~16 Land Use and Zoninq Paqe V-ll "The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Greenport hamlet should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already." (PB-1, JG-2) RESPONSE #16 Same as Response #1 & 2. -16- MITIGATION MEASURES COMMENT ~17 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Paqe VI-4 "Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and permanently natural open space on common areas, through covenants or other means. This is a possible mitigation measure for minimizing impact to terrestrial ecology of the site by maintaining the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and native type grasses." (CVA-iO) RESPONSE ~17 The Southold Town Zoning Code allows for clustering of residential units on parcels 20 acres or greater. This use of the clustering concept on the northern portion of this site will allow for an open space area of approximately 10 acres. This mitigation measure will minimize the impact to the terrestrial ecology of the site by maintaining the original type groundcover which may serve as a habitat for animal, bird life, and native type grasses. COMMENT ~18 Transportation Paqe VI-7 "What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis?" (CVA-11) -17- STATeMeNT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC, Environmental And Planning Consultants 54 N Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 DATE 5epsember 13, 1991 Southold Town Board Town of Southold P.u. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 DATE ] 9/13/91 #1031 ~1031 BALANCE FORWARD RE: Jem Commons Compile & synthesize c~ments on Draft EI$. 1 hr. @ $85.00/hr. $B5.00 $85.00 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWI~ OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y., Dr. 54-2 North Countrv Rd Miller Placej NY 11764 Fed. I. D. No ..................................... or Soc. Security No ......................... 9/13/91 RE: Jem Commons Invoice ~1031 Compile & synthesize com~eDts on Draft EIS The undersigned I~,al}ffi~hl~ I {Acting on behalf of above namedl :laimant) does hereby certify that the foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Dated ................. .s..e..~..t. ~.~q ~.:~.. ;1, ;L.., 19.2], ....... Signature JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATIST[CS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. [lox 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF ~HE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 1991 E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Jem Commons 5outhold commons Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Enclosed is the packet I faxed to you today, representing the comments on the Jem Commons and Southold Commons Draft ElS documents, as well as the attachments which I did not fax containing the codes referred to in Charles Voorhi.s' comments on the respective drafts. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures CC: Southold Town Board Southold Town Attorneys Howard E. Pachman, Esq. C. Russell, Middleton Environ. JUDITH T. TERRY OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX f$16~ 765-1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-i801 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: FROM: DATE: E.M. KONTOKOSTA Judith Terry September 13. 1991 Number of Pages (including cover): total transmittal is not received, please call (516)765-1801. COMMENTS: I will send hard copy to you, with copies to H. Pachman, and Middleton .... J. T. TP~hSH[SS~OII PEF~,PT :T,]4.1H OK SC'UTBOLD ' SEP LB '91 iJ:--'7 ) ~ E,~TE _--,TAPT REf'I,_',TE TEF'I 1ZfI~L I'l'--,£,E TIflE PE'SIJLTS T,:,TAL [,EPT, ~ '.~' T II,IE I £,EFiT l F Z,_~AT I,;,rt PA,SE_-- ,-,J[,£ J< · SEP 12 14:17 2liTE:SE©47 GE:ST 1Ll'Clq' t;,~ IJ :~ CRAMER, Vq~R HI~ ,,~/,~S OC IAT E S ENVIRONMENT~G....___ CONSULTANTS September 12, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 SEP 't 3 1991 Rc: Jem Commons Comments on the Draft EIS Dear Judy: As per the directive of the Town Board, we have compiled and synthesized the comments on the Draft EIS for Jem Commons. At this time it is necessary to complete a Final EIS on this project. ,As you are aware, it is the responsibility of the lead agency to determine the adequacy and accuracy of the Final EIS regardless of who prepares it. Based on the Work Session of September 10, 1991, the Town Board feels it would be most expedient and beneficial to direct the applicant to prepare a response to the comments generated as a result of the public hearing and written comments received to date. Once complete, the responses submitted on behalf of the applicant would be submitted to the Board to determine the adequacy and accuracy for filing of the Final EIS. Enclosed, please find all of the comments received in connection with this project. In order to provide the lead agency with a satisfactory preliminary Final EIS submission for rev/ew, it is recommended that the applicant complete the following: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) The Draft EIS need not be reproduced for the Final EIS, but may be incorporated by reference. All original comment letters and transcripts should be included as a portion of the Final EIS. Comments should be separated to identify whether the comments were received in the context of the hearing or as part of the written record. Comments should be annotated to indicate the source. Comments may be summarized without detracting from the nature, scope or intent of the comment. A response for each substantive comment must be provided. Responses should be accurate, consistent, and objective, and should be referenced to indicate source material for conclusions. The most encompassing comment document should be addressed first in the responses - subsequent comments which are duplicative may refer to a previous response. Attached are the comments on the Draft EIS for Jem Commons for your use. The applicant should proceed to prepare the required documentation in order to complete the processing of this application. SEQR Regulations indicate that a Final EIS should be prepared w/thin 45 days after the close of the public hearing; unless it is determined that 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 additional time is necessary to prepare the statement adequately. Based upon this, it is not necessary to adhere to the 45 day time frame, if the applicant requires additional time to provide an adequate and accurate response. Upon receipt of the preliminary Final EIS, we w/Il make every effort to review submitted documentation in a timely fashion in order to determine adequacy. Upon completion, the applicant should submit sufficient copies for the Board and consultant to review the Responses. The full number of documents needed for circulation should not be submitted until the document is determined to be acceptable by the lead ~yency. When determined to be complete, additional copies may be requested or prepared. ou have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. enc: Comments on the Draft ElS COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIS JEM COMMONS Greenport, New York INTRODUCTION The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as Southold Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17, 1991. Apublic hearing on the Draft EIS has been scheduled for August 13, 1991, and comments on the Draft document were accepted for a period of ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing. The document was circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providin~ comments on the document for use by the decision making agency in the preparation of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. At this time written comments and comments received as a result of testimony at the public hearing have been collected by the Town Board, and forwarded to Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. for review. This letter synthesizes and categorizes substantive comments on the Draft EIS. Comments on the Draft EIS and the Draft EIS Addendum are separated under subheadings as found below. In addition, the source for each of the comments is identified with the initials of the party that provided the comments, followed by consecutive numbers for each substantive comment made by that party. Comments were received from the following parties: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. (CVA) Village of Greenport (Superintendent of Utilities) (VG) Town of Southold Planning Board (PB) Jane Gohorel (JG) Public Hearing Transcripts, August 13, 1991 (T) The full text of comments is included as an attachment. The tent is annotated in order to identify each substantive comment by number. The comments have been synthesized in the following section, and the source for each comment is provided. COMMENTS ON THE DRAI~ ElS DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Comment 1: Public Need for ~ Pa_.0gg III-5. The Draft EIS notes that the project addresses a long term need ~- 'n the Town of Southold; however, the project is currently under review and the need should be related to expected demand at the conclusion of the review process. Has the downturn in the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate housing considering the current availability of lower priced housing, and what affect does this have on the stated need for this project at the time of proposed buildout? (CVA-1) CRAMER, V ,O~ ~ASOCIATES ENVIRONMENT/~[~~G CONSULTANTS Page 1 Jem Commons Comments on the Draft ElS Comment 2: Public Need for Project. ~ III-5. The Town Board has been asked by thc sponsor of another fiffordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Green. port) to allow the homes to be sold on the open m~rket because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Planning Board position is that the change of zone will not meet the affordable housing needs of the Town. (PB-2, JG-1) Comment 3: Design and Layout: Total $it~ Area, Page III-13. The Draft ElS states "The roads are proposed to be 24+' wide constructed in accordance with the town of Southold High. way Specifications and to include continuous recharge swa(,es on e~ther side as well as leaching pools in each Iow section of the road... '. Please explore the feasibility of this drainage design as compared to recharge basins. If both methods are feasible, please include a brief assessment of the environmental considerations for each ~y~Ve of design in either this section or a latter section of the Draft EIS. A-2) Comment 4: Total Site Area. Page III-13. The proposed project proposes connection to the Greenport Village sanitary system. The Draft EIS indicated that the district did not have sufficient capacity; however, the capacity is being expanded to accommodate additional projects. Please provide an update with regard to the Village STP capacity and plans for expansion, as related to the project. For the purpose of the Final EIS, please outline the expected form of sanitary disposal. (CVA-3) Comment 5: Total Site Area, Page III-13. The Trustees for the Village of Greenport have passed a resolution creating a moratorium on sewer hookups, effective, February 21, 1991, for a period of one year. (VG-3, JG-3, T- 2) Conu-nent 6: Design ~ Layout - Land to be Cleared. Page III-13, Beyond stating the intent of the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants might be employed as a mitigation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession, particularly on individual lots? What is the proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetation is proposed to be present subsequent to development? (CVA-4) Comment 7: Construction and Operation. Page III-14, Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanitary connection and utility installation, specifically identifying intent regarding phasing, number of units, road access, m/tigatmn and improvements. (CVA-5) Comment 8: Approvals. III-17. A letter was received from the Suffolk County Department of Plarm/ng, dated May 3, 1990, which was read into the Page 2 Jem Commons Commen~ on the Dral~ ElS record at the Draft ElS public hearing for Jem Commons. This letter is included as Appendix K in the Draft EIS and was considered during the preparation of the Draft document. (T-l) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Comment 9: Water Resources - Water ~ P_gg.~ IV-10. The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from previous discussions in theDraft EIS. What is the current andpredicted water supply availability for the proposed project? (CVA-6) Comment 10: Water ~: W0ter S_u_gg~ P_O.~ IV-10. The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At thi.s, point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District s additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity. (VG-1, JG-3) Comment 11: Traffic. Page IV-21. With the addition of high density land use in the area of the proposed project site (including the development under construction and the proposed project), additional pedestrian activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedestrian environment and what mitigation measures can be used to minimize these impacts? (CVA-7) SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Comment 13: Public Water Suoolv. ~ V-2. The Draft EIS indicates that public water supply is a resou}/:e-which will potentially be impacted. The current impact should be determined as related to the proposed project. What water district and/or Health Department policies (if any)apply to increase in water demand resulting from proposed rezoning and what mitigation measures can be employed to minimize impacts? (CVA-8) Comment 14.' Public Water Supvlv. P_ag~ V-2. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the apphc'afit show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. (VG-2) Comment 15: ~ Soace. Paee V-9, What affect will the loss of open space have on the charact&r of the ~urrounding community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values, particularly in consideration of the degree of development proposed and occurring in the area. Will the project be Page 3 Comment 16: Comments on the Draft ElS visible from Long Island Sound, and can mitigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this viewshed. (CVA-9) Land Use and Zoning. Pa_ag.~ V-11. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Greenport hamlet should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. (PB-1, JG-2) MITIGATION MEASURES Comment 17: Terrestrial and ~ Ecolo~. Page VI-4, Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and perrnanently natural open space on common areas, through covenants or other means. This is a possible mitigation measure for minimizing impact to terrestrial ecology of the site by maintaining the original t~pe ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird life, and nanve type grasses, (CVA- 10) Comment 18: Transportation. Page VI-7, What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis? (CVA-11) Comment 19: Land Use and Zoning. Pa~g~ VI-7~, The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, '...landscaping and plantings, especially street trees, and other related types of landscaping that wouM trcm~form the developed site into a pleasing visual impact." What landscape improvements can be incorporated into the subdivision and infrastructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement. (CVA-12) Comment 20: Public Water Supply. Page VI-7. With the update of the water su. pply status for the Final EIS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. (CVA-13) ADDENDUM TO DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION Comment 21: Additional Alternatives - R-40 Cluster. Page 11, The discussion regarding the configuration of units associated with an R-40 Cluster Development is over simplified. The comparative impact assessment reasons that clustering which preserves the old field is not acceptable because the old field will cease to exist due to succession. Further the discussion concludes that clustering to the south near Route 48 is not acceptable due to marketability and visual impacts, and clustering to the north is not acceptable due to steep slope areas. The concept of clustering 62 CRAMER, V~ ¢/ASOCIATES ENViRON M ENT.~,/~G CONSULTANTS Page 4 Comment 22: Comment 23: Jem Commons Comments on the Draft EIS units on the 62 acre sit is to preserve, not destroy environmental resources. A more viable evaluation could involve clustering 62 units on 30,000 square foot lots in the central portion of the site, allowing for preservation of nearly 20 acres of land, while providing a marketable sized lot under the increase in site density from what is presently allowed. This would allow for preservation of visual and slope sensitive areas to the north, and would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded and grassland areas adjacent Route 48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town if dedicated. A comparative alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the Final EIS. (CVA-14) Additional Alternatives: STP, Page 13. The Addendum indicates that "...small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size... ". Please describe the type of operational problems such plants have been documented as having, and relate to the environmental consequences with regard to the proposed project. (eVA-15) Alternatives - STP, Page 13. Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered. (VG-4) Page 5 r- CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATE3~ ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS ~ro~?~: Date: Scott Harris, Supervisor . , Town Board of the Town of Soumo a Cramer, Voorhis and Associa?, Inc. August 13, 1991 ./'em Commons Review of the Draft EIS The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS), for the project known as ffem Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17, 1991. A nublic h._arin~, on t.h.e Dra,t ElS has been scheduled for August 13 1991 and comments on t~e, Draft document gill be accepted for a p'eriod of ten (10) days after the close of the punic hearing. The document has been circulated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the ~ur~ose of prov'd'ng comments on the document for use bv the decision making agency in th~ greparauon of a Final EIS, and ultimately a de6ision on the project. A copy of the Draft ElS as been submitted to Cromer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. (CVA), as consultants to Town Board, for review of the SEQR documentation. This letter constitutes tile review of the Draft ElS for Iem Commons by C~. ,The following comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are proxided. DR-SFT ENVIRON'5. IENTAL 1MPA~T ~ST:kTE.MENT DESCRIFTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Publf¢ ~ ~ Proiect ~ ITT-~ The Draft ElS notes that the project addresses a Ion=~ term need ~n the Town of Southold; however the proie, ct is currently under review and the need shoul~ be rela~ed to ~xpeeted deman~ at the conclusion of the review process. Has tM ~g~ - I downturn m the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate ~us~g c?s~derm~ th~ 5u~rent~ada~hty o~ lower priced housing, and what affect noes m~s nave on the s~ateo nee~ for tn~s project at the time of proposed buildout? The qraft EIS.s~tes 'The ro~ areproposed to be 2~ 'wide co~t~acted bt accoraance wlt~ lite to~v~ of Southold ~glm..~, ~veciflc~,iomwN to incl~e combmou rechaBe swales on either side ~ ~,el[ as teachino n~nIe ; ..... t , ., . . S ca ..... ~ ............ ~,-v o, ,ms oramage ~estgn as comonred to rechhrge b~ins. If bo.t~ methods ar5 feasible, p ease incbde a brief asse?sm~nt of the e~vironmental cons~aerations for ~ach ty~e ofdesignin either this secaon or alatter s~cdon of the Draft EIS. CV~-Z 54 r.,:O~TH COUNTIqY ROAD, MILLE=. P~C=' ' ¢ NY 11764 (5".$1 331.1455 Page I of 4 Review of DeMI The proposed project proposes connection to the Greersport Village sanharv system The Dra£t EI$ indicated that the district did not have ~uff dent canackv' ho{rearer capacity is being expanded to accommodate additiona) ro'ects iJieas~' rovide ' '"~ · , ~, . p ~ . p an update wah regard to the 1, ilia e STP capaot and lans for ex ansion ~ relat · , Y P . P . ed to the.prelect. For the purpose o~gthe Final EIS, please outhne the expected form of sanitary disposal· 4. ~ an¢ Layout: !and to be Cleared ~ I11-13 Beyond stating the intent of the project eponsor to limit c!earin,, what cove-a,,t~ m~ght be employed as a mmganon measure to ensure reduct on of extensive lawn areas and promote natural succession, particularly on individual lots"/ What is the. proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetatma is proposed to be present subsequent to development? 5. .Constmcti0r~ ~ Qperafion a, P2~ liT-'/. 4, Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanitary connection and utility installation, specifically identifying intent regarding phasing, number of units, road access, mitigation and'improvements. ENWIRONMENTAL SETTING ~ Resourceoi: ":Va t¢r Supgly P__age ]'V- 1 O' The cu.rrent, status of water suppl.',' should be discussed and updated from previous disc..us?~ns [n the Draft EIS. What is t~'~e current and predicted wau'r suvr>lv avana~,ility .~or the proposed project? ' "~ Tr 8 ffi~; ~ ~ ..W/th t.h.e addition of high density land use in the area of the proposed project site (including the.development under construction and the proposed project), additiona! ~P~ddeeSslfllnn Ir~i~'otYn~ee?ect,ed;, W.ha.t !~p. act will,, the proposed project have On the v _ t and ~nat mm,anon me-sure$ can be used to minimiz,,, these ~mpact$7 SIGNIFICAJ~"r ENW'IRON~IEN~rAL IMPACTS 8. Public Water Supply ~ ~ ~-e, he Draft EIS indicates that public x~ ator su,,-l,, i~ a res'-u .... ~-'.,- r,, , .. ,,, imoacted "~ecu,-re,,~; ......~.~..,_5,_ 'TirY' fi' ~%wm.ca~mpotcmmib . - ..-" . .... ,,,,vnet ~,uu-,u ue uetermmeo as related to tile proDose project. What water district and/or Health Department policies (if any) apply to d ,ncrease in water demand resuhmg from proposed rezonmg and What mits a l measures can be employed to mimmize impacts7 g t on 10. Open Space Page V-9 What affect w/Il thc loss of open space have on the c . '. ' . har.-cter et the surroundmg Page 2 ot 4 Cv,4 - 7 ~:V4. -$ Review of Drrfft EIS community in terms of visual and aesthetic open space values, particularly in consideration of the degree of development proposed and, occurring in the area. Will the project be visible from Long Island Sound, and can muigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this v/.ewshed, c MITIGATION MEASLrRES I0. Terrestrlal ~n4 Aquatic Ecolnk'y' Pcg¢ VI-4 11. Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and permanently natural open space on common areas, through covenants or other means. This is a possible mitigation measure for minimizing impact to terrestrial ecology of the site by ma!ntaining the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird I,fe, and native b'pe grasses. Transportation ~ VI-7 12. Wttat mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis? eVA -II /~-nd Use ~ Zoning ~ Vl-7 The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include "...landscaping and planting, r, es£ecially street trees, end o'ther related tWes of landxcapi;?qg that woald trar~l'or~ .the developed . slt~'~ bltO a teasblg. . v~ua~.. . .impact. " What landscape ~mprov~mcnls can be InCOrporated '.n:o lite subdivision and Intrastructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantin_% common area enhancement (for 86- ,-. , ,-, unit alternauve), t..v tr.. 13. Public W~ler Supply ~ .Vi-7 With the update of the water supply status for the Final EI5, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. /~DDENDI~__!~ TO .DEI$ FOR ~])IJTI-IOLD COMMONS PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. 3d0itional Alternativez - ~-dQ Cluster ~ ~ ~e ~is~ssi~ regarding t)e con[~guradon of units associated whh an R-40 Cluster Velopmem ~s over s~mphfied. The comparative impact assessment reasons that clustering xyhi~h presemes t~e old field is no~ acceptable because the old fie d will cede to ex~st ~ue to success~ofi. Further she dis~ssion concl,udes ?ar clustering to the south near Route 48 is no. acceptable due to marketabiIi.7 aha visu~I impacts, and clustering 1o the north is not acceptable due to $teeo slope areas clustering 6- umt~ on the 62 acre s~t ~s go presence, not ~estro7 env~roamental resources. A more viable evaluation could invo ye clusterinr 6v units on ~n nnn square foot lots in t~e central port'on o~ the site, allowing fo7 pYesema, Page 3 of 4 eva 20 acres of land, while pro,riding a marketa,ble sized lot under the/ncrea'se in site density from what is presently allowed. Th~s would allow for preservation of visual and slope sensitive areas to the north, and would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded andgrassland areas adjac, ent Route 48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town. it' dedicated. A comparatwe alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the F, nal EIS.. 2, Additional ,Mternatives: ~;TI~ ~ J..,3_ The Addendum indicates that "...small ca.~aci~ sewage treatment ~lants tend to have o.oerating,~roblems due to rheirsLze...". Please describe the type or operational pro.blems such plants have been, documented as having, and-relate to the61r~. -t ~ environmental consequences w~th regard to the proposed project. Pagc 4 of 4 236 THIRD STREET · P.O~ BOX 2095 GREENPORT~ NEW YORK 1194-1 au~Just 2 1 t 1991 Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk 53005 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: e.J~.~:e~%~y~Company (Jem Commons) "No~[h'-R~Greenport SCTM: 1000/35/1/24 Dear Mrs. Terry: This will acknowledge receipt of the July 17, 1991 SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with respect to the referenced proposed action. WATER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this proposed project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess'capacity. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. S ESVER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Sewer System. Enclosed is a copy of a February 21, 1991 Resolution of the Board of Trustees for the Village of Greenport which is self explanatory. Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered. V~ry. truly yours, James Monsell Superintendent of Utilities WHEREAS the Village Board is concerned about the system'~ ability to m~et future demands, and WHEREAS the Village of Greenport Sewer system is the subject of a consent order with NYSOEC and the subject of comprehensive emergency studies in continuing the ongoing improvement expansion project, and NOW T][EREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village Board will al low no further connections for sewer service to be located outside the inco[po,ated limits; all present contracts will be honored, ~nd BE IT FURTHER ~ESOLVED that the Village Board will require study for any co~ercial or industrial consumer withim the Village limits, and that this Resolution is not intended to prohibit connection to the system by single residential units SE [T FURTHER RESOLVED that the moratorium provided herein shall take effect February 21, 1991 for a period of one year for the ,late heteo~. Roll Call: Trustee Allen yes Trustee Cor~in Yes Trustee Horton Yes Trustee Clarke Yes Mayor Hubbard Yes Motion made by Trustee Clarke, seconded by Trustee Allen and carried to suthorize the Village Attorney to commence ~lth a draft of a water contract for Summit Estates, 35 Home Development on Ship Yard Lane. MaFor Hubbard: Any questions? George, I ~m going to vote against this. I feel that we have that study ............ Motion made by Trustee Allen, seconded by Trustee Clarke to acknouledge report from H2M ~lth regard to the sidewalks rehabilitation at Adamm, Main and Front Streets. Mayor Hubbard: Any questions? Tr. Hofton: Yes, where is the money to pay for that report coming from? Hayor Hubbard: Good question. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Lathes, Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-19~8 PLANNIN~ BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO~'T L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Mas Road PO. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Members of the Town Board Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~p.~$ Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements for Southold Commons, Southold SCTM and for~a~.~/5~8~eenport zooo-o s-l- August 13, 1991 With regard to each of the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's position on this proposed chanqe of zone remains as it w~ in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zon~will not meet the affordable housing needs of this Town. / 21 August 1991 East Marion, N. Y. The Town Board To~n of Southold Town Hall, Southold Main Road, 11971 Dear Sirs: The proposal by developer Kontakosta to build some 316 "homes" in Greenport and Southold, dependent upon not one, but two, zone changes in both sections, in each case downgrading the area, is outrageous. The Master Plan, painstakingly wrought over a long period--and considered by many residents to be flawed in some respects--was designed to guard against this kind of blatant misuse of our open space and fragile ecology. Such zoning restrictions as we have are there to be enforced and to protect Southold Town from unv~arranted and chaotic development. It appears, at least to this ~riter, that the developer, with pure profit motives, is ouC to exploit to the maximum these two properties in the guise of providing "affordable housing" We have read recently--and it seems documented--that perhaps this kind of new housing is not really affordable for local young people, or elderly pu6ple; and therefore that alternatives such as rehabilitating existing housing and empty structures should be considered. In fact, recent newspaper surveys bring into question the purported need for new "affordable" housing. The Cedar Fields project in Greenport is an example. Few prospecive buyers have been able to qualify. It is rumored that the developers, unable to ~ unload properties, have bought in for their own families. In the case of the 20 acres along the Sound in Greenport, what can be possibly the justification for down-zoning from 2 to 1 acre for "luxury housing"? And then, how can the 1-own sanction ali those other hOUSeS, more than 100, on 1/4-acre lots when the zoning calls for 2-acre lots? This would be a betrayal of all that we have worked and hoped for. There are very serious reasons for 2-acre zoning--for heavens sake, we've been through all this for years now! Can the law be overturned with not even an extensive SEQRA study, just an affirmative nodfrom the To~vn Board? It was reported that the protesting residents at the hearing did not address the main issue, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so concerned were they with the encroachment on their open space, the danger to groundwater, the down-gracing of their area, traffic, noise, pollution, and the violation of the Master ~lan. If ~his is not environmental impact, what is? These citizens of Sout~old Town deserve to be listened to. It is they who will pay- higher taxes each time a development of this type is allowed; their quality - 2 - of life will diminish, as will the special aura and attraction of the North Fork. Mr. Kontakosta has blithely ahnounced that water and sewer hook-ups will be provided by Greenport Village, yet that Village, with all it can handle and more at the moment, has proclaimed a morator~em on any new requests outside its borders.,.. Please heed the Planning Board's negative recommendation and deny the two requested zone changes. Sincerely, ~Jane Gohorel PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD August 13, 1991 4:30 P.M. IN~~T_._H~,E_~J~I~-'r=~T"E;R OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY.~[~JE~-~It!f~COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE. Present: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George I_. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Latson Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This is a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Companywith respect to petition for a Change of Zone. The proof of publication, and verification will be read by Councilman Tom Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 4:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the 5outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from [2) "R-BO" Residential Low Density District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on fife in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: July 17, 1991. Judith T. Terry. Southold Town Clerk." I have before me an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, that she has affixed a notice to the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, here in Southold Town Hall, duly stating this Environmental Impact Statement. We, also, have a legal notice that appeared in The Traveler-Watchman, and another one that has appeared in The Suffolk Times. Communications, I have one communication in front of me from. . memorandum from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold to, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, from Bennett Orlowski, J~::, Chairman of the Planning Board regarding the Review of the Draft Environmental Impact State for Jem Realty, dated August 13, 1991. With regard to each of Pcj 2- PH DEI£ Jem Realty the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that ~ave received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable imits to the County's program, and proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's postion on this proposed change of zone remains as it was in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zone will not meet the afordable housing needs of this Town. That was dated the 13th of August. We, also, have a letter dated May 3, 1990, from the Department of Planning of the County of Suffolk. Dear Mrs. Terry, Pursuant to the requirement of Section A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: 1. The total number of dwelling units/lots shall not exceed 170, preferably less; 2. The sales price of twenty (20%} percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in "f'~ accordance with the requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3, The parcels shall be developed jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emer- gency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisals of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. There is a footnote on this that the motion failed to carry. This was a review of the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve it subject to those conditions. However, there's a footnote that the motion failed to carry. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning. We, also, have a memo from the Southold Town Planning Board, dated March 27, 1990. The Planning Board wishes to go on record as apposing this change of zone application. Following if the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petiton. I have, also, before me the schedule A, that outlines the mets and bounds of this applicant. That's all that I have with me. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We also have one other document, that came in, that should be entered into the record. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This a letter addressed to Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the The Town of Southold, regarding Jem Commons Review of the Draft ElS. Dear Scott: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the Final ElS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft ElS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants. These are rather lengthy. The Town Clerk has proposed that they be photocopied, and made available to everybody. Pg ] PH DEIS Jem Realty TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's especially true since they relate to specific pages of the DEIS, and unless people had the DEIS in front of them, and I don't as matter of fact, I can't relate to what sections they refer to. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: These comments will be available in the Town Clerk's Office. Thank you, Tom. At this time, this part of the public hearing is for the public to give imput in reference to this public hearing, and environmental assessment. At this time, I~d like to turn it over,) Is there any members of the audience, that would like to address this, and make comments on the record? If so, would you please come forward to the microphone, and state your name, please. STEPHEN CLARK: Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Clark. I represent the Village of Greenport. I wish to make remarks on two topics here. One in regard to a request for sewer issue. At the present time the Village of Greenport has a moratorium on hookups to our sewer plant. We can respond this, and then we'll probably respond to this in writing. The second is we are grafting at the present time a complete, and somewhat detailed response, regarding a water supply, the impact on the water supply managed by the Village of Greenport, and you will get that in writing sometime within ten days. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other members? The applicant will make a comment on the record. HOWARD PACHMAN: I just want to indicate for the record, that on behalf of the applicant Jem Commons Realty Company. My name is Howard Pachman. I'm the attorney for the applicant, and I just wanted to let the Board know, that we are present. The principal Mr. Kontokosta is here. We, also, have present with us the agency, that prepared our Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Middleton Environmental Inc., Donald Middleton the principal, and the project person, Catherine Russell, so are here to hear what is being said, and we hope that after the Board concludes the public hearing, we'll have an opportunity to review the items, that you read into the record, which we hadn't seen before, and obviously we would be pleased to, after we see the record transcribed to respond to any statements, that are made publicly at this particular meeting. Thank you very much. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Howard, one quick question, on a preparation of a FEIS, if it's the feeling of the Board, that they wish to have Cramer & Voorhis do the FEIS, what's your clients position in that regard as far as funding? I just went through that with another applicant here, where there were some divergence, and we felt that there was an agreement between counsel, someone you know quite well, and that it would be best if left in the hand of Cramer & Voorhis, and they did the final based upon the information imparted to them by the individuals who do the DEIS. I'm not saying that's what this Board wants to do. I just want to know what your clients position would be. You don't have to comment now, but I would ask you to take that under advisement. HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like to reserve making a comment until I consult with my client. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to give you a response without having spoken to them. ,. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Fine. I just wanted to present that to you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Town Attorney, I would assume that you will consult with your client also. Pg ~l - PH DEl::; Jem t-'~ealty TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Oh yes, I just wanted to know what position there was in regard to it, and I wanted to plant the seed, that's all. I was doing that, because we had problem that went on a long time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other comments for this public hearing? (No response.) If not, I'll declare this public hearing closed. Judith T. Terry~ Southold Town Clerk HOVV,%RD [';. P,%.GHi'-,I,,%N. P. September 4, 1991 Office of Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Ho× ll79 SEP § 1991 Southold, New York 11971 ATT: Judith T. Terry, Clerk RE: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Ms. Terry: Thank you for forwarding to me August 29, 1991, to Charles J. above captioned matter. a copy of your letter of Voorhis, with regard to the Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting because Tuesday, September 10, 1991, is the second day of the Jewish Rosh Hashanah. In any event, my client will be present at that meeting, as well as a representative of Middleton Environmental. My client will advise me as to what took place at the meeting. I would greatly appreciate your forwarding a copy of the minutes of the meeting so that I may review them. Thank you for your continued cooperation. Very truly yours, HOWARD E. PACCHMAN HEP/ms cc Emanuel Kontakosta JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF ".'[TAL ST&T[$TI('S 3. IARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD T~wn Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo[d. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone {5161 765-180[ August 29, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Chick: This is to confirm our telephone conversation of this date, scheduling 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 10, 1991, Southold Town Hall, to meet with the Town Board in their work session to discuss the next steps, and certain questions the Board has with respect to the environmental process of Jem Commons and Southold Commons. I am enclosing herewith a copy of your August 13, 1991 review of each DEIS, the Planning Board's comments of August 13, 1991, letters received during the comment period from Jane Gohorel and the Village of Greenport, and the minutes of the public hearings on each DEIS. By copy of this letter I am also sending those enclosures and notifying Mr. Kontokosta, Middleton Environmental, and Howard Pachman, Esq. of the scheduled September 10th meeting, and inviting them to be present to listen to and observe the Town Board's discussion with you. Very truly yours, $outhold Town Clerk Enclosures CC: E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. C. Russell, Middleton Envir. Howard Pachman, Esq. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD August 13, 1991 4:30 P.M. IN THE MATTER OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JEM REALTY COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO PETITION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE. Present Supervisor Scott L. Harris Justice Raymond W. Edwards Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva Councilwoman Ellen M. Latson Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff SUPERVISOR HARRIS: This is a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to petition for a Change of Zone. The proof of publication, and verification will be read by Councilman Tom Wickham. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 4:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low Density District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (lqacre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Dated: July 17, 1991. Judith T. Terry. Southold Town Clerk." I have before me an affidavit from Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, that she has affixed a notice to the Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, here in Southold Town Hall, duly stating this Environmental Impact Statement. We, also, have a legal notice that appeared in The Traveler-Watchman, and another one that has appeared in The Suffolk Times. Communications, I have one communication in front of me from..memorandum from the Planning Board of the Town of Southold to, Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, from Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman of the Planning Board regarding the Review of the Draft Environmental Impact State for Jem Realty, dated August 13, 1991. With regard to each of Pg 2- PH DEIS Jem Realty the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues~ 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable imits to the County's program, and proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's postion on this proposed change of zone remains as it was in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zone will not meet the afordable housing needs of this Town. That was dated the 13th of August. We, also, have a letter dated May 3, 1990, from the Department of Planning of the County of Suffolk. Dear Mrs. Terry, Pursuant to the requirement of Section A14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve* it subject to the following: 1. The total number of dwelling units/lots shall not exceed 170, preferably less; 2. The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3. The parcels shall be developed jointly preferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emer- gency vehicular access shall be available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisals of need; and, 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. There is a footnote on this that the motion failed to carry. This was a review of the above captioned application and after due study and deliberation considered a motion to approve it subject to those conditions. However, there's a footnote that the motion failed to carry. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning. We, also, have a memo from the Southold Town Planning Board, dated March 27, 1990. The Planning Board wishes to go on record as apposing this change of zone application. Following if the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petiton. I have, also, before me the schedule A, that outlines the mets and bounds of this applicant. That's all that I have with me. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We also have one other document, that came in, that should be entered into the record. COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: This a letter addressed to Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the The Town of Southold, regarding Jem Commons Review of the Draft ElS. Dear Scott: We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report. Please review this information with the Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward same to the applicant to be addressed in the Response to Comments, for inclusion in the Final ElS for this project. If you have any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft ElS, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Very truly yours, Charles J. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants. These are rather lengthy. The Town Clerk has proposed that they be photocopied, and made available to everybody. Pg 3 - PH DEIS Jem Realty TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: That's especially true since they relate to specific pages of the DEIS, and unless people had the DEIS in front of them, and I don't as matter of fact, I can't relate to what sections they refer to. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: These comments will be available in the Town Clerk's Office. Thank you, Tom. At this time, this part of the public hearing is for the public to give imput in reference to this public hearing, and environmental assessment. At this time, I'd like to turn it over. Is there any members of the audience, that would like to address this, and make comments on the record? If so, would you please come forward to the microphone, and state your name, please. STEPHEN CLARK: Good afternoon. My name is Stephen Clark. I represent the Village of Greenport. I wish to make remarks on two topics here. One in regard to a request for sewer issue. At the present time the Village of Greenport has a moratorium on hookups to our sewer plant. We can respond this, and then we'll probably respond to this in writing. The second is we are grafting at the present time a complete, and somewhat detailed response, regarding a water supply, the impact on the water supply managed by the Village of Greenport, and you will get that in writing sometime within ten days. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other members? The applicant will make a comment on the record. HOWARD PACHMAN: I just want to indicate for the record, that on behalf of the applicant Jem Commons Realty Company. My name is Howard Pachman. I'm the attorney for the applicant, and I just wanted to let the Board know, that we are present. The principal Mr. Kontokosta is here. We, also, have present with us the agency, that prepared our Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Middleton Environmental Inc., Donald Middleton the principal, and the project person, Catherine Russell, so are here to hear what is being said, and we hope that after the Board concludes the public hearing, we'll have an opportunity to review the items, that you read into the record, which we hadn't seen before, and obviously we would be pleased to, after we see the record transcribed to respond to any statements, that are made publicly at this particular meeting. Thank you very much. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Howard, one quick question, on a preparation of a FEIS, if it's the feeling of the Board, that they wish to have Cramer & Voorhis do the FEIS, what's your clients position in that regard as far as funding? I just went through that with another applicant here, where there were some divergence, and we felt that there was an agreement between counsel, someone you know quite well, and that it would be best if left in the hand of Cramer & Voorhis, and they did the final based upon the information imparted to them by the individuals who do the DEIS. I'm not saying that's what this Board wants to do. I just want to know what your clients position would be. You don't have to comment now, but I would ask you to take that under advisement. HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like to reserve making a comment until I consult with my client. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to give you a response without having spoken to them. TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Fine. I just wanted to present that to you~ SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Mr. Town Attorney, I would assume that yot~ will consult with your client also. Pg 4 - PH DEIS Jem Realty TOWN ATTORNEY ARNOFF: Oh yes, I just wanted to know what position there was in regard to it, and I wanted to plant the seed, that's all. I was doing that, because we had problem that went on a long time. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Are there any other comments for this public hearing? (No response.) If not, I'll declare this public hearing closed. Judith T. Terry(J Southold Town Clerk OfficcT$ ~LLa~ae of ,~t'een, pot'[ · ~.,--'6 '~ s t A N .'"~"~ 236 THIRD STREET · P.O. BOX 2005 GREENPORT. NEW YORK 11944 ~UCJUSt 21, 1991 RECEIVED Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk 53005 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 AU6 2 2 199] Re: Jem Realty Company (Jem Commons) North Road Greenport SCTM: 1000/35/1/24 Dear Mrs. Terry: This will acknowledge receipt of the July 17, 1991 SEQR Notice of Completion of Draft EIS and the accompanying Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) with respect to the referenced proposed action. WATER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be required for this proposed project. Numerous factors effect the District's capacity to provide water including but not limited to the life style of the users, the weather, standards of water quality, requirements of other agencies, growth within the water district, the district's ability to locate new sources and the quality of those sources. Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity. Regarding the DEIS, the district would request the applicant show analysis for additional gallonage required at peak day and peak hour of usage. There should also be information relative to fire flow demands. SEWER APPLICATION The DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Sewer System. Enclosed is a copy of a February 21, 1991 Resolution of the Board of Trustees for the Village of Greenport which is self explanatory. Anticipated more stringent ~equirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Greenport Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered. ~James Monsell Superintendent of Utilities RESOLUT.ION WHEREAS the Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant has load obligations near the design capacity of the Plant, and WHEREAS the village of Greenport Sewage System must serve the Incorporated Village of Greenport, and WHEREAS the Village of the Oreenport Sewage System has some connections outside the Village served by Special Contract only, WHEREAS the Village Board is concerned about the system's ability to meet futu£e d~mands, and WHEREAS the Viliag~ of G£eenport Sewer system i= the subject of a consent order with NYSDEC and the subject of comprehensive emergency studies in continuing the ongoing improvement e~panslon project, and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Village Board will allow no further connections for sewer service to be located outside the incorpozated limits; all present contracts will be honored, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Village Board will require a study for any co~erciil o~ industrial consumer within the Village limits, and that this Resolution is not intended to prohibit connection to the system by single ~esidential unlt~ within the Village Limits, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the moratorium provided hereill shall take effect February 21, 1991 for a period of one yea£ for the date hereof. Roll Call: Trustee Allen Yes Trustee Corwin Yes Trustee Horton Yes T~ustee Clarke Yes Mayor Hubbard Yes Motion made by Trustee Clarke, seconded by Trustee Allen a~d carried to authorize the Village Attorney to cor~mence ~ith a draft of a water contract for Summit Estates, 35 Home Development on Ship Yard Lane. Mayor Hubbard: Any questions? George. I am going to vote against this. I feel that we ha~e that study ........... Motion made by Trustee Allen, seconded by Trustee Clarke to acknowledge r~port ~rom H~M with regard to the sidewalks zehabilitation at Adams, Main and Front Streets. Yes, where is the money to pay for that report eominq from? Mayor Huhbazd: ~ood question. RE IVED AUG 2 2 1991 21 August 1991 East Marion, N. Y The Town Board To~m of Southold Town Hall, Southold Main Road, 11971 Dear Sirs: The proposal by developer Kontakosta to build some 316 "homes" in Greenport and Southold, dependent upon not one, but two, zone changes in both sections, in each case downgrading the area, is outrageous. The Master Plan, painstakingly wrought over a long period--and considered by many residents to be flawed in some respects--was designed to guard against this kind of blatant misuse of our open space and fragile ecology. Such zoning restrictions as we have are there to be enforced and to protect Southold Town from unwarranted and chaotic development. It appears, at least to this writer, that the developer, with pure profit motives, is out to exploit to the maximum these two properties in the guise of providing "affordable housing". We have read recently--and it seems documented--that perhaps this kind of new housing is not really affordable for local young people, or elderly p~ple; and therefore that alternatives such as rehabilitating existing housing and empty structures should be considered. In fact, recent newspaper surveys bring into question the purported need for new "affordable" housing. The Cedar Fields project in Greenport is an example. Few prospecive buyers have been able to qualify. It is rumored that the developers, unable to unload properties, have bought in for their own families. In the case of the 20 acres along the Sound in Greenport, what can be possibly the justification for down-zoning from 2 to 1 acre for "luxury housing"? And then, how can the l'own sanction ali those o~h~r houses, more than 100, on 1/4-acre lots when the zoning calls for 2-acre lots? This would be a betrayal of all that we have worked and hoped for. There are very serious reasons for 2-acre zoning--for heavens sake, we've been through all this for years now! Can the law be overturned with not even an extensive SEQRA study, just an affirmative nodfrom the Town Board? It was reported that the protesting residents at the hearing did not address the main issue, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, so concerned were they with the encroachment on their open space, the danger to groundwater, the down-grading of their area, traffic, noise, pollution, and the violation of the Master Blan. If this is not environmental impact, what is? These citizens of Southold Town deserve to be listened to. It is they who will pay higher taxes each time a development of this type is allowed; their quality - 2 - of l~fe will diminish, as will the special aura and attraction of the North Fork, Mr. Kontakosta has blithely announced that water and sewer hook-ups w~ll be provided by Greenport Village, yet that Village, with all it can handle and more at the moment, has proclaimed a moratorium on any new requests outside its borders.,.. Please heed the Planning Board's negative recommendation and deny the two requested zone changes. Sincerely, STATEMENT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental And Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 DATE_AUqUSt 14. 1991 (516) 331-1455 P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, N.Y. 11971 DATE 8/14/91 #1018 ~1019 BALANCEFORWARD [~ RE: Jem Co~%mon s Draft EiS Review Completion of critical review of Draft EiS of above referenced project. $1250.00 $1250.00 ~ CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. August 14 1~ 91 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N. Y:, Dr. To.., _c_r..~..?.r_ .,..?. 9.r.'.n!,?.,.. E. ~ .s.~.gq .i~v._?. s..:, ~ _n.c.: .................... ~ ..... Claimant Fed. I. D. No ..................................... or Soc. Security No ......................... 8/14/91 RE: Jem Commons Invoice ~ 1018 Completion of critical review of Draft EIS of above referenced DroSect. ~ , / The undersigned (EJ~'~X) (Acting on behalf of above named Claimant) does hereby certify that the ICros~ oul one) foregoing claim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing, Dated ..................... ~5E~%..~ ...... 19...~ ..... Signature -ILE NIJMBER:~P14758OO--OOO96i~]!Town of $OUTHO[.D, SUFFOLK Co~nt-y ........ .EAD A6ENCY:i?ii?!i47.381:8!!!!i!!i!?iii???!ii!!iiilTown of SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK County .............................................................. · .....: ....:.....::.....: ........ :.. :.::...:::...CL As o. ::::U.:..Un i z ~ t ed.-:.........::.... :.....::.. :GEN~R Z c b Z %, ~:;.::Commemc J ,~ I "' ~-¢::Pr~va~e []then Uo~e~tqm ~:::: :...::::.::Dm~f~ D I~:::.:::::~::::~:...::~.:::::.::~::..:::::...~...::~:..:::~..:::.~/~/9~.:..:.:::::.::.~ages:... ]~5:::, .::::.:..:...:.::.. :::.:.:::....:.:.:..:. .......... .::...::::........:..:::..:::::.::::....:. :..=...H~,~t lng ¢cheduled".:~'.:'~"i;F;:~'"::::O~/1,5/9~ :.:L:'::.:.~::.:F:~"F~:i~..:~;~;~:::~i~:::~:.:.:::.~: IMPORTANT > > File Number: P1--473800--00096 ];]e above tnfor'm~tion comfirm5 that fi [.tn_els oH the desct'ibed 5EQR Repositony or] the date(.s) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED ,above_ The ].~test filit]g J.:~ indic.3ted by Lhe most pec~nt date thmt bow., TbS date and ttme tn ~he second .tine show wherl this dooumenb wa~ pr'irlted. Please check the inform,~tion ,above For co~rect:ion~ or' qLlest~ons contsot Charles L. ockmow, SEQR Repository NYSDEC Division of RaglJla~oPy Affairs 50 Wolf Romd, Room 514 Town of S©UTHOLD 5.51395 Mair~ Road-P.O. So~thc, l ~d, NY 11971 BOX 1179 P. IV D AU8 ! 4 1991 JUDITH T_ TERRY PLE,t~o~ NOTE A~ communlca~0~s to Dept. must Im;lucie Dept. r~lereo~e No. Tm~.n Hall. 53(F)5 Main Road P.O. Box l lTg Southold. Nexs York 11971 Fax i51~) Telephone rSlh) 765 I~01 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SE(JR ,x,~OTiCE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT ElS AND NOTICE OF HEARING ~,~ JUL ~v 1991 Title of Proposed Action: S.C. Tax Map No. Lead Agency: Address: Jem Realty Company (Jem Commons) North Road, Greenport 1000-35-1~2~ Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 17,1991 This notice ~s issued pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 (and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement lEIS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft ElS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until August 2, 1991, or ten ~10) days after the close of the public hearing, whichever last occurs. A public hearing on the Draft ElS will be held on August 13, 1991, at 4:30 P.M., at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the Draft ElS and particularly on the Environmental Impact issues identified below. Description of Action: The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land, Parcel l, most southerly, u, 2 acres, from 'R-80" Residential Low-Density District (Z-acre Page 1 of 2 minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density, and Parcel II, most northerly, 20 acres, from "R- 80" Residential Low-Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-~I0" (one-acre minimum) for the purpose of constructing a mix of housing type and level of residential diversity, and provide affordable housing to meet the Suffolk County Affordable Housing Program, The project is located on the northerly side of North Road (NYS Route 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, Potential Environmental Impacts: Increase in the intensity of land use above what is currently allowable under existing zoning, with consideration of resulting impacts. Impact of the proposed project upon existing land use and zoning in the project vicinity, with consideration for land use compatibility. Public need for the project and the ability of the proposed use to provide necessary alternative housing in the community. Potential impact upon groundwater resources due to alteration of recharge water quality. Loss of open space and alteration of existing wildlife habitat and ecological character of existing site. Potential impact upon cultural resources of the community, particularly visual, historic and pre-historic resources. Copies of the Draft ElS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Judith T, Terry Southold Town Clerk Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: 516-765-1801 Copies of this Notice and DEI$ Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Southold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Oivision of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Suffolk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. Jem Realty Company, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, 54 N. Country Road, Miller Place, New York 11764. Page 2 of 2 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND pLANNING CONSULTANTS August 13, 1991 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Jem Commons Review of the Draft EIS Dear Scott: We have comp!eted our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the above referenced project. Attached, please find a letter documenting our comments on the report. Please review thi.s information with the, Board, and if you are in agreement, please forward s._a. me, ~.[h.e app!tcant to be addressed ,n the Response to Comments, for inclusion ia the r]nat t:L~ lor tills project. I(you h.ave any questions regarding any aspect of this project or our review of the Draft ElS, pzease oo not hesitate to contact this office. enc: Review of Draft EIS 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331- 455 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOOIATEL ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS From: Date: Re: Scott Harris, Supervisor Town Board of the Town of Southoid Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. August 13, 1901 Jem Commons Review of the Dra~'t EIS The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Draft ELS), for the project known as Jem Commons was accepted by the Southold Town Board on July 17, 1991. Apublic hearing on the Draft EIS has been scheduled for August 13, 1991, and c'ommcnts o.n thc Draft document will be accepted for a. period of ten (10) days after the close of the pubhc hearing. The document has'been ctrculated to involved agencies and parties of interest, for the purpose of providing comments on the document for use by the decision making agency in the ~reparat~on of a Final EIS, and ultimately a decision on the project. A copy o,~ the Draft EI$ as been submitted to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates, Inc. (CVA), as con}ultants to the Town Board, for review of the SEQR documentation. This letter constitutes tl:e re,riew of the Draft lEIS for lem Commons by CVA. The followlng comments with regard to content and accuracy of the document are provided: DR &FT EN'VIRON~IENT..AL I MPAC~T ~,~T.&TEMENT DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION The Draft ElS notes that the pr.oject addresses a lon~ term need in the Tow'ri of Southold; however, the project ~s~currently under review a,n,d the need should be related to ,expected demand at th,. conclusion of the rcvie,.~ process. Has the downturn m the real estate market decreased the need for affordable and moderate housing[ considering the current availabilitv of lower ¢riced housing, and what affect does th~s have on tile stated need for this t~roject at the time of proposed buildo~t? The Draft EI.S states "The roads are ro oxed to be 24+' ~ ' ' ac r , c,o dance w~th the to,~n of $outho!a~r~.g~m,ay 5pecificanons and to include continuous r__e. cnarge swales on either side as well ax t'lc~se explore the feasibility of this drainage If both me!hods are feasible, please include a brief asses.,ment of the environmental consideratmns for each type of design in either this sect/on or a latter section of the Draft IEIS. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, ivItLLER PLACE, N'¢ 11764 (5161 331.1455 Page I or4 ,. J~m Commons Review of Draft ElS The proposed project propose~ co.n. nection tO the Greenport Village s, an]tary system. The Draft ElS indicated that the d,strict did not have sufficient capacity; however, the capacity is being expanded to accommodate additional projects. Please provide an update with regard to the Village STP capacity and plans for expansion, as related to the.project. For the purpose of the Final ElS, please outline the expected form of samtary disposal. ~ ~ ~: Lo, nd ~[o be Cleared ~ ~ Be. yond stating the intent of. the project sponsor to limit clearing, what covenants m~ght be employed as a miugation measure to ensure reduction of extensive lawn areas andpremote natural succession, particularly on individual lots? What is the proposed form of ownership of the vegetated buffer, and what form of vegetation is proposed to be present subsequent to development? .CA:Z0_~ ar~ _Operation Page III-l_& Please provide additional information on construction schedule with consideration of sanitary connection and utility installation: specifically identi~ing intent regarding phasing, number of units, rosSI access, m{t~gation and improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL SE'I'TING 6, Water ReSources: wgter ~ ~_age IV-lO The current status of water supply should be discussed and updated from r~revious discussions in the Draft EIS. ~.%at i~ the current and predicted water supply availability for the proposed project7 Traffic ~ lY-21 ..Witch t.h.e ad. dition of high density land use m the area of the proposed, project site 0n,c~uomg the d.evelopm.e, nt under construct/on and the proposed project), additional peaestr!an activity is expected. What impact will the proposed project have on the pedesman env/ronment and what mitigation measures can be usedto minimize these tmpacts? smmrxca2 r £Nvmom rrA vac'rs 8. g_uhl 10. ~'h.e Draft EIS indicates that public water supply is a resource which will polentially e ,.mpacted. The curren[ impact should be deterrrdned as r.elated to the proposed project..What water district and/or Health Department pohcies (if any) apply to ~;~auSr~nal~redme~a_n?l.esult[ng fr. om. prop.os~ed rezonmg and what mitigation l-' oyco to minimize Impacts7 Open Space Page V-9 What affect will the loss of open space have on the character of the surrounding CRAMER, V E ~ SO EN VIRONi,,,4EN~G CIATEScoNSULTANTS Page 2 of 4 .]em Commons Review or IDrnft ElS corn .m. umty m terms of visual and aesthetic open ~pace values, pa.mcularly tn consideration of the degree of development proposed and occurring in the area. Will the project be visibl.e from Long Island Sound, and can mitigation be provided to maintain the visual integrity of this viewshed. MITIGATION blEASLrRES 10. Terrestrial ~,n~l Xquatic Ecolok'y ~0&e~ VI-4 Please explore the possibility of creating natural areas on private lots, and permanently natural open space on common areas, throug"h covenants or other means. This is a possible mitigation measure for mlnimizlng impact to terrestrial ecology of the site by maintaining the original type ground cover which serves as a habitat for animal, bird llfe, and native b"pe grasses, I1. Transportation ~,,~ ~__~_J. .What mitigation measures can be included into the proposed project to minimize impacts to pedestrian environment if such mitigation is needed based upon analysis? 12. kgnql Use and Zoning Page .VI-7 The document indicates that land use mitigation is proposed to include, "...laadsca.~ing and.vlanting.r, especially street trees, and other related ty~es o£ landscaping that would transform the develcped site into a ,vlew, in?. visa' 'al i~r~act. " What landscape improvements can be incorpora~ted into the subdi'dsi~n and inh:astructure approvals [i.e. street trees, recharge plantings, common area enhancement (for 86- umt alternative). 13. Public Water Suppl_v -.~ ..V/-7 With the update of the water supply status for the Final EIS, available water supply mitigation and water saving measures should be outlined. ADDE~Dlfl~! ~ DF. IS F~R SOUTFIOLD COMMQN$ PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Additional Alternative~ - R-40 ~ Eagt, 12 cDiThe d. iscussion, regarding the configuration of units associated wi[h an R-di'I ev~elqpme.at. 1.s over simpli.fied..T)..e comparative impact assessrn~,.nt ustermg ~.vmc. n preserves the old field is not acceptable because the old f eld will cease to exist ~ue to succession. Further he discussion concludes that cluslering to the south ri.ear Route 48 is not acceptabl, due to marketability and visual im acts, a,nd du. ster½.ng to. the north is not acceptable due to ~teev s!ove areas Th,~ cmstenng o-' umts on the 62 acre sit is tovreser~'e not destrA., ,',,v ,-2,,.-.- 25.:'~"'~"v' resources. A more vfable evaluation coui~d mvoiv; square foot lots in the central portion of the site, allowing for preservation of nearly CRAMER, V ~ ~ E N VI RO N MEN T~I~/////~,~ G CONSULTANTS Pagt 3 of 4 Review ot' Draft ElS 20 acres of land, while prodding a marketable sized lot under the increase in site density from wh.at is presently allowed. This would allow for preservation of visual and slope sensiuve areas to the north, and would allow for retention of a buffer including both wooded andgrassland areas adjacent Route .48. Grasslands could be managed by the Town. if dedicated. A comparative alternative should be discussed in greater detail in the Final £IS. The Addendum indicates that '...small ctJpacio' sewage treatment plants tend to hm,e operatingproblems due to their size...'[ Please describe the type c~operational problems such plants have been documented as havin~, and-relate to the environmental consequences w;th regard to the proposed project. Page 4 of 4 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone t516) 765-1938 PLANNINGi BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supe~isor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax {5161 765-1823 MEMORANDUM ~.ECFIVFB TO: FROM: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Members of the Town Board Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman~.¢~% ,i. il] 'I "':g91 RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statements for Southold Commons, Southold SCTM ~ 1000-055-5-17 and for JEM Realty, Greenport SCTM ~ 1000-035-1-24 DATE: August 13, 1991 With regard to each of the above-noted Draft Environmental Impact Statements and the Addendums to same, the Planning Board feels the Town Board should assume responsibility for having its own consultants prepare a Final Environmental Impact Statement for each. In each case, the final document should address the following issues: 1. The social and economic impacts of concentrating additional affordable housing units within the Southold hamlet and the Greenport Village should be evaluated. Particular consideration should be given to the amount of existing affordable homes and where relevant, the projected number that have received conditional final approvals already. 2. The Town Board has been asked by the sponsor of another affordable housing project that is under construction (Cedarfields in Greenport) to allow the homes to be sold on the open market because qualified buyers cannot be found within the limits set by the Town's own Affordable Housing program. If the Town's program sets comparable limits to the County's program, the proposal to add more dwelling units in the same price range does not seem to reflect the real housing needs of the Town. The Board's position on this proposed change of zone remains as it w~s in March of 1990, which is that the proposed changes of zong~ill not meet the affordable housing needs of this Town. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss: S'I'ATI=_ O1: NEW YORK LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town BOard of thc Town of Southold will bold a public hearing at 4:30 P.M., Tumday, August 13', 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jera l~alt~ Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone ['rom ti) "R-80" Residen- tial Low Density District (2-acre rainiraum) to "HD" Haralet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low Densi. ty District to "R-40" Residen- tia. I ~ow Density District (l-acre mlolmura), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQKA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy ofthe Draft Environmental Im- pact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: July 17, 1991 JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IX-7/25/91(69) Patricia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that she is the Editor, of 'l-HE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, a public newspaper printed at Southoid, in Suffolk County', and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, Il,is been pubiisi~ecl in said Long island Traveler-Watchman once eacl~ week for .................... /f ...... weeks SLiccessive[¥, commencing on the ......... &~ ........... clay o1' .~C~, 1 9 ~/ ~ .~. ~.'. J ; ..... :...; .;~... ~. ?.'.....' .... '.. ,~..'. Sworn lo he['ore ale this ~'g ~'- day of ............. .... Notary Public BARBAR/~/L SCHNEIDER NOTARY PUgLIC, Slate oJ New York No. 4806846 OuzJilied in Sulfolk Commission Expires LEGAL NOTIC~ NOTICE OF ?mt~ Bo~rd of thc Town of ~ m~l hold · paMk he~rfq I~-M-, Taesdly, &ugu'd 13, m thl $outhold Town Hall, [~nd. S~nhold. N~w yo~k. nn ~f~ft Env~'~Bent~ lmpad Illlmn~t mbmltafd by Jem RuBy Sill f~ · (~]ange of Z~ne f~m (I) b Dms~ l)im~, sad f,~ (2) "R- =R-40' ~idnnt~l Low l~nsity II]ORA Iced ag~ac¥ is th~ ~t~hold To~m Beef. A a~py of tk En~ ~t Smm- ~is ~ ~ ~ ~ce ~ ~ Town ~e~, Town H~, R~, ~d~ N~ Y~, ~ ~:J~ 17, I~1. ~Y STATE OF NEW YORK) ) COUNTY OF SU~OLK) o! Mattituck, In said County, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal CJark of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, published at Mattltuek! in the Town of Eoutheld, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notloe of which the annexed Js a printed copy, has boon regularly published In said Newspaper once each week for__~L._ weeks eommenclng on the day of Prinoll~l ~lerk STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 22nd day of July 1991 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Public Hearing on Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a change bf zone on certain property located at the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York (Jem Commons), ~,:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, Southold Town Hall. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 22ndday of July 1~9. 91 Notary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public, State of New Yo~ No. 4952246, Suffolk Couqty Term Expire8 June LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at a,:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low DEnsity District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: July 17, 1991. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JULY 25, 1991, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OFi SOUTHOLD,PUBLICATIONNEwTOyoRKJUDITH11971.TERRY' TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD,I Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys Southold Town Planning Board Jem Realty Company Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Town Clerk's Bulletin Board LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public bearing at 4:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low DEnsity District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main RoaSt, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: July 17, 1991. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JULY 2~i, 1991, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys Southold Town Planning Board Jem Realty Company Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Town Clerk's Bulletin Board ' ~-' LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at q:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, on the Draft Environ- mental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a Change of Zone from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low DEnsity District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum), on certain property located on the north side of North Road, Greenport, New York. SEQRA lead agency is the Southold Town Board. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is on file in the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall, Main Roa~l, Southold, New York, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. DATED: July 17, 1991. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JULY 25, 1991, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys Southold Town Planning Board Jem Realty Company Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Town Clerk's Bulletin Board JUDITH T_ TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VII'AL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516} 765-1823 Telephone ~516) 765 181)1 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SEQR NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF DRAFT ElS AND NOTICE OF HEARING Title of Proposed Action: S.C. Tax Map No. Lead Agency: Address: Jem Realty Company (Jem Commons) North Road, Greenport 1000-35-1-24 Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Date: July 17,1991 This notice ~s issued pursuant to 6NYCRR Part 617 (and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold) of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) has been completed and accepted for the proposed action described below. Comments on the Draft ElS are requested and will be accepted by the contact person until August 2, 1991, or ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing, whichever last occurs. A public hearing on the Draft ElS will be held on August 13, 1991, at 4:30 P.M., at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, $outhold, New York. The purpose of the hearing is to solicit comments from the public on the Draft ElS and particularly on the Environmental Impact issues identified below. Description of Action: The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land, Parcel I, most southerly, 42 acres, from "R-80" Residential Low-Density District (2-acre Page 1 of 3 minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density, and Parcel II, most northerly, 20 acres, from "R- 80" Residential Low-Density Oistrict (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" (one-acre minimum) for the purpose of constructing a mix of housing type and level of residential diversity, and provide affordable housing to meet the Suffolk County Affordable Housing Program. The project is located on the northerly side of North Road (NYS Route 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Potential Environmental Impacts: * Increase in the intensity of land use above what is currently allowable under existing zoning, with consideration of resulting impacts. Impact of the proposed project upon existing land use and zoning in the project vicinity, with consideration for land use compatibility. Public need for the project and the ability of the proposed use to provide necessary alternative housing in the community. Potential impact upon groundwater resources due to alteration of recharge water quality. Loss of open space and alteration of existing wildlife habitat and ecological character of existing site. Potential impact upon cultural resources of the community, particularly visual, historic and pre-historic resources. Copies of the Draft ElS may be obtained from: Contact Person: Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Address: Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Phone No.: 516-765-1801 Copies of this Notice and DEI$ Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Southold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Suffolk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. Jem Realty Company, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10019. Cramer Voorhis & Associates, 54 N. Country Road~ MHlerg~ace, New York 11764. Southol'd Town Building Department, Southold, New York 11 . Page 2 of 3 Howard E. Pachman, Esq., P.O. Box 273, Commack, New York 11725. Middleton Environmental, Inc., 66 Commack Road, Suite 103, Commack, New York 11725. Page 3 of 3 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATIST[CS blARR[AGE OIFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone ~516) 705 1801 OFFICE OF ~HE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 8, 1991 E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Mr, Kontokosta: The Draft EIS's and Addendums for Jem Commons and Southold Commons were submitted to the Southold Town Board on June 25th for their consideration at their July 2, 1991 work session as to acceptance and setting public hearings. The Town Board decided to take two more weeks to review the drafts and addendums, and the question of acceptance and setting public hearings is on their July 17th work session for discussion. With respect to the additional review of the DEIS's and Addendums, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates has billed the Town an additional $300.00, which the Town Board has assessed to you for payment prior to the public hearings (certified resolution enclosed). I will be in touch with you after the July 17th meeting to advise you of their decision. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk cc: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR Oil' VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICEP. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516~ 765-1823 Telephone ~5161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 2, 1991: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby assesses an additional cost of $300.00 to Jem Realty Company ($150.00) and E.M. Kontokosta ($150.00), for the reimbursement of charges by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates for additional review fee with respect to the Jem Realty Company (Jem Commons) and E.M. Kontokosta (Southold Commons) Draft Environmental Impact Statements for those change of zone petitions, said additional cost to be paid prior to the public hearings on said Draft Environmental Impact Statements. Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk July 3. 1991 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF "-'ITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53(195 Main Road P.O. Bo~t ~179 Southold, New York 11'¢71 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (5161 705 1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JULY 17. 1991: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby deems complete the Draft Envirionmental Impact Statement as submitted by Jem Realty Company with respect to their petition for a change of zone on certain property located at the North Road, Greenport, from (1) "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District, and from (2) "R-80" Residential Low Density District to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); and be it further RESOLVED that the comments on this Draft Environmental Impact Statement are requested and will be accepted by the Town Clerk until August 2, 1991, or ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing, whichever last occurs; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets 4:30 P.M., Tuesday, August 13, 1991, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, as time and place for a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement submitted by Jem Realty Company. Judith T. Terry f_/ Southold Town Clerk July 18. 1991 STATEMENT CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES 54 N. Count~ Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 Ms. Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 L Southoid, N.Y. 11971 ~993 6/28/91 ~:993 BALANCE FORWARD RE: Jem C~mmons/ Southold Commons Draft EIS Review Add'l Review Fee J ~ditionai work reg~rdil g EiS Review above Standard EIS review fee Meeting w/ applicant on March 26, 1991 Review of addendum draft su~nission Jem Co~ons |$150.00 Southold Commons 15150.00 $300.00 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC Environmental & Planning Consultants 54 N Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 WE ARE SENDING YOU Attached Under separate cover via ~ Shop drawings ~ Prints Plans '3 Copy of letter I~ Change order · the following items: Samples ~ Specifications THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: For approval Approved as subrndted Resubmit copies [or approval For your use Approved as noted I i Submit __copies for distribution ~] As requested Returned for corrections Return corrected prints L] For review and comment U REMARKS COPY TO FOR BIDS DUE 19.__ " PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED: ~~f~ CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS June 24, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk T,~,,'n of $outhold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re.' Jem Commons Southold Commons Addendum to the Draft EIS's RECEIVED 'JUN 3 5 199 Dear Judy: , I am in receipt of your memo of June 21, 1991, regarding the above referenced Draft EIS s. As per the Board's request, I conducted a meeting with the applicant and reviewed two revisions to the text of these documents. Subject matter primartly related proper designation of wildlife species and groundwater nitrogen calculations. At this time, the applicant has addressed the concerns which I noted in my previous letters on these projects. The changes are reflected in the Addendums submitted to your office and dated June 1991. Accordingly, I recommend that the Board consider this document for acceptance with respect to scope and adequacy, in order to begin the comment period and schedule a public hearing on the Draft EIS's. We will proceed to review the documents for content and accuracy, and will provide d-re guard wkh uur comments within the allotted comment period, if you have any questions, regarding this correspondence, please do not hesttate to call. Very trul~ your. s, '-Charles J. Voorhis 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tou, n Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax {516) 765-1823 Telephone 1516~ 765-1801 June 21, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: June 1991 Addendum to DEIS Jem Commons & Southold Commons Dear Chick: Enclosed are the acldendums to the DEIS's for Jem Commons and Southold Commons, along with a copy of the transmittal letter from Middleton Environmental Inc. Please conduct a review and advise me whether it is suitable for the Town Board to now accept the DEIS's and begin the comment period. Thank you. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: Town Board ME June 20, 1991 Ms. Judith 0. Terry Southold Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: June 1991 Revised DEIS's For Jem Commons & Southold Commons JUN g 1§9 Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find twenty copies each of the revised Draft Environmental Impact Statements for the above referenced projects. We have been in close contact with Mr. Voorhis of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Mr. Voorhis has reviewed the revised DEIS's, had some minor comments which were addressed and has re-reviewed the revised DEIS's. Mr. Voorhis has indicated that the revised DEIS's are now adedquate for review and therefore ready for submittal to the Town of Southold. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Catherine Russell Project Manager Cramer, Voorhis M. Kontokosta Jem Realty & Associates ADDENDUM TO DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS PREPARED: JUNE 1991 PREPARED BY: 66 MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMACK ROAD, SUITE 103 COMMACK, NY 11725 INC. PREPARED FOR: JEM REALTY COMPANY RECEIVED 'JUN 2, 1 1991 .~,, ,~.k.-,lA 'r ..... ."lN..I. ADDENDUM TO DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS PREPARED: JUNE 1991 PREPARED BY: MIDDLETON ENVIRONMENTAL, 66 COMMACK ROAD, SUITE 103 COMMACK, NY 11725 INC. PREPARED FOR: JEM REALTY COMPANY ADDENDUM TO DEIS FOR JEM COMMONS COMMENTS DATED 2/28/91 This addendum has been prepared to address comments on the revised 1/91 DEIS from the lead agency dated 2/28/91 (see Attachment #1). #i-COMMENT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Need for Pro~ect (Paqe III-4 to Paqe III-5 of the DEIS The portion of the last sentence beginning on Page III-5, which reads "although Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, acting for the Lead Agency requested it", should be removed from the document. CVA has no authority to request this information, and merely provides recommendations to the Board. #i-RESPONSE: The sentence begins on the bottom of Page III-4 in the DEIS and the project sponsor has acknowledged that CVA merely provides recommendations. - 1 - #2-COMMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Wildlife [Page II-18 to Paqe II-20; Ail wildlife identified in the report including Appendix P, should be included in the list on Pages II-18 to II-20. In addition, species which are designated by New York State as endangered, threatened, or of special concern should be appropriately identified. #2-RESPONSE: Identified wildlife is indicated on Page IV-17 thru IV-20 of the DEIS. Ail wildlife identified in Appendix P has been included in Attachment #2 and the NYS designation (protected, threatened, etc.) has been indicated. One wildlife species has been identified as "threatened" and that is the Northern Harrier. Although you could expect this species to utilize the site due to the present habitat provided for field-using animal species, none were observed during the field visits. However, it is doubtful that the Northern Harrier, would utilize this particular site considering the size of the field area and the amount of human activity going on at the site such as motor bikes, motorcycles and other ATV's as well as neighborhood children and dogs. These conditions in particular would disturb this non-human tolerant species. - 2 - One wildlife species has been identified as "special concern" and that is the grasshopper sparrow. The habitat identified on site is ideal for this species. However, as indicated in Dr. Johnson's Report (Appendix P), although he suspected the grasshopper sparrow may be present, after conducting a thorough search, none were seen or heard. The field species particularly meadowlarks, field sparrows and song sparrows will be eliminated by development or natural plant succession (see Appendix P, Page 10 in the DEIS). #3-COMMENT: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Groundwater Quality (Paqe V-3 to On page III-15, the Draft EIS indicates that the area of lawn and landscaping is 47.5 acres, yet Page IV-3 identifies an area of 0.77 acres, and Page lq;-5 indicates an area of 0.76 acres. The document should be amended to be consistent. #3-RESPONSE: Groundwater recharge and nitrogen loading calculations have been revised to reflect the correct lawn~landscape areas. These calculations were arrived at utilizing the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. Once the total acres for the site, impervious and pervious structures, in addition to the total number of units proposed are placed into the spreadsheet, it automatically calculates loadings from wastewater, turf, natural land and runoff from impervious surfaces. The revised worksheets can be found in Attachment #3 for the proposed project and alternatives. It should be noted that these calculations were based on a worst case scenario for the highest number of units that would be permitted on this site if this site were rezoned to Hamlet - 3 Density. Also the nitrogen loading calculations were based on utilizing fertilizer-dependent grasses on the site for a total lawn area, however, in order to reduce high nitrogen levels discharged to groundwater from lawn~landscape fertilizers and to reduce irrigation requirements (less water usage), mitigation offered would be to incorporate into each deed a covenant that limited lawn~landscape areas be created and that only Iow-fertilizer, iow-maintenance dependent grasses and/or utilization of alternative groundcovers such as rock gardens, wood chips, etc. be utilized on each individual lot. The calculations for sewage disposal were based on on-site discharge. If the development receives approval to connect to the Greenport Sewer District, recharge on site and nitrogen loadings would be eliminated. #4-COMMENT: Terrestrial & Wildlife Habitat (Paqe V-8) Review of Appendix P would lead the reader to believe that the proposed site development will result in substantial impacts to wildlife including feeding habitat for endangered species and threatened species and species of special concern, yet this is not reflected in the text of the document. The significance of NYS species designations should be outlined in the report, as it is our finding that for certain species designations it is obligatory to protect habitat of these species as well as confirmed sites of activity. Further, other important wildlife utilizing the site, including fox, deer, and locally important avifauna, will be severely impacted by the proposed site development. These species should be identified and an acknowledgment of these impacts should be included in the text. - 4 - #4 -RESPONSE: As previously stated, the NYS species designations has been identified and shown in Attachment #2. There were no confirmed sites of activity observed on site that had a threatened or endangered status. The Northern Harrier is threatened, however, it was not observed on site. Other wildlife such as the deer, fox, etc. will be impacted by the development and will leave the area. More human-tolerant wildlife will return once construction is complete. #5-COMMENT: Land Use & Zoning (Paqe V-9; There should be a distinction between the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development, and assertions that surrounding development is not compatible with the R-80 zoning of the site. We concur that the surrounding zoning places some pressure on the subject site for a higher density use from strictly a planning viewpoint without consideration of other environmental resources. We do not concur that surrounding development is not compatible with R-80 zoning. For this to be true surrounding development would have to cause some conflict with an R-80 development on the site. Light business use and moderate to high density residential use are continuously located adjacent to iow density residential use. If the 31 lot alternative were required, lot sizes would - 5 - permit setbacks and buffering which would alleviate any potential land use conflicts. Therefore phrases in the Draft EIS which indicate that surrounding use is not compatible with the present site zoning should be eliminated or clarified. These occur on the following pages: Page III-12, first paragraph, last sentence; Page V-ii, last sentence, Page VIII-2, first paragraph, fourth sentence, and Page VIII-ii, first paragraph, fourth sentence. #5-RESPONSE: In order to clarify the statements made in the DEIS regarding incompatibility of the R-80 zoning with the surrounding area, the statement was meant to reflect the inconsistency of the R-80 zoning with the goals and intent of the Master Plan for land use within the 1/2 mile radius of the Greenport Hamlet Business area. The existing high density land use for the areas surrounding the subject parcel is consistent with and compatible to the goals and intent of the Master Plan. However, the R-80 zoning for the subject parcel allows for a potential use that is not only inconsistent and incompatible with the goals and intent of the Master Plan, but is also inconsistent with or incompatible to the e~isting high density land use which is consistent and compatible to the goals and intent of the master plan. An HD zoning for this parcel will allow for its development consistent with the goals and intent outlined in the Master Plan and all its updates. The plan proposes that the major hamlet centers, of which Greenport Village is one, continue to be the residential-business service centers of Southold Town. These are also the areas where the master plan reflects the primary effort to provide moderately and affordably priced housing by means of allowable higher densities on sites to be zoned HD. The Master Plan indicates that higher densities will be allowed on the basis of three criteria: location relative to the hamlet business area, availability of utilities and provision for moderate to affordable cost housing. The amended zoning resolution allows for the following densities in HD areas once mapped by the Town Board. If public water service and sewage treatment were not available, the maximum density permitted would be two units per acre or 20,000 square foot lots for a conventional subdivision (or by special exception permit multifamily dwellings at the same density.) This could vary based on property characteristics and County approval.1 If public water and sewage treatment were available, then areas designed as Hamlet Density could be developed at densities up to four units per acre. 1An earlier version of this district had a base density of 1 per acre and permitted 2 with water and 4 with water and sewer. Another earlier provision was to allow additional density in exchange for the provision of moderate cost housing. If the moderate cost housing is not mandated, the incentive would assure that at least a portion of the housing is set aside for iow and moderate income families. - 7 - The subject parcel fronts on a water main of the Greenport Water District. Whether this district can accommodate the development is pending. An application has been filed and a response received stating that the district is expanding their facilities, and a determination as to whether they can accommodate the proposed project will be made once upgrading of the water district is completed. The Greenport Sewer District is located within 1000' of the proposed development. If the Greenport Sewer District is unable to accommodate the proposed development, alternatives would have to be provided. Said alternatives can be (1) the upgrading of the facility to accommodate the development, (2) construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant subject to the approval of the Suffolk County Health Department, or (3) a voluntary reduction in density so as to allow individual sub-surface sanitary systems. See Pages III-13 and III-14 which discusses sewage treatment and the conceptual plan. Page #'s S-7 and III-17 (Approvals Required) have been revised to include approval from the Greenport Sewer District to connect the proposed development to the system. #6-COMMENT: ALTERNATIVES Nitroqen (Paqe VIII-4, 6, 13, 15; The lawn and landscaped area coverage figures should be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities. # 6 -RESPONSE: Groundwater recharge and nitrogen loading calculations have been revised to reflect the correct lawn~landscape areas. These calculations were arrived at utilizing the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet. Once the total acres for the site, impervious and pervious structures, in addition to the total number of units proposed are placed into the spreadsheet, it automatically calculates loadings from wastewater, turf, natural land and runoff from impervious surfaces. The revised worksheets can be found in Attachment #3 for the proposed project and alternatives. #7-COMMENT: Terrestrial & Wildlife Habitat (Paqe VIII-7 and VIII-24; In discussing the difference in wildlife impacts between the 171 unit development, and the 31 unit developments, the statement, "The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project.", is included. This statement is illogical and unsupported. Significant measures could be taken to reduce wildlife impacts at lower densities. #7-RESPONSE: Due to the fact that a reduction in terrestrial and wildlife habitat removal will occur, the project sponsor has acknowledged that the proposed development would have a greater impact to terrestrial and wildlife habitat than the 31 unit or 32 unit alternatives. The statement was intended to mean that large tracts of open spaces contiguous to each other are more beneficial to wildlife than isolated small tracts of open space. - 9 - #8-COMMENT: Economics Paqes VIII-9 and VIII-18 The 31 unit project would not provide the same economic revenue that the 171 unit project would provide; however, this discussion ignores the fact that the reduction in density would also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue. Further, there is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can cause a burden on school districts due to the cost to educate a student as compared the revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions. #8-RESPONSE: A telephone conversation on 3/6/91 between Middleton Environmental and William Sokel, Business Official at the Greenport School District, revealed that the school district receives $35.16 per $100 in assessed value. According to the New Practitioner's Guide to Fiscal Impact Analysis published by the Center for Urban Policy Research, 1986, page 65, indicates that 12 additional school-aged children would be added to the school district. The assessed value for 32 units would be $273,512. Therefore, the school district would receive $8,013 per student, a total of $96,156 per year. The proposed project would add 64± school-aged children. The assessed value for 171 units is $989,000. Therefore the school district would receive $5,433 per student, a total of $347,712 per year. According to Mr. Sokel, the proposed project would not require that the school district add additional staff or expand existing facilities to accommodate the additional students. Although 10 - Mr. Sokel could not provide an exact amount to educate a student, he indicated that the cost to the school district would only be in supplies and materials, minimal in comparison to the revenue received. This alternative would not provide the moderate and affordable priced housing that the proposed project provides. #9-COMMENT: Additional Alternatives The lead agency has requested that two additional alternatives be discussed, in addition to the three alternatives provided. These include: Cluster development in accordance with R-40 zoning for the overall site and a reduced density (100 units instead of 152) on the 42 acre portion of the site. R-40 Cluster Development This alternative would also require a change in zone from R-80 to R-40. This alternative would involve the construction of 62 single family units, platted in a cluster design on approximately 31 acres of the total 62 acre site. This alternative would allow for approximately 20,000 square foot lots with 31 acres of open space. According to Dr. Johnson's report, the forest portion of the site is concentrated on the western third and the southern half of the site, and the old field areas lie in the northern half and along the eastern boundary. Since the habitat in the old field portion of the site is suited (at present) for field-using animal species, which in turn attract raptors, it might be beneficial to position the cluster in the southern/western portion of the site. However, as indicated by Dr. Johnson, we only have old - 11 fields for a limited number of years between agricultural abandonment and forest growth, therefore, the old field would not, in the future, remain an "old field", unless they are artifically maintained by periodically burning or mowing. If the cluster were positioned in the southern portion of the site, marketability would be greatly reduced in comparison to the proposed project, particularly since this site has an attractive benefit such as the bluff/waterfront frontage located to the north of the site. In addition, the cluster would be located adjacent to Route 48 which would not provide a buffer between the road and the development unless individual lots are reduced, further reduction in density or the open space area to the north is reduced. If the cluster were positioned in the northern portion of the site (bluff/waterfront side) impacts due to grading, clearing and construction of 62 units concentrated adjacent to the bluff, could cause erosion and destabilization of the bluff. This alternative, however, does reduce water usage and impacts to wildlife due to providing a large area of open space. If affordable housing were offered for this alternative, 20 percent of 62 units would provide 12.4 affordable units as opposed to 20 percent of 171 units which provides 34 affordable units. Reduced Density This alternative would also require a change in zone from R-80 to "HD" Hamlet Density. The alternative would reduce the proposed units by 52 in the southern 42 acre portion of the site. Lot sizes would be approximately 18,295 sq. ft., an increase of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. per lot, unless the lot sizes were the same as the proposed project (12,036± sq. ft.), this would allow for 14 acres of open space mostly likely located in the southern portion of the site, adjacent to the - 12 - road, rather than in the center of the lot which would allow for more wildlife usage. This alternative would reduce water usage and impacts to wildlife. This alternative would provide 20 percent of 119 units, a total of 23 affordable units as compared to the proposed project of providing 34 affordable units. ALTERNATi~;E SEWAGE TREATMENT PL;~NT There is an established sewer district located in the vicinity of the proposed development (Greenport Sewer District), and approval to connect the proposed development is pending. If approval cannot be obtained, a sewage treatment plant would have to be constructed to accommodate sewage disposal, based on the present proposed density. In order to adhere to Suffolk County Department of Health Services's (SCDHS) siting setback criteria (150'from property lines and 200' from the nearest tenantable structure), and based on the current proposed plan, the plant would have to be located at the southern portion (adjacent to the road) of the site, which in turn would create a slight reduction in open space of approximately 1,225 sq. ft. According to the L.I. 208 Study, Section 3.4.1.7 (Recharge of Sewage Treatment Effluent), Sewage Treatment Plant effluent discharged to the ground does not constitute a major threat to the area's groundwater; however, there may be significant local impacts when discharges are concentrated at a few sites. Most of the plants that discharge to the ground are generally treated to the secondary level; some are denitrified. As per a conversation between Middleton Environmental and Mr. Gebert of the Suffolk County Health Department (Riverhead Office), on April 4, 1991, this alternative would require a small capacity sewage treatment plant based on the number of units proposed. It has been their experience that small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to have operating problems due to their size and the cost to construct the plant is approximately a half - 13 million dollars not including operation and maintenance costs, however, the SCDHS reviews applications for proposed wastewater treatment alternatives on a case by case basis. Another alternative for wastewater treatment would be to install a subsurface denitrification system, however, SCHDS's regulations would not allow this type system for detached single family dwellings (subdivision). If approval cannot be obtained from the Suffolk County Health Department to construct an on-site sewage treatment plant, lot sizes would have to be increased to two units per acre and on-site sanitary systems (Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems) installed. According to the Nonpoint Source Management Handbook published by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984, other types of on-site systems have been installed in various parts of the country. Some evaluation of these systems has been made, and both the negative and positive aspects of these systems have been assessed. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has encouraged research into the effectiveness of alternate systems. Although the use of alternative on-site treatment systems may be appropriate in certain locations in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the standard septic system is the only approved on-site system at the present time. According to the Nonpoint Management Source Handbook (Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1984), the type of septic system used on Long Island contains two basic units: 1. a watertight tank through which wastewater flows and where removal of solids and grease occurs; 2. a leaching system which receives and discharges effluent from the septic tank into the ground. - 14 As the wastewater is first discharged to a septic tank, settling of the heavier solids occurs on the bottom as the lighter greases and scum rise to the top. Bacteria digests the solid materials and liquefaction occurs. The settled sludge decomposes slowly in the tank's anaerobic environment and, therefore, over a period of time a sludge and grease layer accumulates. This must be pumped out periodically by a licensed waste hauler, or it may overflow into the adjoining leaching pool or back up the system. The effluent then flows into the leaching pool and then filters downward through the unsaturated zone of the soil. The Nonpoint Management Source Handbook also points out that "plants, soil, subsoils and subsurface materials in the unsaturated zone can capture or partially retain organic pollutants, heavy metals, nitrates and other nutrients, and microorganisms. This occurs through filtration, sorption, precipitation and ion exchange. The unsaturated zone allows for some aerobic biological degradation. Therefore, a portion of these contaminants that might otherwise reach the saturated zone may be treated within the unsaturated zone, providing that the distance between the leaching system and the groundwater is sufficient to allow for adequate filtering by subsurface materials. It can be assumed, however, that the sorptive capacity of these subsurface materials diminishes over time. It can also be assumed that some nonconservative contaminants may also be removed in the saturated zone due to long residence time. Generally speaking, once a contaminant reaches the saturated zone, it will move through the aquifer systems relatively intact." - 15 - In comparing the two wastewater alternatives, the sewage treatment plant discharge is treated prior to discharge and concentrated in one area and individual sanitary systems, although the discharge is not treated, the discharge is spread out over the entire site. 16 - ATTACHMENT #1 LEAD AGENCY'S 2/28/91 COMMENTS CRAMER,,VOORHIS & ^S~OCIA3ES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULI'^NI$ ATTACHMENT Febnmry:28, 1991 Supervisor Scott .H, arrls t~nd Members of Ihe 'Iowa Board Town Of Southold Town I fall, $3095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, NY 119'/I Drnft ['ils Review Jem Commons Slirllng, New York Dear Supervisor and Metnbers of the To,va Eloarch /%s per your requesl, nmi in accordance %,Jilh file $1ale ]~,nvlron,nelnrl] OunHly Review Act, we have completed n review o! the Draft ElS for lit.c, above r~[erencedproject wid~in tim 30 day period required under Hie regulaliona [6 NYCRR, 617.8(b)(4).1. 'l'llis review compares the revised document I,) our leller of November 13, 1990, which jdenfit'ied deficiencies in the Irlr~t subr.i.~sion. Overall. the revision addresses most of Ih¢ comments comained in our previous leuer. Several specific conunenls which remain ou~s~nnding in the current draft nrc oulllned below_ It Is o.r recon~rnendation lhat Ihese'maHers be addressed and amended into the main body of the Draft ElS. In addition, inforin3tion cottiained in thc documcn! referencing site e,wironmc, ta[ addinon~l nllerna~ives,'both mvol~ing a projec~ o~ reduced magnilude. Il is ~pp~opHa[c [o co ~lder ~hese alternatives os outhned in P~r~ 617 14(0(5). Since thc Town Board is the only sgenW involved in II~e decision on Ihe ~one chnn~e ilselr, Ihe scope of Ihe documenl mn be expanded provided Ih¢ apglic0[a is nolificd wid~ a wrille~t ~tatement explaining lite need for a(Idhional analysis (Par~ 617.7(c). Tibia review p~ovidcs d6s wrluen explanation, 1{ Ihe To~ Board 15 in ~greemenl wld~ the coma?ms conlalned herein, it is'recommended dm~ the Board ~esolve Io h~ve d,e opplicanl re.se Ihe doo~m¢nl Io ~ddress the following poims: ERQJ.~']; D ES ~_CBIEILO.~I 'he portion Ollhe 1nsf si~nlence he§imHnR oil Fng¢ II1-$. wldch re~tds,;;nl~hough Crnmer. .Voorhh & Associates..cling for the l~J^sen~ rcqucsled h",.ghould be removed fro.. die aocunlent CVA has no authorhy Io request drip; mfornmlion, and merely inovidcs recommendalions ~o Ih~. Bo,rd. 3v31~li~G ...... I[ ........ p~e_ Ik]~l _[~ ~'~g~ 1L-~O All wllo ~e iuenlllieo itl Itle report ~nc, ludlnll/~pDe~ldix I", should be included hl the Ilsl$ on Pa~es 11-18 to 11-20. In addition, species wlflch nrc designated by New .York $~a~e 8s enuungeted, threatened, or of special concern should be uppropriately dennfled. P,qge ] DraFt OnPa~o Ill-iS, IheDrafl EIS Indlcales Ihnt the area of lawn ~nd Innuscapm~ ~s 47.5 acres, ~et Page IV-3 Idemlfles on area of 0.77 acres, and Page IV-~ ludicates an area of 0.76 acres. ~e do.meat should be 'l~.~tr.e~:iaJ a~d Wlldlif~ ttabitat ['.ag~..Y:.8. . , ~e-~ow of App6nd~ P would lend Ihe feeder I, believe lhal IMe propo~eo Sile ~evemprnent will resul~ In subslamial Impacls to wildlife Includin8 feeding habl~nl for ChOCk,gered species a~ld threalened species ~nd species o{ special concer~l, yet fids I~ riel reflecled ~n the lext of ~he docu~em. ~e slgmfleance or NYgspecles designations sho}dd be outlined in the reporL ~, Is our finding Ihat for cer~sin species design?lens }1 ~S obligatory 1o protect habitat of these species ~ well ~s conh~ed ~les.faclwily. Furlher, other Important wildlife utilizing the she~ including fox, dee~, a~d locally important avlf~una, will be severely iml~acled by the proposed si~e developmenL 3 hese species should bo identified and an ' ac~nowledgmen( of these Impacts shouhl be included in lbo texL should be a dlsllnc-flon belweeu ~he compafibil[~ o[ lhe proposed project wilh surrounding development, and assorllons thai surmundinff development ~s r~ol compaliblo whh Ihe R-80 zonlgg et ~he si~e. We concor Ihal the surr6tmdlng zo~ng pla?s some p?ssure on Ihe subfeel Sile for s higher densi~ us~ from slrle~ly a plannl,g v~e~woint w~thoul cons{clergy{On o~othe¢ environmenlal resources. We do no~ concur that surroumllng developmem Is riel compatible ~lh R-80 ~o~ng. ,For Ihls Io be I~o surrounding . development would have ~o cause som~ conflict w,h an R-80 deveJopment on the m~. Light business use and ~ode~ale to high de~tsl~ residenl~al use are commuousl? located adJRcen~ to low density res~denlml ~se. If the 31 17 alternative were required, lot sizes w~,ldperndt selbacks, and buffeting which would alienate any potential land use conflicls. Therefore phrases m the l~ra[I ~lS which indicate thai sur?undlng use Is not compatible ~1~ ~he preson~ sile zomng should be eliminated or c~,~d. ~ese occur on Ihe following pages: Psg~ i11.12, first paragraph, lest senlence; Pnge.V-I 1, lasl senleisce; Page VIII-2. f~'rsl paragraph, fourlh senlence; ~nd PaCe Vlll-I I. hrsl paragraph, fourlb sentence. The ]awl! and landscaped area coverage tlgures she. Id be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments o. she quamitles, ~ ~he difference In wlldhfe Impacis be~vee, ~he 1~ ! mdt devel~pmem, and ~he 31' u~t developmenls, Ihe stn~emenl, '~e Impact ? ~he lC?Calf)si and ~ldhfe hnbilat would be npl))oxlmelely ~h~ same as d~e.proposedprojecl.', is ~nclude~. ~ls slntemen~ Is 111oikal and ~nsupporled. S~gnifieant measures courd be taken ~o ~educe wildlife impacts at lower denshies. ER, VOORHIS &' , SOCI^TES '~ONt,'IENTA~A....,.~I") Pl~. N[~II.'4O CONSULTANTS Jain Commoll! Draft I-.1~ I~.e~ltw ~/9! e3 unit project' would not ~ro~de' the same ccono~c reveAue that. the I'll u~t project would provide;however, this d~scusslon Ignores fl~e fact Ihnt Ihe reduchon In density would also r~suli I~ lesser demand for se~ces ~hereby offsettln8 Ihe change In revenuc. Further, there ss slSn~cnnt dn~menlalio~ which Indicates lhat de,ached single family housing cnn cause a burden on school districts due Io revenue per student, ~e ~rah ~!$ does hal conlnln sufficient economic data et at,al?sis to Support the economic conclusionR. ~1 information included in tile rcvked Draft F.I$, It is nj)parent that ~ a result prope~y is senshlve wl(h r~g~cd lo wildlife h~bilat. Further, thc~e m~ybe apparent pressure to cons{der alternative ~omn~ dissects olhet Ihan lbo presenl R.80 zoning, due Io moderate to high densi~ re~lden6al developmem and IJghl business 2o~ng adjacent Ihe s ir. appl[canl has proposed a 171 unit high denshy residential development: however, th[s use' may not bo sufficiently senslllve to siie en~ronmemnl reso~rces, mchtdlng wildlife, open ~pace,~sual, land uso and zoning, und btherpurnmeler~. It is per~ssible to request addh[onal alle~nalivel In ~ccord whh 6 NYC~R Pnrl 617.~(c). Accordingly, we feel [hat the Town ~oard would benehl by H~e e~loratlon o[ ~vn nddilional nilet'nalives regnrd~n~ musnitude of developme~n. ~ese Intrude: clu[tor develop~llent in ecco~dance ~[h zo~d~g for the o~rall sile, which would be c~sisten~ng west or lhe si~e nnd {~I~ all~wtor prolechon of some wildlife habhal on Ihe site; nnd a reduced density (~s urals Instead o[ 152) on Ihe 42 acre portion o[ the silo reques~cd to be t~onc~ to liD' - dlstilet, which would ~llow for a more aestheHc descant in conjuslction ~Hh re,eat(on o~ additional op¢n space. In addition, an alternative IO the proposed, project involving construction of an on-site sewage treatme.m plant {STP) Is included m ~he l'roJec~ DescrlpHon section of the Draf~ potential ~mpae~s o~ such an aller~al~ve In the Al~ernatlve section or the.Drnh EIS. appllcnblll~ o~ S~ lighting setback~ should be discussed, ns well as en~ronmenm}, lend use. and aesthetic impacts o~ such an allernative, n~ n consequence of a 'Foxvn decision authorize a ~onln8 district which mandates Ihe need for sewese trea~mes~t. The above comments pertain lo the scope content and adequacy of lbo subject document for public review. As indicated il is re¢omuze~,ded Hml the i~ppllcant amend the body of [he lexl O[ lbo ducumenl ~o address or Include [ho above naiad ilems. All ~toprlnle sections of lbo Drafl ~IS should be allered to rcflecl the al)ov~ comments. nkyou for Ihe oppoHuni~ Io provld~ the Sood~old Tm~ Uoard with our ravia? Drab ElS for Soulho~d Commons. Pro~ded Ihs, above nmed hems are sadsfnetonl~ addressed In [he revision Ihe document fnn be c,cola~ed for a 30 day commentperlod in order ~o consider Ihe aecura~ and vallda~ of Ihe do~menl. We wil/be pleasedto conduct ~r~her ravia? al your request. Hesse do hal hesitale to call Ir you We any questions regardlnglh,s re~ew. V ~?~ " ~ ,/ cc: Judhh 'Fe~. Town Clerk ~.C~ ~k~/~ MEFI, VOOIqHI~, &. ASSOCIATES 'IIRONMI~NIA~..,~,i~..[.) PLANNING OONSULTANT~ r.$e 3 ATTACHMENT #2 REVISED WILDLIFE EVALUATION ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) ATTACHMENT #2 2. Wildlife The Jem Commons property contains typical oak-pine woodland habitats of small mammals and birds. The following is a list of avian populations which are expected to visit the site at various times during the year. Avian species found within the oak/pine associations include, but are not limited to those listed below. Those species with one asterisk (*) were actually observed on the site. Those species with two asterisks (**) are designated by New York State as Protected, Endangered, Threatened or of Special Concern. Those indicated by a E (Endangered), T (Threatened), SC (Special Concern), and P (Protected) status. These designated protective status' were taken from a document published by NYSDEC, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Resources Center, Delmar, NY, entitled "Checklist of the Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals of New York State, Including their protective status", first printed 1985, revised 1987. At the request of the Lead Agency, grassland species and hawks are discussed in Dr. Johnson's additional field visit and is shown in Appendix P of the 1/91 DEIS on pages 9 thru 11. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - Common Name (Continued) Avian Populations Latin Name Bobwhite Whip-poor-Will (**) P Purple Martin (**) P Flicker (**) P Hairy Woodpecker (**) P Eastern Kingbird (**) P Blue Jay(*) (**) P Common Crow* Black-capped Chickadee (**) P White Breasted Nuthatch (**) P Starling Eastern Wood Peewee (**) P Cardinal (**) P Rose-breasted Grosbeak (*~) P Common Grackle (**) P Northern Oriole (**) P Red Breasted Nuthatch (**) P Robin* (**) P Ring-necked Pheasant American Goldfinch Ovenbird (**) P Carolina Wren (**) P Wood Thrush (**) P Hermit Thrush (**) P Black & White Warbler (~*) P Red-tailed Hawk (**) P Colinus virqinianus Caprimulgus vociferus Proqne subis Colaptes auratus Picoides villosus Tyrannus tyrannus Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Parus atricapillus Sitta carolinensis Sturnus vulqaris Contopus virens Cardinalis cardinalis Pheuticus Ludovicianus Quiscalus quiscula Icterus galbula sitta canadensis Turdus miqratorius Phasianus colchicus Carduelis tristis Seiurus aurocapillus Thryothous ludouicianus Hylocichla mustelina catharus quttatus Miniotilta varia Buteo ~amaicensis ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Northern Harrier (**) T Meadow Lark Chipping Sparrow (*~) P Field Sparrow (~*) P Song Sparrow (**) P Grasshopper Sparrow (**) Bank Swallow (*) (**) P Kingfishers (**) P SC Circus Cyaneus Sturnella maqna Spizella passerina Spizella pusilla Melospiza melodia Ammodramus savannarum Riparia riparia Ceryle spu. Mammalian populations in general consist of game mammals, small mammals and hoofed browers. These animals are almost totally dependent on vegetation as a primary food source. The following list of mammals have either been identified on this site or are expected to visit this site. Those species with an asterisk were actually observed on the site. Mammals Common Name Latin Name White-tailed Deer Red Fox (tracks) Eastern Cottontail* Grey Squirrel Norway Rat White-footed Mouse Meadow Vole Eastern Mole Woodland Vole Oppossum Raccoon Eastern Chipmunk Deer Mouse Odocoileis virqinianus Vulpes fulva Sylilagus floridanus Sciurus carolinesis Rattus norveqicus Permyscus leucopus Microtus penns¥1vanicus Scalopus aquaticus Microtus Pinetorum Didelphis virqiniana Procyon lotor Tamias striatus Peromyscus maniculatus ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING - (Continued) Oppossum, Eastern Chipmunk and all mice, moles and rats make up the unprotected species found on the project site. The following species of reptiles may be found on the site: Reptiles Common Name Latin Name Spring Peeper Red-backed Salamander Eastern Garter Snake Hyla crucifer Plethodon cinereus Thamnophis sirtalis E. Agricultural Resources 1. Soils There are five (5) soil types on the subject site as follows: 60± percent are Haven Loam (HaA), 20 percent are Plymouth Series, 10 percent are Riverhead Sandy Loam (RdB), 5 percent are Haven Loam (HaB) and the remaining 5 percent is Beaches (Bc). The slope for these range from 2%-8%. See Section IV A.i "Environmental Setting - Geology" for detailed descriptions of soil types and location of each soil type on site. Ail of the above soil types except Bc are suited to crops. IV-20 ATTACHMENT #3 - JEM COMMONS Attached are the revised recharge and nitrogen loading calcultions for the proposed project and the three alternatives. These calculations were arrived at utilizing the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet and the printed worksheets are attached. The proposed project has 40± acres of lawn area, 7.5 acres of landscape area, 2 acres of natural land, 3.53 acres of roof area, 1.17 acres of driveway areas and 7.80 acres for roads. The 31 unit cluster alternative has 45.5 acres of lawn area, 13.42 acres of natural land, .64 acres of roof area, .21 acres of driveway areas and 2.23 acres for roads. The 32 unit alternative has 57 acres of lawn area, .17 acres of natural land, .66 acres of roof area, .22 acres of driveway areas and 3.95 acres for roads. The 171 unit cluster alternative has 35.5 acres of lawn area, 14 acres of natural land, 3.53 acres of roof area, 1.17 acres of driveway areas and 7.89 acres for roads. Groundwater QuantitF In its present condition, approximately 65% or 29 inches of rainfall is lost to evapotranspiration (Ref. Thornthwaite and Mather, 1957 pp. 186-309). The remaining 16 inches becomes runoff or is recharged to the groundwater. Evaporation from open bodies of water is negligible in terms of the overall water budget. Total recharge to the aquifer consists of three components; rainfall runoff that recharges back into the ground, that portion of irrigation not lost to evapotranspiration and the sanitary discharge from the wastewater treatment system. The irrigation requirement for Long Island lawn areas is 7.09 inches of water per growing season (Ref. Toro Co., Irrigation Dept.). Groundwater Quality for the Proposed Project Nitrogen is the prime water quality indicator according to Long Island's 208 Study. Human activity within the effected areas have a direct correlation with the occurrence of nitrogen in the groundwater. Results from nitrogen analyses are compared to the drinking water standard of 10 mg/1. Nitrogen loadings are based on concentration estimates various land use conditions, and the volume of expected recharge. for Nitrogen will be introduced to the groundwater through sewage disposal and lawn fertilizers. However, nitrogen will be diluted and dispersed while traveling to the water table. The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system for the proposed project will be approximately 1563 IDs. based on a concentration factor of 10 mg/1. The sanitary component of recharge for the proposed project is 18.7 gallons per year. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gpd, the annual flow is 365 X 51,300 gpd, or 18.7 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be 1563 lbs. Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2.25 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch. 8, p.3). Thus nitrogen loading for the proposed project (40 acres of lawn area) is 2156 lbs. The water for this project will be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 29 million gallons of water will be needed per year. Given the annual site recharge of 98 MGY, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 3,718 lbs. (1562 lbs from wastewater treatment and 2156 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average total nitrogen concentration is 4.51 mg/1. Groundwater Quality for 31 Unit Cluster Alternative The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system for this alternative will be approximately 1133 lbs. based on a concentration factor of 40 mg/1. The sanitary component of recharge for this alternative is 3.3 gallons per year. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,300 gpd, the annual flow is 365 X 9,300 gpd, or 3.3 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be 1133 lbs. Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2.25 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch. 8, p.3). Thus nitrogen loading for this alternative (45.5 acres of lawn area) is 2452 lbs. The water for this alternative will be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 16 million gallons of water will needed per year, be Given the annual site recharge of 76 MGY, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 3,585 lbs. (1133 lbs from wastewater treatment and 2452 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average total nitrogen concentration is 5.65 mg/1. Groundwater Quality for 32 Unit Alternative The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system for this alternative will be approximately 1170 lbs. based on a concentration factor of 40 mg/l. The sanitary component of recharge for this alternative is 3.5 gallons per year. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 9,600 gpd, the annual flow is 365 X 9,600 gpd, or 3.5 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be 1170 lbs. Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2.25 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch. 8, p.3). Thus nitrogen loading for this alternative (57 acres of lawn area) is 3072 lbs. The water for this alternative will be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 19 million gallons of water will be needed per year. Given the annual site recharge of 59 MGY, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 4,242 lbs. (1170 lbs from wastewater treatment and 3072 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average total nitrogen concentration is 8.60 mg/1. Groundwater Quality for 171 Unit cluster Alternative The nitrogen level of the sewage disposal system for this alternative will be approximately 1563 lbs. based on a concentration factor of 10 mg/1. The sanitary component of recharge for this alternative is 18.7 gallons per year. Since sewage flow estimates are approximately 51,300 gpd, the annual flow is 365 X 51,300 gpd, or 18.7 million gallons per year. The annual nitrogen loading for sewage disposal is estimated to be 1563 lbs. Nitrogen loading to the groundwater for lawn fertilizers is expected to be 2.25 lbs. per 1,000 SF (Ref. LI 208 Study, Vol. II p.193) and 55% of nitrogen loading reaches the groundwater (Ref. Non-Point Source Management Handbook, ch. 8, p.3). Thus nitrogen loading for this alternative (35.5 acres of lawn area) is 1913 lbs. The water for this alternative will be supplied by the Greenport Water District and 28 million gallons of water will be needed per year. Given the annual site recharge of 101 MGY, the anticipated annual nitrogen loading is 3,476 lbs. (1563 lbs from wastewater treatment and 1913 lbs. from fertilizers) and the predicted average total nitrogen concentration is 4.08 mg/1. ATTACHMENT #3 REVISED RECHARGE AND NITROGEN LOADINGS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT #3 PROPOSED PROJECT JEM COMMONS PROPOSED PROJEi.O TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL UNITS 62.00 171.00 ETP RATES Impervious 12.50 Lawn 40.00 Landscape 7.50 Natural 2.00 IMPERVIOUS Building/Patio 3.53 Roads 7.80 Driveways 1.17 TOT IMPERVIOUS 12.50 acres PERVIOUS Lawn 40.00 Recharge Basin 0.00 Row 0.00 Landscaped 7.50 Natural Space 2.00 TOT PERVIOUS 49.50 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 62.00 acres ETP RATE Impervious 20.16% 2.52 Lawn 64.52% 25.81 Landscaped 12.10% 0.91 Natural 3.23% 0.06 TOTAL 100% 29.30 POST DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RECHARGE Rainfall (in.) 45.00 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Total Inches 31.82 Gallons 77,126, 609.42 IRRIGATION Irr./yr. (in.) 7.09 Lawn Area 40.00 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Gallons 11,088,605.72 IRRIGATION RECHARGE Recharge Rate 26.00% Gallons 11,088,605.72 Recharge (gal) 2,883,037.49 SANITARY COMPONENT Total Units GPD San. Usage San. Usage 171.00 300.00 51,300.00 gal. per day 18,724,500.00 gal. per year POST DEVELOPMENT RECHARGE Per. Recharge 77,126,609 Irr. Recharge 2,883,037 San. Recharge 18,724,500 TOTAL RECHARGE 98, 734,147 WATER USAGE Irrigation San. Component TOTAL WATER 11,088,606 18,724,500 29,813,106 gal. per year NET RECHARGE TOTAL RECHARGE TOTAL WATER NET RECHARGE 98,734,147 29,813,106 68,921,041 gal. per year SANITARY NITROGEN LOADING N Load Cons~. 8.345 Conc. Fact 10.00 mg/1 San. Recharge 18,724,500.00 gal. San. N Load 1563 lbs FERTILIZATION NITROGEN LOADING Fertilizer Lawn Area Acre/Feet % N Loading 2.25 lbs N per year 40.00 acres 43,560.00 55.00% Fert. N Load 2,156.22 lbs per year TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING San. N Load 1,562.56 Fert. N Load 2,156.22 TOTAL N LOAD 3,718.78 lbs per year TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION Total Recharge 98,734,147 Total N Load 3,719 N Load Const. 8.345 TOTAL N CON. 4.51 mg/1 ATTACHMENT #3 - 32 UNIT ALTERNATIVE JEM COMMONS ALTERNATIVE 2.1.0 TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL UNITS 62.00 32.00 ETP RATES Impervious 4.83 Lawn 57.00 Landscape 0.00 Natural 0.17 IMPERVIOUS Building/Patio 0.66 Roads 3.95 Driveways 0.22 TOT IMPERVIOUS 4.83 acres PERVIOUS Lawn 57.00 Recharge Basin 0.00 Row 0.00 Landscaped 0.00 Natural Space 0.17 TOT PERVIOUS 57.17 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 62.0O acres ETP RATE Impervious 7.79% 0.38 Lawn 91.94% 52.40 Landscaped 0.00% 0.00 Natural 0.27% .00 TOTAL 100% 52.78 POST DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RECHARGE Rainfall (in.) 45.00 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Total Inches 21.25 Gallons 51,511,147.82 IRRIGATION Irr./yr. (in.) 7.09 Lawn Area 57.00 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Gallons 15,801,263.15 IRRIGATION RECHARGE Recharge Rate 26.00% Gallons 15,801,263.15 Recharge (gal) 4,108,328.42 SANITARY COMPONENT Total Units GPD San. Usage San. Usage 32.00 300.00 9,600.00 gal. per day 3,504,000.00 gal. per year POST DEVELOPMENT RECHARGE Per. Recharge 51,511,148 Irr. Recharge 4,108,328 San. Recharge 3,504,000 TOTAL RECHARGE WATER USAGE Irrigation San. Component TOTAL WATER 59,123,476 15,801,263 3,504,000 19,305,263 gal. per year NET RECHARGE TOTAL RECHARGE TOTAL WATER NET RECHARGE 59,123,476 19,305,263 39,818,213 gal. per year SANITARY NITROGEN LOADING N Load Const. Conc. Fact San. Recharge 8.345 40.00 mg/1 3,504,000.00 gal. San. N Load 1170 lbs FERTILIZATION NITROGEN LOADING Fertilizer Lawn Area Acre/Feet % N Loading 2.25 lbs N per year 57.00 acres 43,560.00 55.00% Fert. N Load 3,072.61 lbs per year TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING San. N Load 1,169.64 Fert. N Load 3,072.61 TOTAL N LOAD 4,242.25 lbs per year TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION Total Recharge 59,123,476 Total N Load 4,242 N Load Const. 8.345 TOTAL N CON. 8.60 mg/l ATTACHMENT 63 171 UNIT CLUSTER ALTERNATIVE JEM COMMONS ALTERNATIVE 3.1.0 TOTAL ACREAGE TOTAL UNITS 62. O0 171.00 ETP RATES Impervious 12.50 Lawn 35.50 Landscape 0.00 Natural 14.00 IMPERVIOUS Building/Patio 3.53 Roads 7.89 Driveways 1.17 TOT IMPERVIOUS 12.50 acres PERVIOUS Lawn 35.50 Recharge Basin 0.00 Row 0.00 Landscaped 0.00 Natural Space 14.00 TOT PERVIOUS 49.50 acres TOTAL ACREAGE 62.00 acres ETP RATE Impervious 20.16% 2.52 Lawn 57.26% 20.33 Landscaped 0.00% 0.00 Natural 22.58% 3.16 TOTAL 100% 26.01 POST DEVELOPMENT NATURAL RECHARGE Rainfall (in.) 45.00 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Total Inches 33.30 Gallons 80,715,939.48 IRRIGATION Irr./yro (in.) 7.09 Lawn Area 35.50 Acre/Feet 43,560.00 Gallons/Cu.Ft 7.48 Foot/Inches 0.12 Gallons 9,841,137.58 IRRIGATION RECHARGE Recharge Rate 26.00% Gallons 9,841,137.58 Recharge (gal) 2,558,695.77 SANITARY COMPONENT Total Units 171.00 GPD 300.00 San. Usage 51,300.00 gal. per day San. Usage 18,724,500.00 gal. per year POST DEVELOPMENT RECHARGE Per. Recharge 80,715,939 Irt. Recharge 2,558,696 San. Recharge 18,724,500 TOTAL RECHARGE 101,999,135 WATER USAGE Irrigation San. Component TOTAL WATER 9,841,138 18,724,500 28,565,638 gal. per year NET RECHARGE TOTAL RECHARGE TOTAL WATER NET RECHARGE 101,999,135 28,565,638 73,433,498 gal. per year SANITARY NITROGEN LOADING N Load Const. 8.345 Conc. Fact 10.00 mg/1 San. Recharge 18,724,500.00 gal. San. N Load 1563 lbs FERTILIZATION NITROGEN LOADING Fertilizer 2.25 ids N per year Lawn Area 35.50 acres Acre/Feet 43,560. O0 % N Loading 55.00% Fert. N Load 1,913.65 ids per year TOTAL NITROGEN LOADING San. N Load 1,562.56 Fert. N Load 1,913.65 TOTAL N LOAD 3,476.20 lbs per year TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION Total Recharge 101,999,135 Total N Load 3,476 N Load Const. 8.345 TOTAL N CON. 4.08 mg/1 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516~ 765-1823 Telephone 1516) 765-1801 April 15, 1991 E. M. Kontokosta, .P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Jem Realty Co. Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Enclosed is a certified resolution of the Southold Town Board, adopted on April 9, 1991, requesting you to address the specific comments which remain outstanding with respect to the DEIS on your Jem Realty Co. change of zone petition. I am also enclosing the pertinent letters referred to in the resolution for your assistance. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures CC: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates Howard E. Pachman, Esq. Middleton Environmental, Inc. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax ~516~ 765-1823 Telcphonc (516) 765-181)[ OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOIll/ING RESOLUTION ~I/AS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TO¥/N BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON APRIL 9, 1991: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby requests Jem Realty Co. to revise the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to their Jem Commons change of zone petition, to address the specific comments which remain outstanding following a review by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, as outlined in their letters of February 28, 1991 and March 27, 1991; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby requests Cramer, Voorhis & Associates to conduct a preliminary review of the proposed Addendum to the DEIS prior to submission to the Town Clerk. Judith T. Terry (/ Southold Town Clerk April 11, 1991 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNI¢IG CONSULTANTS March 27, 1991 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NewYork 11971 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Supervisor Harris: As per the Boards directive, as related to me through Harvey Arnoff and Judy Terry, I met with the applicants on the above project in my offices on March 26, 1991, to discuss the necessary_ revisions to the Draft EIS. Present were: Charles J. Voorhis, Donald M~ddleton, Emanuel Kontokosta, Catherine Russell. It was determined that additional information would be necessary to provide an acceptable Draft EIS. The basis for this information is contained in my two (2) previous correspondences dated February 18, 1991. It was agreed that the additional information should be supplied as an addendum to the documents, due to the fact that forty (40) copies of the Draft EIS have already, been submitted. In the future I recommend that only five (5) copies of revised documents be submitted until acceptance is issued. The scope of the addendum was discussed, and it was agreed that sewage treatment plant alternatives for Jem Commons would be discussed in the Alternatives section. The proposed project for Jem Commons would involve a tie-in to an existing sewer district. The Alternative discussion supplement for Jem Commons will contain discussion on the environmental benefits associated with a reduction in density from that which is presently requested on the south portion of the site. Additional analysis will be provided regarding site wildlife usage, and the density reduction discussion will address the ability to provide additional open space for some degree of continued wildlife utilization. All other comments in the letter (February 18, 1991) on Jem Commons will be addressed in the Addendum_ For Southold Commons, the addendum will contain an acknowledgment that if the project is constructed at the requested density, the location of a sewage treatment plant on site would result in a yield reduction of 15 to 17 units depending upon siting and design. In addition, the cumulative impact section will provide more detailed information on the land use issues associated with siting a high density residential project at the subject location with respect to surrounding land use and zoning. There will be some acknowledgment of incompatibility issues ~vith present zoning; however, additional references and support will be provided from the Town Master Plan regarding the future land use trends in th~s area. All other comments from the letter of February 18, 1991 on Southold Commons will be addressed in the Addendum. DEIS Revision Jem/$outhold Commons At this point it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant address the comments on these Draft EIS's as contained in our correspondence dated February 18, 1991. With the understanding established in our meeting of March 26, 1991 (summar/zed herein) I believe that the applicant is aware of the level of detail needed to address the comments. In addition, Mth the Boards permission, 1 would be willing to provide a preliminary rev/ew of the Addendum, prior to submission. Thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance, and please call if you have any questions. Very4~lv~aurs, ~ -- '-T2harles J:'Voorhis cc: Judith T_ TerW Harvey Arnoff Donal~l Middleton CRAMER, VOOI~--H'I~ &/,'~SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL, AND" bEANI~ING CONSULTANTS . ~?--~ '7,,. -~. Page 2 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS February 28, 1991 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town o1 Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P_O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft EIS Review Jem Commons Stirling, New York Dear Supervisor and Members of the Town Board: As per your request, and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project within the 30 day period required under the regulations [6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)]_ This review compares the revised document to our letter of November 13, 1990, which identified deficiencies in the first submission. Overall, the revision addresses most of the comments contained in our previous letter. Several specific comments which remain outstanding in the current draft are outlined below. It is our recommendation that these matters be addressed and amended into the main body of the Draft EIS. In addition, information contained in the document referencing site environmental resources and sensitivity suggest that the Board would benefit from the evaluation of two additional alternatives, both involving a project of reduced magnitude. It is appropriate to consider these alternatives as outlined in Part 617.14(0(5)_ Since the Town Board is the only agency involved in the decision on the zone change itself, the scope of the document can be expanded provided the applicant is notified with a written statement explaining the need for additional analysis (Part 617.7(c). This review provides this written explanation. If the Town Board is in agreement with the comments contained herein, it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant revise the document to address the following points: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Need for Project Page 11I-4 to Page III-5 The portion of the last sentence beginning on Page III-5, which reads, "although Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, acting for the Lead Agency requested it", should be removed from the document. CVA has no authority to request this information, and merely provides recommendations to the Board. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Wildlife Page .11-18 to Page II-20 All wildlife identified in the report including Appendix P, should be included in the lists Pages I1-18 to II-20. In addition, species which are designated by New York State as endangered, threatened, or of special concern should be appropriately identified_ on 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Page 1 Jem Commons Dral~ EIS Review 2/28/91 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Groundwater Ouality Page V-3 to V-5 On Page III-15, the Draft ElS indicates that the area of lawn and landscaping is 47_5 acres, yet Page IV-3 identifies an area of 0.77 acres, and Page IV-5 indicates an area of 0.76 acres. The document should be amended to be consistent. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page V-8 Review of Appendix P would lead the reader to believe that the proposed site development will result in substantial impacts to wildlife including feeding habitat for endangered species and threatened species and species of special concern, yet this is not reflected in the text of the document. The significance of NYS species designations should be outlined in the report, as it is our finding that for certain species designations it is obligatory to protect habitat of these species as well as confirmed sites of activity. Further, other important wildlife utilizing the site, including fox, deer, and locally important avifauna, will be severely impacted by the proposed site development. These species should be identified and an acknowledgment of these impacts should be included in the text. Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) Page V-9 There should be a distinction between the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development, and assertions that surrounding development ~s not compatible with the R-80 zoning of the site. We concur that the surrounding zoning places some pressure on the subject site for ahigher density use from strictly a planning viewpoint without consideration of other environmental resources. We do not concur that surrounding development is not compatible with R-80 zoning. For this to be true surrounding development would have to cause some conflict with an R-80 development on the site. Light business use and moderate to high density residential use are continuously located adjacent to low density residential use. If the 31 lot alternative were required, lot sizes would permit setbacks and buffering which would alleviate any potential land use conflicts_ Therefore phrases in the Draft EIS which indicate that surrounding use is not compatible with the present site zoning should be eliminated or clarified. These occur on the following pages: Page III-12, first paragraph, last sentence; Page V-il, last sentence; Page VIII-2, first paragraph, fourth sentence; and Page VIii-Il, first paragraph, fourth sentence_ ALTERNATIVES Nitrogen Page VIII-4,6,13,15 The lawn and landscaped area coverage figures should be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page VIII-7 and VII1-24 In discussing the difference in wildlife impacts between the 171 unit development, and the 31 unit developments, the statement, "The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project_", is included. This statement is illogical and unsupported. Significant measures could be taken to reduce wildlife impacts at lower densities. CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVlRONMENTAL~AI~ID PLYING CONSULTANTS Page 2 Jem Commons Draft ElS Review 2/28/91 Economics Pages VIII-9 and VIII-18 The 31 unit project would not provide the same economic revenue that the 17l unit project would provide; however, this discussion ignores the fact that the reduction in density would also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue_ Further, there is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can cause a burden on school districts due to the cost to educate a student as compared the revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions. Additional Alternatives As a result of additional information included in the revised Draft EIS, it is apparent that the property is sensitive with regard to wildlife habitat. Further, there may.be apparent pressure to consider alternative zoning districts other than the present R-80 zoning, due to moderate to high density residential development and light business zoning adjacent the site. The applicant has proposed a 171 uttit high density residential development; however, this use may not be sufficiently sensitive to site environmental resources, including wildlife, open space, visual, land use and zoning, and other parameters. It is permissible to request additional alternatives in accord with 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c). Accordingly, we feel that the Town Board would benefit by the exploration of two additional alternatives regarding magnitude of development. These include: cluster development in accordance with R-40 zoning for the overall site, which would be consistent with zoning west of the site and would allow for protection of some wildlife habitat on the site; and a reduced density (perhaps 100 units instead of 152) on the 42 acre portion of the site requested to be rezoned to HD district, which xvould allow for a more aesthetic design in conjunction with retention of additional open space. In addition, an alternative to the proposed project involving construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) is included in the Project Description section of the Draft EIS, Page III-14. This alternative should be discussed in greater detail, with an evaluation of the potential impacts of such an alternative in the Alternative section of the Draft ElS. The applicability of STP sighting setbacks should be discussed, as well as environmental, land use, and aesthetic impacts of such an alternative, as a consequence of a Town decision to authorize a zoning district which mandates the need for sewage treatment. The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sections of the Draft ElS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft ElS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you h. ave any questions regarding this review. / (_Char-les J~/Vo'6rhis cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk CRAMER, VOORHIS &.ASSOCIATES ENVlRONMENTA!~AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS :~ V/Ill Page 3 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANIqlNG CONSULTANTS March 27, 1991 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED MAR 2 9 1991 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Supervisor Harris: As per the Boards directive, as related to me through Harvey Arnoff and Judy Terry, I met with the applicants on the above project in my offices on March 26, 1991, to discuss the necessary revisions to the Draft EIS. Present were: Charles J. Voorhis, Donald Middleton, Emanuel Kontokosta, Catherine Russell. It was determined that additional information would be necessary to provide an acceptable Draft EIS. The basis for this information is contained in my two (2) previous correspondences dated February 18, 1991. It was agreed that the additional information should be supplied as an addendum to the documents, due to the fact that forty (40) copies of the Draft ElS have already, been submitted. In the future I recommend that only five (5) copies of revised documents be submitted until acceptance is issued. The scope of the addendum was discussed, and it was agreed that sewage treatment plant alternatives for Jem Commons would be discussed in the Alternatives section. The proposed project for Jem Commons would involve a tie-in to an existing sewer district. The Alternative discussion supplement for Jem Commons will contain discussion on the environmental benefits associated with a reduction in density from that which is presently requested on the south portion of the site. Additional analysis will be provided regarding site wildlife usage, and the density reduction discussion will address the ability to provide additional open space for some degree of continued wildlife utilization. All other comments in the letter (February 18, 1991) on Jem Commons will be addressed in the Addendum. For Southold Commons, the addendum will contain an acknowledgment that if the project is constructed at the requested density, the location of a sewage treatment plant on site xvould result in a yield reduction of 15 to 17 units depending upon siting and design. In addition, the cumulative impact section will provide more detailed information on the land use issues associated with siting a high density residential project at the subject location with .respect to surrounding land use and zoning. There will be some acknowledgment of incompatibility issues with present zoning; however, additional references and support will be provided from the Town Master Plan regarding the future land use trends in th~s area. All other comments from the letter of February 18, 1991 on Southold Commons will be addressed in the Addendum. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE N'Y' 11764 1516) 331 1455 Page 1 DEIS Revision Jem/Southold Commons At this point it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant address the comments on these Draft EIS's as contained in our correspondence dated February 18, 1991. With the understanding established in our meeting of March 26, 1991 (summarized herein) I believe that the applicant is aware of the level of detail needed to address the comments. In addition, with the Boards permission, I would be willing to provide a preliminary review of the Addendum, prior to submission. Thank you for the opportunity to provide assistance, and please call if you have any questions. '-~harles Jr~oorhis cc: Judith T. Terry Harvey Arnoff Donald Middleton E NVI RO N M E NT~:.~/~/~!~N G CONSULTANTS Page 2 ?iOW^aD March 4, 1991 Town BOard Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New YorR 11971 ATT: Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney RE: Southold Commons Ooar Harvey: Further to our t~lephone coaversation of toda~,'s data, this ~ill confirm that ~ di~c,$se~ '.]y faxed letter to the Board, datod F~bruary 26, 1991, in hhe above captioned matter. It was agreed upon before ~ny further r~-svaluatlon of the moss cucront Draf~ Environmental Impact Statement, that am additional $copimg ~s~ion should be had with Cramer, Voorhis & AsBociatHs, yourself as Town :\ttorsey, my client and tha undersigned. In this fashion, we can expedite the process in brinolaO she SEQRA Process ~o an early conclusion%. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. HEP/mes truly yours~ I{O~ARO ~, PACHMAN cc $outbold Commo~l s HOWARD E. PACHMAN, P.G. March 4, 1991 Town Board Town of Southold To'~n Hall 53095 Main Road $outhold, New York 11971 Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney RE: Jem Commons Dear Harvey: Further to our talophone conversation of today's date, this will confirm tha~ we discussed my faxed letter to tho Board, dated February 26, 1991, in the above captioned matte~. It was agreed upon b~fore any further re-evaluation of the most curr~nt Draft Environmental Impact Statement, that an additional scoping session should bo had with Cramer, Voornis & Associates, yourself as Town Attorney, my client and the unde~iGned. In this fashion, we can eKp~dite the process in bringing the SEQRA Process to an early conclusion. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. HEP/mes ly yours, }{O%{ARD E. PACHMAN cc Jom Commons CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS February 28, 1991 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft EIS Review Jem Commons Stifling, New York RECEIVED MAR 6 199! Dear Supervisor and Members of the Town Board: As per your request, and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project within the 30 day period required under the regulations [6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)]_ This review compares the revised document to our letter of November 13, 1990, which identified deficiencies in the first submission. Overall, the revision addresses most of the comments contained in our previous letter. Several specific comments which remain outstanding in the current draft are outlined below. It is our recommendation that these matters be addressed and amended into the main body of the Draft EIS. In addition, information contained in the document referencing site environmental resources and sensitivity suggest that the Board would benefit from the evaluation of two additional alternatives, both involving a project of reduced magnitude. It is appropriate to consider these alternatives as outlined in Part 617.14(0(5). Since the Town Board is the only agency involved in the decision on the zone change itself, the scope of the document can be expanded provided the applicant is notified with a written statement explaining the need for additional analysis (Part 617.7(c). This review provides this written explanation. If the Town Board is in agreement with the comments contained herein, it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant revise the document to address the following points: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Public Need for Proiect ~ III-4 to P. age III-5 The portion of the lhst sentence beginning on Page Ili-5, which, reads, although Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, acting for the LeadAgency requested it, should be removed from the document. CVA has no authority to request this information, and merely provides recommendations to the Board. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Wildlife Page II-18 to Paee 11-20 All wildlife identified in the report including Appendix P, should be inchJde~ in the lists on Pages II-18 to I1-20. In addition, species which are designated by New York State as endangered, threatened, or of special concern should be appropriately identified. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331 1455 Page I Draft ElS Review 2/28/91 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Groundwater Ouali _ty Page V-3 to V-5 On Page III-15, the Draft ElS indicates that the area of lawn and landscaping is 47.5 acres, yet Page IV-3 identifies an area of 0.77 acres, and Page 1V-5 indicates an area of 0.76 acres. The document should be amended to be consistent. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page V-8 Review of Appendix P would lead the reader to believe that the proposed site development will result in substantial impacts to wildlife including feeding habitat for endangered species and threatened species and species of special concern, yet this is not reflected in the text of the document. The significance of NYSspecies designations should be outlined in the report, as it is our finding that for certain species designations it is obligatory to protect habitat of these species as well as confirmed sites of activity. Further, other important wildlife utilizing the site, including fox, deer, and locally important avifauna, will be severely impacted by the proposed site development. These species should be identified and an acknowledgment of these impacts should be included in the text. Land Use _& Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) Page V-9 There should be a distinction between the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development, and assertions that surrounding development is not compatible with the R-80 zoning of the site. We concur that the surrounding zoning places some pressure on the subject site for a higher density use from strictly a planning viewpoint without consideration of other environmental resources. We do not concur that surrounding development is not compatible with R-80 zoning. For this to be true surrounding development would have to cause some conflict with an R-80 development on the site. Light business use and moderate to high density residential use are continuously located adjacent to low density residential use. If the 31 lot alternative were required, lot sizes would permit setbacks and buffering which would alleviate any potential land use conflicts. Therefore phrases in the Draft EIS which indicate that surrounding use is not compatible with the present site zoning should be eliminated or clarified. These occur on the following pages: Page III-12, first paragraph, last sentence; Page V-II, last sentence; Page VIII-2, first paragraph, fourth sentence; and Page VIII-11, first paragraph, fourth sentence_ ALTERNATIVES Nitrogen Page VIII-4,6,13,15 The lawn and landscaped area coverage figures should be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page VIII-7 and VII1-24 In discussing the difference in wild!ifc impacts between the 171 unit development, and the 31 unit devel.opments, the statement, The impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project.", is included. This statement is illogical and unsupported. Significant measures could be taken to reduce wildlife impacts at lower densities. CRAMER, VO RI tS &'J, , SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT I CONSULTANTS Page 2 Jem Common~ Draft ElS Review 2/28/91 Economics Pages VIII-9 and VIII-18 ~t project would not provide the same economic r~venue that the 171 unit project would provide; however, this discussion ignores the fact that the reduction in density would also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue. Further, there is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can cause a burden on school districts due to the cost to educate a student as compared the revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions. Additional Alternatives As a result of additional information included in the revised Draft EIS, it is apparent that the property is sensitive with regard to wildlife habitat. Further, there maybe apparent pressure to consider alternative zoning districts other than the present R-80 zoning, due to moderate to high density residential development and light business zoning adjacent the site. The apphcant has proposed a 171 unit high density residential development; however, this use may not be sufficiently sensitive to site environmental resources, including wildlife, open space, visual, land use and zoning, and other parameters. It is permissible to request additional alternatives in accord with 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c). Accordingly, we feel that the Town Board would benefit by the exploration of two additional alternatives regarding magnitude of development. These include: cluster development in accordance with R-40 zoning for the overall site, which would be consistent with zoning west of the site and would allow for protection of some wildlife habitat on the site; and a reduced density (perhaps 100 units instead of 152) on the 42 acre portion of the site requested to be rezoned to HD district, which would allow for a more aesthetic design in conjunction with retention of additional open space. In addition, an alternative to the proposed project involving construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) is included in the Project Description section of the Draft EIS, Page III-14. This alternative should be discussed in greater detail, with an evaluation of the potential impacts of such an alternative in the Alternative section of the Draft ElS. The applicability of STP sighting setbacks should be discussed, as well as environmental, land use, and aesthetic impacts of such an alternative, as a consequence of a Town decision to authorize a zoning district which mandates the need for sewage treatment. The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sections of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. ~~~ -~ J CRAMER, V ,.q0. RHt$. 8¢//~SOCIATES ENVlRONM ENT~i~-Ab~,_..__: ,~.~..~S:.. CONSULTANTS Page 3 SENT BY FAX HOWARD E. PAGHMAN. P.G. February 26, 1991 Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RECEIVED FEB 2 7 Southold ATT: Scott Harris, Supervisor RE: Jem Commons Dear Supervisor Harris: Please be advised that I am the attorney for the above- captioned project, who has filed for a change of zone application presently pending before the Town Board. At this time, the completion of the designated itself Cramer, Voohris & application has been awaiting the SEQR process. The Town Board has as the Lead Agency. You have designated Associates, as your consultant. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was submitted on behalf of my client by Middletown Environmental, Inc., in October of 1990. Thereafter, Cramer, Voorhis and Associates submitted their review and analysis dated November 13, 1990. Based upon their review, my client revised the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, dated January, 1991, to address the comments. Subsequently, on February 18, 1991, Cramer, Voorhis submitted additional comments not addressed in the earlier evaluation. My client feels that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as revised, is adequate to address the environmental concerns surrounding the request for a change of zone application and can be circulated to the outside agencies, for their review and comment. Page Two February 26, 1991 Therefore, in the interest of saving time and the unnecessary additional expenditure of money on behalf of my client, I request that the Town Board, as Lead Agnecy, permit the Draft Environmental Impact Statement be circulated. At the end of the comment period, my client will address any additional comments by the outside agencies and also will address the subsequent comments made by Cramer and Voorhis in their letter of February 18, 1991. In this way, all comments will be addressed in the final Draft Environmental Impact Statement, to be considered by the Board, when the matter is set down for public hearing. At this time I wish to thank you, on behalf of my client for your consideration of this application. HOWARD E. PACHMAN HEP/mes cc Jem Commons F L CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES 54 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE, NEW YORK 1].764 (516) 331-1455 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Southold Tow~ Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 STATEMENT DATE [ INVOICE NUMBER / DESCRIPTION [ CHARGES I CREDITS 02/20/91 #929 RE: Jem C~mmons @ Stirling. Review of the revised Draft EIS. $250.00 ;250.00 CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES' CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS February 18, 1991 Supervisor Scott Harris and Members of the Town Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Draft ElS Review Jem Commons Stifling, New York RECEIVED FEB 2 1 1991 Dear Supervisor and Members ot the Town Board: As per your request, and in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act, we have completed a review of the Draft EIS for the above referenced project within the 30 day period required under the regulations [6 NYCRR 617.8(b)(4)]. This review compares the revised document to our letter of November 13, 1990, which identified deficiencies in the first subnfission_ Overall, the revision addresses most of the comments contained in our previous letter. Several specific comments which remain outstanding in the current draft are outlined below. It is our recommendation [hat these matters be addressed and amended into the main body of the Draft EIS. In addition, information contained in the document referencing site environmental resources and sensitivity suggest that the Board would benefit from the evaluation of two additional alternatives, both involving a project of reduced magnitude. It is appropriate to consider these alternatives as outlined in Part 617.14(0(5). In addition, since the Town Board is the only agency involved in the decision on the zone change itself, the scope of the document can be expanded provided the applicant is notified with a written statement explaining the need for additional analysis (Part 617.7(c). This review provides this written explanation. If the Town Board is in agreement with the comments contained herein, it is recommended that the Board resolve to have the applicant revise the document to address the following points: PROJECT DF. SCRIPTION Public ~ for Project Page III-4 to Page 111-5 The portion of the last sentence beginning on Page III-5, which reads, "although Cramer. Voorhis & Associates, acting for the Lead Agency requested it", should be removed from the document. CVA has no authority to request this information, and merely provides recommendations to the Board. ENVIRONMENTAL SETFING Wild!ife~ Page II-18 .[9_ Fa_ge_ I[-2f! All wildlife identified io the report including Appendix P, should be included in the lists on Pages II-18 to II-20. In addition, species which are designated by New York State as endangered, threatened, or of special concern should be appropriately identified. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331 1455 Page I Jem Commons Draft ElS Review 2/18/91 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Groundwater Quality Page V-3 to V-5 On Page I[I-15, the Draft EIS indicates that the area of lawn and landscaping is 47.5 acres, yet Page IV-3 identifies an area of 0.77 acres, and Page IV-5 indicates an area of 0.76 acres. The document should be amended to be consistent. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page V-8 Review of Appendix P would lead the reader to believe that the proposed site development will result in substantial impacts to wildlife including feeding habitat for endangered species and threatened species and species of special concern, yet this is not reflected in the text of the document. The significance of NYS species designations should be outlined in the report, as it is our finding that for certain species designations, it is obligatory to protect habitat of these species as well as confirmed sites of activity. Further, other important wildlife utilizing the site, including fox, deer. and locally important avifauna, will be severely impacted by the proposed site development~ These species should be identified and an acknowledgment of these impacts should be included in the text. Land Use & Zoning (Cumulative Impacts) Page V-9 There should be a distinction between the compatibility of the proposed project with surrounding development, and assertions that surrounding development is not compatible with the R-80 zoning of the site. We concur that the surrounding zoning places some pressure on the subject site for a higher density use from strictly a platming viewpoint without consideration of other environmental resources. We do not concur that surrounding development is not compatible with R-80 zoning. For this to be true surrounding development would have to cause some conflict with an R-80 development on the site. Light business use and moderate to high density residential use are continuously located adjacent to low density residential use. If the 31 lot alternative were required, lot sizes would permit setbacks and buffering which would alleviate any potential land use conflicts. Therefore phrases in the Draft EIS which indicate that surrounding use is not compatible with the present site zoning should be eliminated or clarified. These occur on the following pages; Page III-12, first paragraph, last sentence; Page V-Il, last sentence; Page VIII-2, first paragraph, fourth sentence; and Page VIII-11, first paragraph, fourth sentence. ALTERNATIVES Nitrogen Page VIII-4,6,13,15 The lawn and landscaped area coverage figures should be reviewed and amended as appropriate as per previous comments on site quantities. Terrestrial and Wildlife Habitat Page VIII-7 and VIII-24 In discussing the difference in wildlife impacts between the 171 unit development, and the 3l unit developments, the statement, '~I'he impact to the terrestrial and wildlife habitat would be approximately the same as the proposed project.", is included. This statement is illogical and unsupported. Significant measures could be taken to reduce wildlife impacts at lower densities. CRAMER, V ,OORH~,,~ ,~,~,~'~SOCIATES E N VIRO N M E N T.~ ~i~l~.i~,~N G CONSULTANTS Page 2 Draft ElS Review 2/18/91 Economics Pages VIII-9 and VIII-18 The 31 unit project would not provide the same economic revenue that the 171 unit project would provide; however, this discussion ignores the fact that the reduction in density would also result in lesser demand for services thereby offsetting the change in revenue. Further, there is significant documentation which indicates that detached single family housing can cause a burden on school districts due to the cost to educate a student as compared the revenue per student. The Draft EIS does not contain sufficient economic data or analysis to support the economic conclusions_ Additional Alternatives As a result of additional information included in the revised Draft ElS, it is apparent that the property is sensitive with regard to wildlife habitat. Further, there maybe apparent pressure to consider alternative zoning districts other than the present R-80 zoning, due to moderate to high density residential development and light business zoning adjacent the site. The applicant has proposed a 171 unit high density residential development; however, this use may not be sufficiently sensitive to site environmental resources, including wildlife, open space, visual, land use and zoning, and other parameters. It is permissible to request additional alternatives in accord with 6 NYCRR Part 617.7(c). Accordingly, we feel that the Town Board would benefit by the exploration of two additional alternatives regarding magnitude of development_ These include: cluster development in accordance with R-40 zoning for the overall site, which would be consistent with zoning west of the site and would allow for protection of some wildlife habitat on the site; and a reduced density (perhaps 100 units instead of 152) on the 42 acre portion of the site requested to be rezoned to HD district, which would allow for a more aesthetic design in conjunction with retention of additional open space. In addition, an alternative to the proposed project involving construction of an on-site sewage treatment plant (STP) is ~ncluded in the Project Description section of the Draft EIS, Page III-14. This alternative should be discussed in greater detail, with an evaluation of the potential impacts of such an alternative in the Alternative section of the Draft EIS. The applicability of STP sighting setbacks should be discussed, as well as environmental, land use, and aesthetic impacts of such an alternative, as a consequence of a Town decision to authorize a zoning district which mandates the need for sewage treatment. The above comments pertain to the scope, content and adequacy of the subject document for public review. As indicated it is recommended that the applicant amend the body of the text of the document to address or include the above noted items. All appropriate sectiorks of the Draft EIS should be altered to reflect the above comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Southold Town Board with our review of the Draft EIS for Southold Commons. Provided the above noted items are satisfactorily addressed in the revision the document can be circulated for a 30 day comment period in order to consider the accuracy and validity of the document. We will be pleased to conduct further review at your request. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions regarding this review. .// , cc: Judith Terry, Town Clerk ,~C~rles Jf~bb?h~s Harvey Arnoff, Town Attorney CRAMER, V~'~{'~. ~.~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT)M; ~. _~D}~.,~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 JUDITH T. TERRY ~FO~ CLERK Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 TELEPHONE ($16) 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 20, 1989: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental and Planning Consultants, to perform the following services with respect to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement, at the following fees: Scoping the DEIS $ 250.00 Review of DEIS for Scope and Adequacy $ 500.00 Critical Review of Accepted DEIS $ 1,250.00 //~-Tudith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk June 21, 1989 "'-";~, ~"":'"~SOCIATES CRAMER, VC~RH~ .~ ENVIRON M ENTEL' ~,~!~.~'~]~ !~]G CONSULTANTS June 15, 1989 Hr. Bennett Orlowaki~ Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Consulting Services Dear Benny: Chairman Pursuant to our telephone conversation, our firm would like to amend our proposal letter of January 30, 1989. That letter outlined certain services and fee structures for those services. Found on Page 2 of 3 there is reference to CVA preforming tile scoping of the DEIS, review of the DEIS for scope and adequacy and the critical review of the accepted DEIS; for the flat rate of $2,000.°°~ We would like at this time, for the Doard to consider a change in that proposal. As emch of these are separate and distinct activities and significant time may elapse between each, or, a pre3ect mayDe withdrawn or never col~pleted~ we feel the following amendment to the fee structure is appropriate: ' * Scoping of the DEfS .................. $ 250.00 *.x. RevJew of DEIS for Scope and Adequacy ......................... $ 500.00 * Critical Review of Accepted DEIS ................................. $1,250.00 The praposed flat fees, for the three services, total $2000.00, as does our original proposal. Thank you ~or your consideration in this ~natter. Very tr~//.%/-iurs, .,.,. /' W, Cramer, ASLA 5,4"',-.O~TH COUNTRY ROAD. MILLEg PLACE. N"~ 11764 (516) 331-~455 LALrI~y L. DOWI) T 0 'W~- ATTO R_N-EY JE.kN W. COCHtLa~'~ Supai-visor Town Hail_ 53095 Nfain Road P.O. Box 1179 $outhold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1889 F:~x ~516~ 765-L823 OFFICE OF TI-IE TOWN A'i-rORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Privileqed & Confidential MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE. RE: Town Board Valene Scopaz. P!anning Lauw L. Dcwd. Town Attorney October 5. 1997 Jem Realty Co. v. Town of SouthoJd The newspaper 'scooped" me on this news, but the above titled case has teen decided in favor of :he Town. This is of particular note to Alice Huss~e, Joseph Townsend. Louisa Evans and Ruth Olive, who were being sued individually as well as ~n Ihe~r official capacity The case was dism,ssed by [he Federal Court on a mobon for summap/ judgment. ~n which ~he court held that plaintiff failed to state sufficient legal grounds for a case. The :ourt ~ssued a 27 page decision, wn,ch is avadai21e ~n my office if you would tike a copy. NotaDle parts of the decision held · Jem Realty had no vested rights in its zoning because ~t nad r~o[ taken any acuons in reliance upon the former zoning wnic.'~ would '-ct Pe equally useful under the newer zoning · ."_on,rig alone is not a ;rcoerty ~n[erest which gives rqa~nt[fl' a o',aim To loss :f a ;rcperty w~thout due ;rccess Town Board Valene Scopaz, Planning October 6, 1997 Page 2 · there was no violation of equal protection simply because this was the only one of five properties which resulted in a rezoning. There was no evidence that the vote to rezone was due to a malicious or bad faith intent [o injure plaintiff. · plaintiff had produced no evidence that the action had a discriminatory impact under [he Fair Housing Act. The court rejected plaintiffs claim that Iow income people were a minority group protected under Title VIII. Let me know if you have any questions about [he decision. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX(S16) 765 ~823 YELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 THIS CHANGE OF ZONE ON JEM REALTY CO. WAS REVERSED ON THE TOWN BOARD'S OWN MOTION - AMENDMENT NO. 137, JULY 26, 1994. CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 136 WHEREAS, a petition was heretofore filed with the Tov, n Board of the Town of Southold by ............ :~]..~.~.~.!~:.~..~].~: ............................................ requesting a change modification and amendment of the Building Zone Ordinance including the Building Zone Maps made a part thereof by chang- Parcel I - R-80 (Low-Density Residential 2 acre) to R-40 (one acre) ing from ......................................... District to .................................. Parcel II - R-80 (Low-Density Residential 2 acre) to I:/D ~'Fl'/fmlet Density) District the property described in said petition, and WHEREAS said petition was duly referred to the Planning Board for its investigation, recommendation and report, and its report having been filed with the Town Board, and thereafter, a public hearing in relation to said petition having been duly held by the Town Board on the ...... ~,.t)]. ....... day of .......... i~eb. ltua~;:y .................. , 19..9.~..., and due deliberation having been hod thereon NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the relief demanded in said petition be, and it hereby is GRANTED, based upon the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions filed in the Office of the Clerk of the County of Suffolk on December 22, 1993. DATED: January 3, 1994. ,~' JUDITH T .~'~T E R RY ~7 SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PAGH,MAN. PAGHMAN. EIROXVN ~: F'.~.RNETI. February 4, 1994 Thomas Wickham, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board Town Hall Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: Jem Commons Dear Supervisor Wick_ham: As you know, we are the attorneys for Jem Commons. We are in receipt of Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie's letter to Jem Commons dated January 26, 1994. This, coupled with other media stories, gives us great concern. As I am sure you are aware, the applicant is following the actions of the Town Board and other Town agencies with respect to tile status of the parcel recently rezoned to R-40 and HD. Please be advised that if any action is taken which our client deems adverse to its civil rights, we are prepared to advise Jem Commons of their legal right to commence such state or federal actions which are necessary to protect its interests against the Town, its agencies and other persons, including Town Board members, both in their individual and representative capacities. Such actions would seek compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney's fees as may be appropriate. Page 2 Thomas Wickham, Supervisor February 4, 1994 We trust such action will not be necessary. Given the potential of such litigation, it may be appropriate for your Board to authorize the Town Attorney to meet with myself and my client to discuss these issues. We will not pursue this matter in the media or at a public hearing, which may degrade to a circus atmosphere. HEP/blb cc: Very truly yours, HOWARD E. PACH~3%N Jem Commons Hon. Joseph J. Lizewski, Councilman Hon. Alice J. Hussie, Councilwoman Hon. Joseph L. Tow%nsend, Jr., Councilman Hon. Ruth D. Oliva, Councilwoman Judith Terry, Town Clerk Laury Dowd, Town Attorney Richard Ward, Chairman of the Planning Board PA©HMAN. PAGHM,~N. BROWN & F'ARNETI. P.G. February 7, 1994 VIA FEDEIq~L EXPRESB Judith Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Jem Commons RECFIVED FEB 8 1994 $oulhold Town Cler~ Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find letters addressed to each member of the Town Board, Town Attorney Dowd, Chairman Ward, and yourself. We would appreciate it if you would distribute these letters prior to tomorrow's Town Board work session. Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation. Very truly yours, MATTHEW E. PACHMAN MEP/blb enclosures QUESTIONS? CALL 800-238-5355 TOLL FREE. AIRBILL - ' ~,~ 96347956D1 963479560'i. SIrPERVISOR Thomas H. Wlckham COUNC~MEN Joseph J. Llzewski Alice J, Hussie Joseph L. Townsend, Jr. Ruth D. OIiva Justice Louisa P. Evans TOWN BOARD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 26, 199~ Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone [516) 765 - 1891 Fax (516) 765 - 1823 Kontakosta Associates ti3 West 5~,th Street New York, New York 10019 Re: Change of Zone - Jem Commons Dear Mr. Kontakosta: On February 8, 199~, the Southold Town Board will be annulment of the covenants and restrictions consented to with zone for Jem Commons. discussing the the change of You are invited to attend this discussion. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. V.ery truly .yourS," /. , // /// Councilwoman AJH:mls cc: Town Board Planning Board JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1170 Southold, New York ID)71 Fax (516) 765-1}423 Telephone 1516i 765-1801 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1993: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by petition filed March I, 1990, applied to the Town Board of the town of Southold for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located on the northerly side of the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 the most southerly 42+ acres from existing "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20+_ acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); and WHEREAS, the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the 4th day of February, 1992, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Jem Realty Co. be and hereby is granted the relief demanded in said petition subject to the execution and recording in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office of the following Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which are hereby made a part of the Town Board's decision: WHEREAS, the Declarant (Jem Realty Co., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York) is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" (to follow this recital) and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as Jem Commons; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residential R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two- acre minimum)) to Residential R-q0 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I, and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. W I T INI E S E T H NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road (Route 48). 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum}) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)} criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the Code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of said real property or part thereof, and upon their h6irs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (I) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the. land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long ~sland Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North b6 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East -2- 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly alor~g the land now or furmerly of Gus Schad the fo!lowing courses and distances: '(1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds Eas[ 410_00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Water Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. $outhold Town Clerk December 8, 1993 -3- DECL.%3t~TTON OF COV~I~A/q~S ~ REST~ICTIONS THZS DECLAi~TION, made and entered into the 2nd day of DECEHBER , 1993, by J_=H REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 Wes~ 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"'). RECITALS W}{ER~-AS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. Distric~ 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a parn hereof, (hereinafter to as the "Premises"), co--only ~new~ as J~ CO~O~S; refe_~red and W-HER~AS, the Declarant has made application to the To~ of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-BO (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Ham!e5 Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and W~E~R3_AS, the Tow~ of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant'~ application for a change of zone; and the WHER3_A$, the Declarant has agreed, approval of the To%~ Beard of the To'w~ 1 in consideration of of Sou=held to =he change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of $outhold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEI~EAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WITNESET~ NOW, THE~AEFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In. the development of the subject Premises, a proposed s%lbdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density Districn (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density Disuric~ (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the To~n of $outhold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion), of designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential shall: A. Be developed at a density equal residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. the Premises to be District) zoning, to one B. Provide that out of the total n~ber of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Tow%~ of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Tow~ of Sou~hold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent o~ers of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Tow~ of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his COUNTY_ OF PASSAIC On this personally ca=e to ~e a p~ner of JEM REALTY CO.. and of JER REALTY CO, ., The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly,' line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the followin~ courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (HYS Route 25): ([) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds We~t 1085.53 feet, [2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East ~76.40 fe~t, (3) North 21 degrees 0S minutes 30 seconds West B07.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning Sout~ 62 degrees 2~ minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party the ~rst par~ 1373.47 feet to the [and now or formerly of Au~ust~ 5traussner; thence ~4orth :7 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.~0 feet the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long IsIand Sound having following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 3~ minutes seconds East 3-=6.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds Eas: 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 de~rees 10 min'~es 0O seconds East 3~2.00 fee;. (4] North 79 degrees I3 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, southerly along the la,nd now or formerly of Gus Schad the fol~owin~ c~rses and d~stances: (1) South 21 de~rees 34 minutes 40 seconds 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 17S.00 fee: to the point or place of beginning. Parcel II: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerh: side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side c land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Crate Robinson; ant from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side o North Road the following course.s and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 0_-- minutes 20 seconds ;Vest 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes com~inued Exhibit "A" ~ C0~/~-ONS degrees West 2~,6.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinut~; runninO thence along said land Horth 26 degrees 56 minutes l0 seconds West ~40.77 feet to the land now or formerly of 'Nalter Sledjesk~; running thence alon~ said land ~he following courses ~nd distances: (]) North 30 de~rees 5B minutes 00 seconds West 198.2B feet, (2) South 66 de~rees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.~7 fee[ to the land ~ow or formerly of Horrower; runn~n~ thence alom~ said land and alon9 land of other o%vners the follo~in~ two c~u~ses amd distances: [~) North 27 de, teas a7 minutes 30 seconds Wes~ 5;8.67 feet, (~] No~th 27 degrees 33 minutes ~0 seconds ~;est 63~.~9 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 2~ minutes ~0 seconds 'Hest ~373.~7 feet to sa{d land now o~ formerl,/ of F.C.P. Haneman; runnin~ thence along said land the fol[o~ing courses and dislances: (~) South 2~ de~rees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.S7 feet, [~) South 76 degrees 30 minu~es 30 seconds West 37S.~0 fae~, (3) South 30 degrees ]~ mimutes 30 seconds East ~085.53 feet to the .northerly side of North Road, at ~he point or place beginning. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 7th day of January 1994, she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Amendment of Town Code and Map, Amendment No. 136, Jem Realty Co. from R-80 to R-40 - Parcel I, and R-80 to HD - Parcel II. Sworn to before me this 7th day of ~L~J:UJ~qJ~-, 1994. Notary Public JOYCE M. WILKINS Notary Public. Stete of New Yo~ No. 4952246, Suffolk County Term Expires June 12. 19_.~..;~~ Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 136 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 7th day of December. 1993, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the Town Zoning Code, entitled "Tnning Code of the Town of Southold;' together with the Zoning Map forming a part thereof, subject to the recording of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Suffolk County Clerk's Of- fice. Said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions w~re recorded on December 22, 1993. Amendment No. 136 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing from R-80 (Low-Density Residential - 2 acFe minimum) District To R-40 (Low-Density Residential- I acre minimum) District on Parcel 1, and fi-om R-gO (Low- Density Residential - 2 acre minimum) District to HD (Hamlet Density) District on Parcel Il, the property of Jem Realty Co., situate, lying and be- ing at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (Northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1{)85.53 feet; (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.§? feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Lan and Sound having fallowing courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet; (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet; (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence souther- ly along the land now or former- ly of Gus Schad the following courses and dis~nces: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel Il: (southerly parcel) Beginning at a point on the nor- therly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of begining run- lng thence along the northerly side of North Road the follow- ing courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or former- ly of Walter Sledieski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Her- rower; running thence along said land and along [and of other owners the following two courses and distances: (I) North 27 degrees 47 minutes J0 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, runn- ing thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of EC.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 deg.=es 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. DATED: January 3, 1994 JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IX-1/13/94(1) C()UNTY OF SUFFOLK , A'IE f)f: NEW YORk Patricia Wood, being duly sworn, says thai she is the E,litor, of-I HE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMA~'h public newspaper printed at Southold, in Suffolk Count,. ,md lhat tile noticc of ,vhich tile annexed is a p~intecl cop,,', h,,,, hccrl imhlished ii~ said I_orlg Island 1 '[cessivclv commellCira~ afl the ........ ~.~ ......... "2 .... .??. Notary Public BARBAR^ ^. SC'.HNEIDER NOTARY PUBLIC, Sh!e of r~e,.-¢ 'Fora Q~:al,hed ,n S,Ji',clk County Cem,r,,sSlun Exp,,es g/.Jl/~g LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 136 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 7th day of December, 1993, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the Town Zoning Code, entitled "Zoning Code of the town of $outhold", together with the Zoning Map forming a part thereof, subject to the recording of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Suffolk County Clerk's office. Said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions were recorded on December 22, 1993. Amendment No. 136 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing from R-80 (Low-Density Residential - 2 acre minimum) District to R-40 (Low-Density Residential 1 acre minimum) District on Parcel I, and from R-80 (Low-Density Residential 2 acre minimum) District to HD (Hamlet Density) District on Parcel II, the property of Jem Realty Co., situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 secons East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the followin¢ courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel) Beginning at a point on th e northerly side of i~orth Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 Page 2 - COZ - Jem Realty Co. minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3} South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. DATED: January 3, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 13, 199q, AND FORWARD ONE (1) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971, Copies to the following: The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Howard E. Pachman, Esq. for Jem Realty Co. Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Roderick Van Tuy, P.C. LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF AMENDMENT TO SOUTHOLD TOWN CODE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 136 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that at a meeting of the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, held on the 7th day of December, 1993, the Town Board enacted the following amendment to the Town Zoning Code, entitled "Zoning Code of the town of Southold", together with the Zoning Map forming a part thereof, subject to the recording of Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions in the Suffolk County Clerk's office. Said Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions were recorded on Oecember 22, 1993. Amendment No. 136 amends the Code of the Town of Southold by changing from R-I~0 (Low-Density Residential 2 acre minimum) District to R-40 (Low-Density Residential 1 acre minimum) District on Parcel I, and from R-80 (Low-Density Residential 2 acre minimum) District to HD {Hamlet Density) District on Parcel II, the property of Jem Realty Co., situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road [NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of becji~min~j South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having following courses and distances: (I) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 secons East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 3L~2.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410,00 feet, [2) South 21 degrees to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel) side of North Road where the same 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet Beginning at a point on th e northerly is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.4u~ feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledieski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 Page 2 COZ - Jem Realty Co. minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: [I) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, [2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 f~¢t to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. DATED: January 3, 1994. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 13, 199~1, AND FORWARD ONE (I) AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, TOWN CLERK, TOWN HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the' following: The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorney Howard E. Pachman, Esq. for Jem Realty Co. Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Roderick Van Tuy, P.C. PAGHMAN, PAGHM,'~.N, I~ROWN ~;: F';%.RNETI, P_G. ATTORNEYS December 30, 1993 Judith T. Terry Clerk Town of Southold Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED JAN 3 1994 Re: Jem Commons Covenants & Restrictions Dear Ms. Terry: Enclosed please find a copy of the Covenants and Restrictions filed by Jem Realty Co. in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on December 22, 1993, along with the copy of the County Clerk's letter confirming this filing. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, MATTHEW E. PACHFd%N MEP/pal Encs. cc: Jem Realty Co. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK EDWARD P. ROMAINE COUNTY CLERK To Whom It May Concern: This will verify that the attached was recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on Certified copies of the above document(s) identifying Liber and Page are not produced on the date of recording but will be avail- able within thirty (30) days of same. Sincerely, EDWARD P. ROMAINE County Clerk ,xI Ced|flclia # Dttd I Modpge |nllrUmeol ra~e I Front Fee ~ I Handling ~-. TP-$94 Notallon . i:A-5217 (County) .__ EA-$21? (State) Comm. of Ed. 5 . O0 Affldavl, Cerllfied Cop, (J) ~/. Re~ Copy Oilier Deed / Mortgage Tax Stamp FEES S,.h To,-' Sub Total ~/'~. 5 Real Property Tu Service Agency Verification Dlock Lot Recording / Filing Slamlls Mortgage Ami. 1. Basic Tu 2. SONYMA Sub ToIM .1. Spec. lAdd. TOT. MTG. TAX Dual Town Dual Counly Ilcld for Appurtlonmenl __ Traaxfcr Tax Mansion Tax The property covered by Iltls morlg:,g~ is or will he Improved by a one or hvo family dwelling only. YES or NO~ ff NO, see appropriate tu clause on page # of this Instrument. Title Company Information Company Name Title Number J'FEEPAID BY: Cash Check. x Cliarge Payer same as R & R__ OBI T. TERRY, TOWN CT,~RK NY 11971 ILECORD & RETU[',dN TO Suffolk County Recording & Endorsement Page This page fOFIliS part of the attached covenank$ & p~s'cx'ictions made by: (Deed, Mortgage, etc,) The premises I, erein is situated in SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. DECLARATION OF COFENANTS ~ RESTI~ICTIONS THIS DECLA/~ATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of DECEMBER , 1993, by JEM P~EA/~TY CO., a pal~cnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). RECITALS WHERE.AS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter refer-red to as the "Premises"), conunonly and W~EREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Tow~ of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEP~_AS, the To~n of $outhold, has agreed to grant Declarant'~ application for a change of zone; and Wq{E~S, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the To~ Board of the Tow~ of Sou~hold to the 1 change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Tow~ of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WITNESETH NOW, THEP~EFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20~acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be develoged under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimLun)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the To~n of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, designated as HD shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Tow~ of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then o~ner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Tow~ of $outhold annul, or repeal any or all restrictions at any time. IN WITNESS W/qEREOF, of the foregoing covenant5 and/or the Declarant has hereunto set his 3 ha~.d ar.d seal t_he day ~nd year fi--s= a~ov~ ST2%T_v OF N~W COUNTY_ OF PASSAIC Co.. '--~ anue~ Kcn~a, pa-~er On this ~ day of ~".~f/~ , 1993, before me personally ca~e F~m_nuel Kontokosta, to me known and ~o~ to me to be a p~ner of JEM REALTY CO.~ and ~e person described in and who ~e=ated ~e foregoinq insolent in of JE~ REALTY CO,., ~d he duly ac~no~led~ed to me p~n~s~p of ~M REALTY-COl"' No=~z _:u~ !i~ StllliA IYgOS My Commiss~ Exits EXI-IBIT "A" - JF.M COMiMONS The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot. piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel}: Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from., the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25]: (1) North 30 degrees 18 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2} North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3} North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet tc the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Soun'd having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 2C seconds East 356.27 feet, (2} North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds Eas~ 388.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East :342.00 feet, (4} North 79 degrees 13 m~nutes 30 seconds East 3S7.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the followinc courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 0'~ minutes to the point or place of beginning. Parcel II: (southerly parcel): Beginning 34 minutes 40 seconds Eas~ 30 seconds East 175.00 fee-, at a point on the northerl;, side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side o- land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; anc from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side ot North Road the following course,s and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 0S minutes 20 seconds West 3~.9.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes OC continued - Ex~ibi~ "A" - JEM COMMONS degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; runnin0 thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 2~,0.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.l;8 feet, (2) South 66 de~rees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 3~9.'q7 feet to th~ I~nd mow or formerly of H~rrower; runn/no thence along said lend and along land of other owners the followin~ two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 63~.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes q0 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land ~he following courses and distances: {1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, {2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, {3] South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the .northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. ~-_ JUDI'fH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 December 15, 1993 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. P.O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Dear Mr. Pachman: Enclosed is a certified resolution of the Southold Town Board, adopted at a regular meeting held on December 7, 1993, granting a change of zone to Jem Realty Co. The Town Board's resolution is subject to the recording in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office of the enclosed executed Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions. Please forward to me a copy of the aforesaid Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions which shall contain a certification of the Suffolk County Clerk that the document has been recorded in his office. After receipt of same I shall proceed with publication of the legal notice for this change of zone. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Should you require anything further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Judith T, Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures cc: Town Attorney JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax i516) 765-1823 Telephone (5161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1993: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by petition filed March 1, 1990, applied to the Town Board of the town of Southold for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located on the northerly side of the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 the most southerly 42+ acres from existing "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20_+ acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (1-acre minimum); and WHEREAS, the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the 4th day of February, 1992, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Jem Realty Co. be and hereby is granted the relief demanded in said petition subject to the execution and recording in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office of the following Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which are hereby made a part of the Town Board's decision: WHEREAS, the Declarant (Jem Realty Co., a partnership with offices at 0,3 West 54th Street, New York, New York) is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" (to follow this recital) and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as Jem Commons; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residential R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two- acre minimum)) to Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I, and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WI TN ESETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road (Route 48). 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. E~. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the Code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subiect, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (I) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through :he land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North b6 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East -2- 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds .East 357.33 feet, thence southerly alor~g the land now or furmerly of Gus $c.~ad the fo!!owing courses and distances~ (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning~ Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Water Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. Southold Town Clerk December 8. 1993 OECLARATION OF COVENi~NTB AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of DECE~IBER , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM COMMONB; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the 1 the change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WITNE~ETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In. the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. designated as shall: Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% 2 are to be d~slgnated "Affordabl9 Ho'asing" units and small be ~equired to meat the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide tha~ all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall b~ located, practicable, so it shall be adjacent space areas designated on the parcel to the east. to the open of property 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall ~e enforceable by the Town of Southo!d against the Decl~fant o~ th~ th~n owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or In equity againat any persons or parties violating or attempting to v~ol~te any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, i~ whole or in part. ~. Th~ ~bove-ment~one~ covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running witP the land and shall De b~ndinq uFon =he Dec!aroma and any and all subsequent owners of ~he said r~ai property or part thereof, and upon their belts, executors and administrators (or their ~ucces~ors or assiqns), subject, no,;ever, to the right of the Town of SouthGld ann%~l, or repeal a~¥ or all of t~e foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. iH WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has he~-eunto set hie 3 hand and seal the day and year first above written. STATE OF NEW 3ERSEY) ) COUNTY OF PASSAIC) 3EH R~A_~i~Y CO. (a ~ar~neFship) On this ~ day of /~.~i(i~/?~P/-, 1993, before me personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me to be a partner of JEM REALTY CO. and the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name of 3EH REALTY C0, , and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of the said partnership of JEH REALTY CO. Notary Public EXHBIT "A" JEM COMMONS The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or I~arcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded end described as follows: I~arcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NY$ Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus 5chad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following course.s and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.4~1 feet, (2) 5outh 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 /~re ~-o be designated "Affordable Ho'~sing" units C. Provide tha~ all areas desigrated on t~e site, as open space, if any, shall b~ located, p~acticable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel, of proper~y to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by !?roceeding at law or in equity against any persons or attempting to viol~te any conditions of restrain violation, in whole or in part. b. The above-mentione~ covenants and shall be and constLtute real covenants running witt parties violating or this Declaration, to restrictions the land and shall De binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequgnt owners of ibm said real property or part thereof, and upon their heir~, executor~ and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, hot, ever, to the right of the Teton of Seuth01d annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. %~ WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his 3 TO: I) ~C; FAX #1), ,~ - - TO: 2)__ FAX I/2)_ TO: 3) FAX#3). OUR FAX NUMBER IS 543-2271, BOON A~ ~O~SIB~,~ AT 1516) 543-2200. PLEABE CONTACT Tha Ln£ormat±~n in chis te!ecopy Ls /ntend~ for the pamed recipients only. It may contain ~riviL~od and coniid~ntial matter, if you have received ~h~B telecopy in error, p~ea~e not~fy us immediately by a collect ueiephon~ call to (516) an~ r~t'~rn ~h~ orLginal to ~he Bend~ oy mail. We will re h~Durse you for postage, Do n~]~ diB¢iose the con~ents to anyone, Thank you. nd shall be required to meet price and eligibility criteria "Affordable Housing" Section of Town of Southold. are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units only the sales indicated in the the code of the C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all restrictions at any time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, of the foregoing covenants and/or the Declarant has hereunto set his 3 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlov, ski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L Edv, ards Telephone 15161 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 531395 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York [1971 Fa~ I516~ 76_-18_3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Richard G. Ward, Chairman~~* RE: Change of Zone Petitions for Jem Commons CR 48, 564 feet East of Sound Drive Greenport, New York DATE: April 29, 1993 RECEIVED MAY 3 1993 · ~:~ltf'~ld Tow~ ClerL. Thank you for your comments regarding the Planning Board's March memorandum on this proposed change of zone petition. In that memo, we noted that the proposed Covenants and Restrictions submitted by Howard Pactunan did not change our position that there is no merit to increasing the density of the Jem Commons property. You observed that the property lay within a half mile of the Village of Greenport boundary, which the Town Code indicates is an area where Hamlet Density would be appropriate. We acknowledge that one of the goals and objectives of our Master Plan is to concentrate increased density within and immediately adjacent to the existing business hamlets. This parcel does lie within a half mile of the Village boundary, which is the Zoning Code's suggestion for the Hamlet Density district. The southern boundary of the property also lies within a quarter mile of the Village boundary, which is the Zoning Code's suggestion for the Affordable Housing District. However, it is not within or immediately adjacent to the business center of the Village of Greenport. There is no demonstrated need for this increased density since there appears to be a surplus of existing housing stock within the Town. Further, we do not endorse the leap-frogging of higher density development outside of the existing Village. HARVEY A ARNOFF Town Attorney MA~ITHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF $OUTHOLD March 25, 1993 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11'/9 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) '/65- [ 800 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P-O. Box 273 Commack, New York 11725 Re: Jem Commons Southold Commons Dear Mr. Pachman: This is in response to your letters of March 11, 1993, with regard to the above-referenced matters. The Covenants and Restrictions submitted were discussed briefly at the Town Board's March 23, 1993 work session. As a result of this discussion, I was requested to advise you that it was the Town Board's understanding that the Covenants and Restrictions would specify that 30% of the units would comply with all of the Town's affordable housing criteria, not just with regard to "sales price and eligibility criteria". Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. HAA:mls cc: Scott L- Harris, Supervisor Town Board Harvey A. Ar~noJ'f' Town PLANN[NG BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlov, skL Jr . Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kenneth L. Edv. ard~ Telephone 1516} 765 1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P O. Bon 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fa~15161 765-182~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor and Members of the Town Board Richard G. Ward, Chairman ~~~ RE: Change of Zone Petitions for Jem Commons CR 48, 564 feet East of Sound Drive Greenport, New York DATE: March 23, 1993 The Planning Board has reviewed the proposed Covenants and Restrictions that were suJomitted by Howard Pacbnnan to the Town on behalf of his client, Emanuel Kontokosta, in support of this petition for a change of zone from R-80 to R-40 and Hamlet Density. The proposed Covenants and Restrictions have not changed our position that there is no merit to increasing the density of the Jem Commons property because the proposal runs counter to the goals and objectives of our Master Plan, which is to concentrate increased density within the existing business hamlets. This property is not within or in~aediately adjacent to the Village of Greenport. The applicant's argument that the Hamlet Density HD classification of the adjacent property to the east (better known as the Brecknock Hall property) justifies the rezoning of his land begs the Town Board to accept the premise that two wrongs make a right. The rezoning of the Brecknock Hall property in 1971 and again in 1983 were serious deviations from sound planning principles. We see no point in compounding that error in judgement. (~) ~'KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES · ENGINEERS/ARCHiTECTS (~ 43 west 54th street / new york city. new york 10019 212-582-6100 e.m. kontokosta p.e. gary rogers r.a. March 19, 1993 Mr. Scott Harris, Supervisor fL. '-'-' Town Hall Town of Southold . ..,~.~ Southold, New York 11971 Re: JEM Co~=nons Southold Con, nons Dear Supervisor Harris: Be advised that the diagra~mmatic/conceptual plans reflecting the covenants and restrictions proposed for the re-zoning of the above captioned parcels are being forwarded to you and to the Town Board under separate cover for review and consideration. It is my understanding that the land covenants and restrictions prepared by my attorney and forwarded on to the Town Board reflects the concerns expressed by the community and the Town Board for each of these parcels during the land review process. I am anxious for an expeditious decision to be rendered by the Town Board on both these matters. Needless to say I believe that a change in zoning is warranted on both parcels based strictly on the merits that have been brought forth during the review process. I am awaiting your favorable decision in this matter, E .M.Kontokosta, p.e. EM~ / ck EXPRESS MAIL HOWARD E. PA©HI. lAN, P.G. Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, NY 11971 March 11, 1993 TOWN AP "': 3FF~CE TOWN wr b JUl MOl D~.__~ Re: Jem Commons Dear Mr. Arnoff: Further to our recent conversations, we have prepared proposed Covenants and Restrictions to be submitted to the Town upon the Town's adoption of the change of zone in the above- captioned matter. These Covenants and Restrictions reflect the latest compromise submitted by my client in an effort to have the zoning change adopted. If we can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. HEP/tag cc: Jem Commons DECLARATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECLARATION, made and entered into the day of , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the 1 the District) as to change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WITNESETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In, the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet only the sales price and eligibility criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of the said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has hereunto set his HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Altorney MA'ffFHEW G. KIERNAN Assislanl Town Atlorne¥ OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OFSOUTHOLD February 5. t993 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Howard E. Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 273 Commack, NY 11725 Re: Southold Commons and Jem Commons Dear Mr. Pachman: This is in response to your letter of February 1. 1993 with regard to the above-captioned matter. Please be advised that your February 1, 1993 letter was discussed at the work session of the February 2, 1993 Town Board meeting. As a result of the Town Board's discussion, I was directed to remind you of your clienUs continuing right to submit proposed covenants and/or maps whenever he may deem it appropriate. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very~ truly yours. / H y A. ~,rnoff /) Town Attorney HAA:mls cc: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Town Board 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. The 42-acre portion (Parcel II) at the Premises to be designated as Hamlet Density, HD zoning, shall: ~/ A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. ~6z~ B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet only the sales price and eligibility criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the code of the Town of Southold. C. All area designated be shall space, wherever possible, so it space areas to east. situate, shall be the parcel on the site, as open shall be located, if adjacent to the open of property to the 3. The covenants and restrictions contained herein enforceable by the Town of Southold against the February 1, 1993 ~I~ ~ACBIMILE ~/9D REGULAR MAI~ Harvey Arnoff, Esq. Town Attorney Town of Southold Town Hall Main Street Southold, NY 11971 Re: Southold Commons Jem Commons Dear Mr. Arnoff: I have been advised that Mr. Kontokosta, the principal of $ou=hold Cocoons and Jem Com~ol%s, appeared before tile To~n Board on Tuesday, January 19, 1993 and made a presentation as to a proposed revision of the zoning changes presently pending befort~ the Tcwn Board. I have been asked to write to you to ascertain wi~ether the Town Board desires that proposed covenants and restrictions, in accordance with Mr. Kontckcsta's presentation, be prepared and submitted for their consideration. Please advise. Very truly yours, ~ARD E. PACHF~N H~/tag $outhold Commons Jem Commons HOW^RD E. P,~.GHbl.-~.N.P.G- August 27, 1992 Scott L. Harris Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P. O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED .~Ogt'~ nj.4 T ..... Re: Jem Commons Dear Mr. Harris: It has been several months since the petition for the change into HD zoning of the 62 acre Jem commons parcel has been considered by your board. At that time, public hearings were held and the EIS had been accepted as complete, and findings on the basis of the environmental concerns were determined for the project. In the interest of moving the project along through the Southold planning pipeline, which you know is a lengthy process, I would like to discuss possible alternative purposes which I feel will take into consideration the environmental concerns expressed by the public and re-affirms the social need for affordable housing in the community. It is my suggestion that a representative subcommittee of the Town Board, together with the Town Attorney, meet with Mr. Kontokosta, and the undersigned, in an effort to present to the subcommittee a proposal which my client believes would be acceptable to the Town and clearly workable for my client. The proposal, in addition to providing affordable housing accommodations for the town's residents, will reduce the parcel's final density for residential use below the density originally proposed. date for This offer is made without prejudice. Please contact me so I can arrange a mutually agreeable all concerned. Very truly yours, HEP/tag cc: Emanuel Kontokosta Judith Terry Town Clerk FINDINGS STATEMENT State Environmental Quality Review Act Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town Board of the Town of Southnld as lead agency, makes the following findings. NAME OF ACTION Jem Commons, Greenport DESCRIPTION OF ACTION The project involves the proposed rezoning of a 62 acre parcel of land as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting C.R. Route 48 from "R-80" zoning district (residential Iow- density; 2-acre minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northern 20 acres frontin~ Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning (residential low density; 1- acre rmnimum). The rezoning is to allow construction of 30 affordably priced homes 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. LOCATION The project is located on the north side of North Road (C.R. Route 48), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York. The site is more definitively identified as Suffolk county Tax Map Numbers 1000-035-0100-024. LEAD AGENCY JURISDICTION The proposed action involves a change of zoning. The action is under consideration by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as a petition for the zone change. The Town Board has exclusive legislative authority over change of zoning petitions in the Town of Southold, and therefore is the lead agency and only involved agency. Depending upon the outcome of the change of zoning, additional agencies will have jurisdiction regarding ~Pnhysical development of the site. These interested agencies have been acknowledged and cluded in the EIS process for comprehensive project planning. · DATE FINAL ElS FILED November 17, 1989 Page 1 ol' 10 Jem Commons, Greenpor~ Statement of Flnding~ FACTS AND CQNCLUSIONS I._.~N THE ELS. RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION The proposed change of zone application has been subject to a Draft and Final EIS in accordance with procedures established under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Town Board after deliberation and review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) issued a Positive Declaration on Jem Commons, on April 24, 1990. Subsequently, at a mutually convenient time, a Scoping Meeting was held with the applicant on June 18, 1990. After submission of a Draft EIS with several necessary revisions, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Town Board on July 17, 1991, and circulated for a minimum 30-day comment period. Within this period, a public heating on the Draft EIS was held on August 13, 1991. After compiling substantive comments, a letter containing comments and required EIS format was forwarded to the applicant in September, 1991. The content and adequacy of the Final EIS is the responsibility of the lead agency regardless of who prepares it. In the case of Jem Commons, the applicant and the Town mutually agreed to allow the applicant to prepare the Final EIS which would be reviewed for adequacy by the Town. After submission of a Final EIS with several necessary revisions, the Final EIS was accepted by the Town Board on November 12, 1991. The applicant and the Town also mutually agreed to delay the issuance of the Statement of Findings until a hearing on the change of zone was held on February 4, 1992, in order to provide a torum for additional public input into the zone change decision process. Following deliberation of the facts and testimony, the Town Board has directed the preparation of this Statement of Findings on the Final EIS for Jem Commons. These findings present the facts and conclusions in the Final EIS documentation, which are considered by the Town Board in connection with a decision on the change of zone petition. Facts and conclusions are identified herein, under the categories consistent with the EIS. The Draft and Final EIS explored a multitude of issues; however, issues presented herein are considered to be the most important ones as regards a decision on the project. The Final EIS contains detailed analysi§ of all impacts relating to the project; however, for the purpose of these findings the following discussion on key issues is provided: GEOLOGY Topography The project site includes an escarpment associated with eroding headlands adjacent Long Island Sound. The stability of the bluff depends upon environmental conditions during the time preceding assessment; however, a bluff area is considered to be a highly unstable geologic feature. With regard to land use issues, the top of the escal'p, ment must be protected fi.om improper grading, clearing of vegetanon and diversion of stormwater runoff. The ~rfion of the site adjacent the bluff is in excess of 1/2 mile from the boundary of the llage of Greenport, and this !s pre,s, umed to b,e,.the ,,reason why the north 20 acres are proposed to be rezoned to R40 instead of HD. This proposed density increase represents a doubling effect in terms of zoning from "R-80" to "R-40". Page 2 of 10 Statement of Findings The Town Board finds that the fragile nature of the bluff area is best served by maintaining a low density for development, in order to promote adequate setbacks and ensure that improper land use does not occur atop the bluff. The applicant has proposed to maintain a 100 foot buffer area between homes and the bluff; however, this does not consider potential adverse impacts associated with: tree clearing for views and yards; grading for lawns, foundations, leaching systems, etc. and other domestic i.mpacts which have occurred in similar areas. Once land is subdivided and maintained m private ownership, it is difficult to enforce covenanted restrictions or other similar means of trying to maintain protective features of the bluff. Greater than 100 foot setbacks for structures with wide natural areas adjacent to a bluff could be considered as additional mitigation. In addition, land use involving clustering to preserve common open space adjacent the bluff would provide for greater protection of the area, and allow a larger population to enjoy scenic resources. ,,T~is land use is not reflected in the proposed project or the 171 Unit Alternative 'R-40" Cluster design which was intended to explore alternate open space options on the north part of the site. These considerations are appropriate tot any land use which may occur adjacent the bluff. WATER RESOURCES Groundwater The project site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV, a local water supply aquifer which has predominantly horizontal flow with discharge to north shore surface waters. There is adequate depth to allow subsurface installation of leaching structures as necessa~. Water quality beneath the subject site is not identified as being significantly impacted by nitrate and aldicarb common in other agricultural areas of the Town. The project involves proposed connection to the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project is not within the district boundaries of the Greenport STP; however, the applicant speculates that the project will be connected to the plant. The Village of Greenport Superintendent provided a letter of comment on the Draft EIS and indicated that the Village presently has a moratorium on new connections outside the district. Furthermore, the Superintendent indicated "Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Green~,.ort Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered". The connection of the "HD" project east of Jem Commons (Breakers at Lands End) to the Village of Greenport STP will apparently be honored by the Village as a commitment prior to the moratorium; however, this does not ensure connection of the proposed project. Alternatives to STP connection were investigated in the Final EIS. An on-site sewage treatment plant could be constructed which would result in the loss of lots or open space due to Suffolk County Health Department (SCDHS) setback requirements. In addition, the Final EIS indicates that "small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to Page 3 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings have operating problems due to their size and cost to construct and maintain". Operational problems may result in environmental consequences including water quali.ty problems, odors, etc. The Town Board has concern with regard to proper handling and disposal of sewage at the subject site. Tie-in to the Greenport STP may not occur and there are concerns with regard to construction of a separate on-site sewage treatment plant. Sewage treatment facilities are not required for several alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS including: Existing Zoning Use; Existing Zoning Cluster Use; and the R40 Alternative. The Ex/sting Zoning Use and the Ex/sting Zoning cluster are dismissed as economically infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". In addition, the Final EIS notes that "If approval cannot be obtained from Suffolk County Health Department to construct an on-site sewage treatment plant, lot sizes would have to be increased to two units per acre and on-site sanitary systems (Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems) installed". This indicates there is an additional moderate density alternative which would not require construction of an STP. Therefore, the Town Board finds that there are other v/able sewage disposal alternatives which would not present as much concern as the proposal advanced by the applicant. Water supply is an additional aspect of water resources which was investigated in the Final EIS for Jem Commons. The project proponent intends to connect to the Village of Greenport water supply system. The applicant indicates that water will not be required until 1994-1995, and that the Village intends to add additional water capacity, to the existing distribution system. The Village of Greenport Superintendent of Utilities provided a comment on the Draft EIS regarding water supply, as follows: 'q'he DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this point it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Water District's additional capacity, if any, will be at such time as it may be reqmred for this proposed project....Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity". Based upon this comment, it is apparent that the district will seek new water sources in order to accommodate additional development in the district. This does not necessary ensure or justify water supply for a high density change of zone project, such as Jem Commons. The Town Board has concern over the ability of existing and proposed utilities to supply water to the subject site, as reflected by the letter from the Village of Greenport. The proposed project would increase water use from 9,600 gallons/day (gpd) under existing zoning to 51,300 gpd (over a 500% increase). The site is xdentified in the Draft EIS as lying in the North Fork water budget area Zone IV, which is critical in terms of water supply. Estimates based upon permissive sustained yield as compared to predicted consumptive use in the year 2,000, predict a slight water supply surplus; however, significant land use density increases could increase consumption and reduce the surplus. Therefore, with regard to water supply, there is concern over ability of existing and future utilities to serve the project as well as concern for increase in water use. All of the other alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS (except the 171 Unit Alternate Cluster) would significantly reduce water demand, therefore, it is apparent that other viable alternatives would have less impact on this resource. Page 4 of 10 Jem Commons. Greenlport Statement of Flndinga TERRESTRIAL & ECOLOGY Vegetation & Wildlife The site is documented as containing predominantly old field habitat in a late stage of succession. The field contains herbaceous species and is being pioneered by trees, shrubs and vines since the cessation of farrmng. The site supports larger mammals including red fox and white-tailed deer as well as small mammals which likely attract raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and the northern harrier (NYS Threatened Species). The site provides some suitable habitat for the grasshopper sparrow (NYS Special Concern Species); however, none were observed on site and it was noted that the natural succession of the site habitat would eliminate habitat for this species. The site also provides unique habitat in cavities under the top edge of the bluff for uncommon kingfishers and bank swallows. As mitigation the EIS recommends that ~reople and pets should be kept off the bluff, and stairways should be 50 feet or more om the observed nests. The proposed project involves the use of a 62 acre parcel, presently zoned "R-80". "R-80" zoning ~s a low density district which would allow for preservation of wildlife habitat and open space either between dwellings due to large lot size or through clustering for more contiguous open space as noted ia the alternative section of the EIS. The project design concept involves full use of the property with 152-10,000+ square foot lots and 19-40,000+ square foot lots. The concept proposes retention of aa 85,200 square foot buffer along C.R. Route 48, or less than 3 percent of the site (average depth .,of 175 feet). A 171 unit cluster alternative (reconfiguration of proposed "R40' area to north), would preserve additional open space (total of 610,200 square feet; 22.6 percent of site), however, this would greatly intensify development in proximity to the bluff. It is noted that the adjacent site to the east of the subject application is zoned "I-ID" district, and an approved development plan provides a significant area of open space ia the southwest part of the 132 acre site, adjacent the southern half of Jem Commons. The proposed project does not consider the adjacent land use in terms of coordination of open space for maximum retention of contiguous habitat. The Town Board has concern over the project design concept and the lack of retention of open space and natural habitat area on a parcel demonstrated as being important to local wildlife. Several alternatives have been explored which would provide much greater opportunity to preserve and align contiguous open space than what is proposed under the rezoning application, including: Existing Zoning Use; Existing Zoning Cluster Use; and the R-40 Alternative. Efforts should be made to coordinate open space w/th the parcel adjacent the east property boundary, in order to provide a meaningful open space/wildlife habitat area. In addition, retention of nesting habitat for bank swallows and kingfishers is consistent with goals of bluff setbacks and stabilization dis'cussed above under Topography. Page 5 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Soils The southern 2/3 of the project site is dominated by Haven Loam, which is a prime agricultural soil. The implementation of the proposed project would permanently foreclose possible future agricultural use of this soil. The Draft EIS indicated that the site has not been farmed in 18 years, and the project sponsor has made attempts to lease the parcel for farming without success. The Draft EIS further notes that "the lack of aa adequate farm labor force ... along with the negative economics of farming small farms has permanently precluded the use of this site for agricultural purposes". The conditions identified in the Draft EIS have lead to the decline of certain farming on the North Fork; however, this decline has resulted in alternative agricultural use including vineyards and orchards, etc. Accordingly, the statement alluding to econormcs permanently precluding aghcultural use of the site is not entirely correct. Low density residential zoning provides the opportunity to consider clustering to preserve extensive contiguous areas of prime agricultural soil to be retained as open space or possibly utilized in the future for agricultural purposes. The Final EIS explores an R40 cluster development, and notes the following: "This alternative, however, does reduce water usage and impacts to wildhfe due to providing a large area of open space". Similar conclusions with regard to open space retention and water use reduction are reached in consideration of the Existing Zoning cluster, and reduced density development. The Existing Zoning cluster is dismissed as economically infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". The Town Board finds that the proposed project would permanently foreclose this possibility of preserving open space and prime agricultural soils. USE & ZONING Existing Land Use & Zoning The proposed project lies east of an area zoned "R-40" which was predominantly developed at higher densities (1/4+ acre lots) prior to rezonings initiated by the Town Board. There are still larger tracts of subdividable property within the "R40" zone; however, none are directly adjacent the project site. South, and southeast of the project site are ,,,t~,o ~arcels zoned for "Light Business", and a 132 acreparcel east of the site is zoned HD, and has an approved site plan for clustered condominiums at a density of 2.6 units per acre. ,~ther zoning in the area includes "R-80" and "R-40" south of C.R. 48 and one smaller Residential/Office" zoned parcel. Th.e project seeks to rezone the parcel to what the Draft EIS refers to as a more compatible zoning district, c~nsis~,ent with the parcel to the east. The portion of the project site to be rezoned to HD exceeds the density of land use to the east by one unit per acre. The Draft EIS addendum indicates that this zoning would more closely reflect the goals of the Master Plan for expansion of the Greenport hamlet center. Land use issues relating to the Master Plan will be discussed below; however, strictly in terms of land use, the "R-80" zoning is compatible with adjacent zoning and use. East of the site the Breakers at Lands End is a high density residential proposal, Page 6 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenpor~ Statement of Findings which has been provided with utility connection. The design preserves a significant amount of open space adjacent the subject site and is a lower density per acre than the "HD" portion of the site. Future use of the Jena Commons site should provide the ability to allow setbacks from C.R. 48 and adjacent light business zoned parcels, and should coordinate contiguous open space with Breakers at Lands End. These design issues can be more easily accommodated under a less intense residential use. West of the site are residences on lots of 1/4+ acres. This is considered a high density residential use which would be compatible with a similar or lower densit-/, use of the subject site. The Town Board has concern with regard to the overintensffication of use on the Jem Commons property.. In terms of land use it is concluded that the "HI)" proposal is compatible with adjacent uses, as are other lower density alternatives, which may be more sensitive to other more compelling environmental issues as discussed in other sections of these findings. Land Use Plans The proposed Jem Commons project was reviewed in the context of land use plans in the Draft EIS addendum. The document notes that the proposal is consistent with the goals and intent of the Master Plan 0y encouraging affordably priced housing through high density zoning, by expanding the Greenport hamlet center within 1/2 m/le of the Village boundary. The fact that a portion of the site is within i/2 mile of the Villa~e boundary indicates that the subject site is eligible for consideration of Hamlet Density zoning; however, this zoning is not guaranteed through the Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article IV, or the Master Plan. The concept of providing affordable housing is positive. Under the proposed project, 30 homes would be affordably pr/ced as defined under the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (less than $100,000). The balance of the homes in the "HD" zone would be offered at prices of $129,000 to $165,000. Nineteen luxury homes in the proposed "R-40" district would be offered at prices above .$195,000. The offering of 30 affordably p/iced homes is acknowledged as beneficial m terms of increasing the lower pr/ced housing stock for County residents. While the ~roposed project would offer an additional 30 affordably priced homes to the existing ousing stock, it would foreclose the possibility of providing a greater percentage of homes to moderate income families. Based upon this understanding, this increased density provides only 30 units {less than 20% overall) as affordable housing to County-wide residents. The Town Board is considering the fact that there are alternative land use proposals which would be more equitable to the residents of the Town of Southold on both an economic and environmental basis. A Master Plan is continually subject to review and change in response to economic, environmental and social climate, through legislative and planning decisions of implementing boards. Furthermore, although the goals ot the Master Plan include Page 7 of 10 Jem Commoos, Greenport Sta~ment of Findings promoting affordably priced housing through controlled expansion of hamlet centers where adequate utilities are available, these goals must be balanced against other resource issues. Finally, the existing low density zoning in the area north of Greenport, is a result of the Master Plan, and was presumably recommended and changed for economic, environmental and social reasons. Those areas (within 1/2 mile of the Village, with adequate utilities) could present an opportunity for density increase if justified based upon review and balancing of overall Master Plan goals. The following goals and policies are noted in the Master Plan with regard to Environment: · Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. · Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas exhibiting prime agricultural soils, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. * Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouraging the use o£ techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate water supply and septic system conditions for new development, and employing minimum maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intruston). · Promote development patterns that are at as scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. With regard to the Cultural Environment, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: * Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the v/ability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers wathout changing the scale of the centers. With regard to Waterfront, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: · Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas. In addition, the Master Plan provides specific guidance on the use of the "R-80" zoning distxSct as follows: 'Whese low densities are particularly applicable to coastal areas to protect the ground and surface waters and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town including wetlands, beaches, bluffs and dunes". 'Whis low density, combined with creative development techniques such as locating permitted residences on non-environmentally sensitive lands and keeping other lands open (clustering), can serve to achieve both residential and environmental Planning goals." "In northern areas of the Town where there are bluffs, beaches and dunes, mandatory clustering is recommended to assure protection of these features." Therefore, in order to be consistent with the Master Plan, the legislative board responsible for land use changes must review proposals and reach informed decisions regarding the future of development in Southold Town. The Town Board has concern over the consistency of the project with the Master Plan in terms of environmental policies (bluffs, agricultural soils, water availability, sewage disposal), the cultural environment (aesthetms of high density grid subdivision, and P~ge 8 of 10 Jem Commons, Gr~nport Statement of Findings overintensilSed use), and waterfront policies (scenic vistas and bluffs). All of the other alternatives evaluated through the EIS process are more sensitive to some or all of these issues. The south 42 acres of the site are not assured of "HD" zoning through the interpretation of the Master Plan as forwarded in the EIS, and there is no compelling justification for density increase on the north 20 acres in either the EIS or the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan clearly states that "In order to develop properties for residential uses within this area [Hamlets] at a density of greater than the base densi.ty, an approved central water supply is required, and a sewage treatment facihty or connection to a sewer system would be needed". Compliance with these mandates has not been demonstrated as indicated Ln the Final EIS. COMMUNITY SERVICES Police/Fire Services The EIS for Jem Commons provides information relative to response of fire and police protection services, indicating that the respective departments can adequately respond to emergency incidents. There is one aspect of emergency protection which should also be considered. The Town of Southold Subdivision Regulations (Article 3 Design Standards Section A106-32 Street Layout), state that "A subdivision containing 20 lots or more shall have at least 2 street connections with existing public streets or streets shown on an official map, if such exists, or streets on the recorded final plan." In the case of Jem Commons, only one street connection is provided for 171 lots. There is an emergency access right-of-way depicted on the conceptual plan; This access does not appear to be viable. The Town Board is concerned with providing adequate access for emergency vehicles, in order to ensure the safety of future residents of the project. Page 9 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings Certification of Findings Having considered the Draft and Final EIS, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings certifies that: The procedural requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 for notice, filing, coordination and FinaIEIS content have been met as outlined in the introductory discussion, and Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action does no[ minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the ma.~dmum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the Draft and Final EIS, and Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmemal impact statement process will not be minimized or avoided by the incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. Consistent with the applicable policies, this action will not achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations. The lead agency does find that from among the alternatives evaluated in the Draft and Final EIS, all of the alternatives analyzed provide a greater environmental compatibility to varying degrees depending upon design and density when compared to the proposed project. Greater environmental compatibility should be sought through the following measures, for any land use application occurring on site: protect bluff by enlarged setbacks and retention of natural vegetation (preferably through common ownership); preserve a greater percentage of habitat/open space and ahgn contiguous open space with adjacent properties; ensure adequate water supply and sanitary waste treatment; provide adequate emergency access; and,provide a creative housing mix which will be a visual/cultural amenity to the site andarea. Town Board of the Town of Southold Name of Agency Judith T. Terry ~~,~., ~/.~z~ Signature of Responsible Official (Pdnt and Sign) Southold Town Clerk T'ttle of Responsible Official Southold Town Halls 53095 Main Road, Southold. New York 11971 Address of Agency April Ir 1992 Date Pnge 10 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings Copies of this Findings Statement Sent to: Commissioner-NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001. Regional Director-NYSDEC, Building 40, The Loop Road, SUNY at Stony Brook, New York 11794. Regional Permit Administrator-NYS Department of Transportation, Hauppauge, New York 11788. NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, Hauppauge, New York 11788. $outhold Town Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Attorneys, Southold, New York 11971. Sufl~olk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health Services, 225 Rabro Drive East, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Sufl~olk County Department of Planning, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788. Village of Greenport, Superintendent of Utilities, Village Hall, Third Street, Greenport, New York 11944. E.M. Kontokosta, Applicant, 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York 10018. Howard E. Pachman, Attorney for the Applicant, P.O. Box 273, Commack, New York 11725. Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc., 54 North Country Road, Miller Place, New York 11764. Southold Town Planning Board, Southold, New York 11971. Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Fown Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765-1823 tELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 26, 1992 Mr. Pachman: The Town Board wishes additional time to review the proposed Findings Statement for Southold Commons. This matter is being placed on the Town Board's April 7th agenda for discussion. Copy is also being sent to Mr. Kontokosta. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O_ Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX~516) 765-I823 TELEPHONE (516) 765-1801 March 26, 1992 Mr. Kontokosta: The Town Board wishes additional time to review the proposed Findings Statement for Jem Commons. This matter is being placed on the Town Board's April 7th agenda for discussion. Copy is also being sent to Mr. Pachman. ENVIRONMENT~G CONSULTANTS March 11, 1992 Ms. Judith Terry, Town Clerk Office of the Town Clerk Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings RECEIVED MAR 1.~-' 1992 Sou~c)l,.,I ? ..... ~'Jo.,t, Dear Judy: As per the Town Board's request, we have completed the draft Statement of Findings, in connectxon with the above referenced project. This document is intended to fulfill the Town Board's legal obligation with regard to the findings statement as per 6 NYCRR Part 61Z9. The Findings are consistent with my understanding of discussions with the Board on February 25, 1992. Please review these findings with the Board and call ff¥ou have any questions. If the Board is in agreement with the content of the document, it ~s recommended that the Board adopt the findings by resolution or other appropriate means, and file these findings in accordance with the notice and filing requirements contained in 6 NYCRR Part 61Z 10 (i). This involves filing the findings with, "all involved agencies and the applicant at the time they are adopted". I hope this information is useful to the Board in reaching a decision on the project. I believe that every effort has been made to disclose impacts andminimize adverse environmental effect. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service to you, and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. ~~~c$~p ,Very t o rs, enc: draft findings 54°2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 HNDINGS STATEMENT State Environmental Quality Review Act Pursuant to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act - SEQR) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town Board of the Town of Southold as lead agency, makes the following findings. NAME OF ACTION Jem Con'a-nons, Greenport ~ OF AI~YI'ION Theproject involves the proposed rezoning of a,, 62 a~re parcel of land as follows: the southern 42 acres fronting C.,,R.. ~R,,oute 48 from 'R-80' zoning district (residential low- density; 2-acre minimum) to I-ID Hamlet Density District; and the northern 20 acres fronting Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning (residential low density; 1- acre maximum). The rezoning is to allow construction of 30 affordably priced homes 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. LOCATION Theproject is located on the north side of North Road (C.R. Route 48), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York. The site is more definitively identified as Suffolk County Tax Map Numbers 1000-035-0100-024. LEAD AGENCY JURISDICTION The proposed action involves a change of zoning. The action is under consideration by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as a petition for the zone change. The Town Board has exclusive legislative authority over change of zoning petitions in the Town of Southold, and therefore is the lead agency and only involved agency. Depending upon the outcome of the change of zoning, additional agencies will have jurisdiction regarding physical development of the site. These interested agencies have been acknowledged and included in the EIS process for comprehensive project planning. DATE FINAL EIS FILED November 17, 1989 Page I of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Stntement of Findings FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS IN THE ElS RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISIQN The proposed change of zone application has been subject to a Draft and Final EIS in accordance with procedures established under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The Town Board after deliberation and review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) issued a Positive Declaration on Jem Commons, on April 24, 1990. Subsequently, at a mutually convenient time, a Scoping Meeting was held with the applicant on June 18, 1990. After submission of a Draft ElS with several necessary revisions, the Draft EIS was accepted by the Town Board on July 17, 1991, and circulated for a minimum 30-day comment period. Within this period, a public hearing on the Draft EIS was held on August 13, 1991. After compiling substantive comments, a letter containing comments and required EIS format was forwarded to the applicant in September, 1991. The content and adequacy of the Final EIS is the responsibility of the lead agency regardless of who prepares it. 'In the case of Jem Commons, the applicant and the Town mutually agreed to allow the applicant to prepare the Final EIS which would be reviewed for adequacy by the Town. After submission of a Final EIS with several necessary revisions, the Final EIS was accepted by the Town Board on November 12, 1991. The applicant and the Town also mutually agreed to delay the issuance of the Statement of Findings until a hearing on the change of zone was held on February 4, 1992, in order to provide a forum for additional public input into the zone change decision process. Following deliberation of the facts and testimony, the Town Board has directed the preparation of this Statement of Findings on the Final EIS for Jem Commons. These findings present the facts and conclusions in the Final EIS documentation, which are considered by the Town Board in connection with a decision on the change of zone petition. Facts and conclusions are identified herein, under the categories consistent with the EIS. The Draft and Final EIS explored a multitude of issues; however, issues presented herein are considered to be the most important ones as regards a decision on the project. The Final EIS contains detailed analysis of all impacts relating to the project; nowever, for the purpose of these findings the following discussion on key issues is provided: GEOLOGY Topography The project site includes an escarpment associated with eroding headlands adjacent .Long Ist. and Sound. The stability of the bluff depends upon environmental conditions outing the time preceding assessment; however, a bluff area is considered to be a highly unstable geologic feature. With regard to land use issues, the top of the escarpment must be protected from improper grading, clearing of vegetation and diversion of stormwater runoff. The portion of the site adjacent the bluff is in excess of 1/2 mile from the boundary of the Village of Greenporh and this is presumed to be the reason why the north 20 acres are proposed to be rezoned to "R40" instead of "HD". This proposed density increase represents a doubling effect in terms of zoning from "R-80" to "R-40". Page 2 of 10 Jem Commons, GFeenport SLatement oF Findin~ The Town Board finds that the fragile nature of the bluff area is best served by maintaining a low density for development, in order to promote adequate setbacks and ensure that improper land use does not occur atop the bluff. The applicant has proposed to maintain a 100 foot buffer area between homes and the bluff; however, this does not consider potential adverse impacts associated with: tree clearing for views and yards; grading for lawns, foundations, leaching systems, etc. and other domestic i~. pacts which have occurred in similar areas. Once land is subdivided and maintained m private ownership, it is difficult to enforce covenanted restrictions or other similar means of trying to maintain protective features of the bluff. Greater than 100 foot setbacks for structures with wide natural areas adjacent to a bluff could be considered as additional mitigation. In addition, land use involving clustering to preserve common open space adjacent the bluff would provide for greater protection of the area, and allow a larger population to enjoy scenic resources. This land use is not reflected in the proposed project or the 171 Unit Alternative "R-40" Cluster design which was intended to explore alternate open space options on the north part of the site. These considerations are appropriate for any land use which may occur adjacent the bluff. WATER RESOURCES Groundwater The project site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV, a local water supply aquifer which has predominantly horizontal flow with discharge to north shore surface waters. There is adequate depth to allow subsurface installation of leaching structures as necessary. Water quality beneath the subject site is not identified as being significantly impacted by nitrate and aldicarb common in other agricultural areas of the Town. The project involves proposed connection to the Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. The proposed project is not within the district boundaries of the Greenport STP; however, the applicant speculates that the project will be connected to the plant. The Village of Greenport Superintendent provided a letter of comment on the Draft EIS and indicated that the Village presently has a moratorium on new connections outside the district. Furthermore, the Superintendent indicated "Anticipated more stringent requirements for sewer systems of greater capacity than our existing system causes concern regarding any expansion of the system capacity outside the Village limits. Consequently, the alternatives to the use by this project of the Gree_n~.ort Sewer System and the effect of such alternatives should be carefully considered". The connection of the "HD" project east of Jem Commons (Breakers at Lands End) to the Village of Greenport STP will apparently be honoredby the Village as a commitment prior to the moratorium; however, this does not ensure connection of the proposed project. Alternatives to STP connection were investigated in the Final ElS. An on-site sewage treatment plant could be constructed which would result in the loss of lots or open space due to Suffolk CotmVj Health Department (SCDHS) setback requirements. In addition, the Final EIS indicates that "small capacity sewage treatment plants tend to Page 3 of 10 Jem Commons, Gt~nport Statement of FindJnss have operating problems due to their size and cost to construct and maintain". Operational problems may result in environmental consequences including water quali~ problems, odors, etc. The Town Board has concern with regard to proper handbng and disposal of sewage at the subject site. Tie-in to the Greenport STP may not occur and there are concerns with regard to construction of a separate on-site sewage treatment plant. Sewage treatment facilities are not required for several alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS including: Existing Zoning Use; Existing Zoning Cluster Use; and the R-40 Alternative. The Existing Zoning Use and the Existing Zoning cluster are dismissed as economic~ly infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". In addition, the Final EIS notes that 'If approval cannot be obtained from Suffolk County Health Department to construct an on-site sewage treatment plant, lot sizes would have to be increased to two units per acre and on-site sanitary systems (Subsurface Sewa~ge Disposal Systems) installed". This indicates there is an additional moderate density alternative which would not require construction of an STP. Therefore, the Town Board finds that there are other viable sewage disposal alternatives which would not present as much concern as the proposal advanced by the applicant. Water supply is an additional as~oect of water resources which was investigated in the Final EISfor Jem Commons. The project proponent intends to connect to the Village of Greenport water supply system. The applicant indicates that water will not be required until 1994-1995, and that the Village intends to add additional water capacity to the existing distribution system. The Village of Greenport Superintendent of Utilities provided a comment on the Draft EIS regarding water supply, as follows: "the DEIS indicates an application has been made to the Greenport Water District and is presently pending. At this j~oint it is impossible to predict what the Greenport Wate.r District's additional capaca~, if any, will be at such time as it may be requl~red for this t~roposed project....Presently, the district's water contracts to provide water for new projects exceed the district's excess capacity". Based upon this comment, it is apparent that the district will seek new water sources in order to accommodate additional development in the district. This does not necessary ensure or justify water supply for a high density change of zone project, such as Jem Commons. The Town Board has concern over the ability of existing and proposed utilities to supply water to the subject site, as reflected by the letter from the Village of Greenport. The proposed project would increase water use from 9,600 gallons/day (gpd) under existing zoning to 51,300 gpd (over a 500% increase). The site is identified in the Draft EIS as lying in the North Fork water budget area Zone IV, which is critical in terms of water supply. Estimates based upon permissive sustained yield as compared to predicted consumptive use in the year 2,000, predict a slight water supply surplus; however, significant land use density increases could increase consumption and reduce the su~lns. Therefore, with regard to water supply, there is concern over ability of existing and future utilities to serve the project as well as concern for increase in water use. All of the other alternatives analyzed in the Final EIS (except the 171 Unit Alternate Cluster) would significantly reduce water demand, therefore, it is apparent that other viable alternatives would have less impact on this resource. Page 4 of 10 Jem Commons, Gr~enport Sl~tement of Findings TERRESTRIAL & ECOLOGY Vegetation & v~rlldlife The site is documented as containing predominantly old field habitat in a late stage of succession. The field contains herbaceous species and is being pioneered by trees, shrubs and vines since the cessation of farrmng. The site supports larger mammals including red fox and white-tailed deer as welIas small mammals which likely attract raptors such as the red-tailed hawk and the northern harrier (NYS Threatened Species). The site provides some suitable habitat for the grasshopper sparrow (NYS Special Concern Species); however, none were observed on site and it was noted that the natural succession of the site habitat would eliminate habitat for this species. The site also provides unique habitat in cavities under the top edge of the bluff for uncommon kingfishers and bank swallows. As mitigation the EIS recommends that people and pets should be kept off the bluff, and stairways should be 50 feet or more trom the observed nests. The proposed project involves the use of a 62 acre parcel, presently zoned "R-80". "R-80" zoning is a low density district which would allow for preservation of wildlife habitat and open space either between dwellings due to large lot size or through clustering for more contiguous open space as noted in the alternative section of the EIS. T).e project design concept involves full use of the property with 152-10,000+ square toot lots and 1940,000+ square foot lots. The conceptproposes retention of an 85,200 square foot buffer along C.R. Route 48, or less than 3percent of the site (average d,,epth of 175 feet). A 171 unit cluster alternative (reconfiguration of proposed 'R40" area to north), would preserve additional open space (total of 610,200 square feet; 22.6 percent of site), however, this would greatly intensify development in proximity to the bluff. It is noted that the adjacent site to the east of the subject application is zoned "HD" district, and an approved development plan provides a significant area of open space in the southwest part of the 132 acre site, adjacent the southern half of Jem Corms.. o~. The proposed project does not consider the adjacent land use in terms of coor0matxon of open space for maximum retention of contiguous habitat. The Town Board has concern over the project design concept and the lack of retention of open space and natural habitat area on a parcel demonstrated as being important to local wildlife. Several alternatives have been explored which would provide much greater opportunity to preserve and align contiguous open space than what is proposed under the rezoning application, including; Existing Zoning Use; Existi .nlg Zoning Cluster Use; and the R-40 Alternative. Efforts should be made to coordinate open space with the parcel adjacent the east property boundary, in order to provide a meaningful open space/wildlife habitat area. In addition, retention of nesting habitat for bank swallows and kingfishers is consistent with goals of bluff setbacks and stabilization discussed above under Topography. Pa~e $ of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES Soils The southern 2/3 of the project site is dominated by Haven Loam, which is a prime agricultural soil The implementation of the proposed project would permanently foreclose possible future agricultural use of this soil. The Draft EIS indicated that the site has not been farmed in 18 years, and the project sponsor has made attempts to lease the parcel for farming without success. The Draft ElS further notes that "the lack of an adequate farm labor force ... along with the negative economics of farming small farms has permanently precluded the use of this site for agricultural purposes". The conditions identified in the Draft EIS have lead to the decline of certain farming on the North Fork; however, this decline has resulted in alternative agricultural use including vineyards and orchards, etc. Accordingly, the statement alluding to econormcs permanently precluding agricultural use of the site is not entirely correct. Low density residential zoning provides the opportunity to consider clustering to preserve extensive contiguous areas of prime agricultural soil to be retained as open space or possibly utilized in the future for agricultural purposes. The Final EIS explores an R40 cluster development, and notes the following: 'Whis alternative, however, does reduce water usage and impacts to wildlife due to providing a large area of open space". Similar conclusions with regard to open space retention and water use reduction are reached in consideration of the Existing Zoning cluster, and a reduced density development. The Existing Zoning cluster is d~smissedas economically infeasible; however, the site is zoned "R-80". The Town Board finds that the proposed project would permanently foreclose this possibility of preserving open space and prime agricultural soils. LAND USE & ZONING Existing Land Use & Zoning The proposed project lies east of an area zoned "R-40" which was predominantly developed at higher densities (1/4+ acre lots) prior to rezonings initiated by the Town Board. There are still larger tracts of subdividable property within the "R40" zone; however, none are directly adjacent, the project sit_e,; South, and southeast of the project site are two parcels zoned for Light Business, and a 132 acre parcel east of the site is zoned "HD", and has an approved site plan for clnstere,,d, con.,d, o_min,~ums ,, at a density of 2.6 units per acre. ,?her zoning in the,area includes R-80 and R-40 south of C.R. 48 and one smaller Residential/Office zoned parcel. The project seeks to rezone the j>arcel to what the Draft EIS refers to as a more compatible zoning district, consistent with the parcel to the east. The portion of the project site to be rezoned to "HD" exceeds the density of land use to the east by one unit per acre. The Draft EIS addendum indicates that this zoning would more closely reflect the goals of the Master Plan for expansion of the Greenport hamlet center. Land use issues relating to the Master Plan will be discussed below; however, strictly in terms of land use, the "R-80" zoning is compatible with adjacent zoning and use. East of the site the Breakers at Lands End is a high density residential proposal, Page 6 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Findings which has been provided with utility connection. The design preserves a significant amount of open space adiacent the subject site and is a lower density per acre than the "I-ID" portion of the site. Future use of the Jem Commons site should provide the ability to allow setbacks from C.R. 48 and adjacent light business zoned parcels, and should coordinate contiguous open space with Breakers at ! ands End. These design issues can be more easily accommodated under a less intense residential use. West of the site are residences on lots of 1/4+ acres. This is considered a high density residential use which would be compatible with a similar or lower densi~ use of the subject site. The Town Board has concern with regard to the overintensffication of use ~n the Jem Commons property. In terms of land use it is concluded that the "I-ID' proposal is compatible with adjacent uses, as are other lower density alternatives, which may be more sensitive to other more compelling environmental issues as discussed in other sections of these findings. Land Use Plans The proposed Jem Cormnons project was reviewed in the context of land use plans in the Draft EIS addendum. The document notes that the proposal is consistent with the goals and intent of the Master Plan by encouraging affordably priced housing through high density zoning, by expanding the Greenport hamlet, center within 1]2 mile of the Villageboundary. The fact that a portion of the site is within 1/2 mile of the Villa.~e boundary indicates that the subject site is eligible for consideration of Hamlet Density zomng; however, this zoning is not guaranteed through the Zoning Code Chapter 100, Article IV, or the Master Plan. The concept of providing affordable housing is noteworthy. Under the proposed project, 30 homes would be affordably priced as defined under the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (less than $100,000). The balance of the homes in the "HD" zone would,, be o,,ffe~red at prices of $129,000 to $165,000. Nineteen luxury homes in the proposed R-40 district would be offered at prices above $195,000. The offering of 30 affordably priced homes is acknowledged as beneficial in terms of increasing the lower priced housing stock for County residents. While the proposed project would offer an additional 30 affordably priced homes to the existing housing stock, it would foreclose !he possibility of providing a greater percentage of homes to moderate income families as defined by the Town under the "AHD" district. The Affordable Housing District requires that 5Opercent of homes in a subdivision of ~oeater that 10 acres be ,reserved for moderate income families. The sale price of roes under the Town' AHD" program would be less than under the County program and would provide 50 percent of the homes with preference to applicants employed in the Town. Based upon this understanding, one must question the justification for a 500+ percent density increase, to provide only 30 units (less than 20% overall) as affordable housing to County-wide residents. The Town Board has considered the fact that there are alternative land use proposals which would be more equitable to the residents of the Town of Southold on both an economic and environmental basis. A Master Plan is continually subject to review and change in response to economic, environmental and social climate, through legislative andplanning decisions of implementing boards. Furthermore, although the goals of the Master Plan include Page 7 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Statement of Fil)dln? promoting affordab!y priced housing through controlled expansion of hamlet centers where adequate utilities are available, these goals must be balanced against other resource issues. Finally, the existing low density zoning in the area north of Greenport, is a result of the Master Plan, and was presumably recommended and changed for economic, environmental and social reasons. Those areas (within 1/2 mile of the Village, with adequate utilities) could present an opportunity for density increase if justified based upon review andbalancmg of overall MasterPlan goals. The following goals and policies are noted in the Master Plan with regard to Environment: * Restrict development in wetlands, tidal marshes, bluffs, dunes and beaches. * Promote a development pattern that is responsive to sensitive areas exhibiting prime agriculturai soils, poor drainage, high water table, high erosion hazard, flood hazard, sensitive coastal features, great scenic quality and woodlands. * Protect the Town's water supply from further contamination by encouraging the use of techniques that reduce pollution from fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides (agricultural and residential), requiring adequate water supply and sepuc system conditions for new development, and employing minimum maintenance dredging of streams (to minimize salt water intruston). * Promote development patterns that are at as scale that is commensurate with the available water supply. With regard to the Cultural Environment, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: Plan for intensity and mix of development of hamlet centers that improve the viability, functioning and aesthetics of hamlet commercial centers w~thout changing the scale of the centers. With regard to Waterfront, the following policy is noted in the Master Plan: Insure physical and/or visual access to scenic vistas and waterfront areas. In addition, the Master Plan provides specific guidance on the use of the "R-80" zoning district as follows: 'These low densities are particularly applicable to coastal areas to protect the ground and surface waters and environmentally sensitive portions of the Town including wetlands, beaches, bluffs and dunes". 'This low density, combined with creative development techniques such as locating permitted residences on non-environmentally sensitivelands and keeping other lands open (clustering), can serve to achieve both residential and environmental Planning goals." "In northern areas of the Town where there are bluffs, beaches and dunes, mandatory clustering is recommended to assure protection of these features." Therefore, in order to be consistent with the Master Plan, the legislative board responsible for land use changes must review proposals and reach informed decisions regarding the future of development in $outhold Town. The Town Board has concern over the consistency of the project with the Master Plan in terms of environmental policies (bluffs, agricultural soils, water availability, sewage disposal), the cultural environment (aestbet~cs of high density grid subdivision, and Page 8 of 10 Jem Commons, Gr~enport Statement of Findings overintensified use), and waterfront policies (scenic vistas and bluffs). All of the other alternatives evaluated through the ElS process are more sensitive to some or all of these issues. The south 42 acres of the site are not assured of "HD" zoning through the interpretation of the Master Plan as forwarded in the ElS, and there is no compelling justification for density increase on the north 20 acres in either the ElS or the Master Plan. In addition, the Master Plan clearly states that "In order to develop properties for residential uses within this area [Hamlets] at a density of greater than the base densi.ty, an approved central water supply is required, and a sewage treatment facihty or connection to a sewer system wouldbe needed". Compliance with these mandates has not been demonstrated as indicated in the Final EIS. COMMUNITY SERVICES Police/Fire Services The EIS for Jem Commons provides information relative to response of fire and police protection services, indicating that the respective departments can adequately respond to emergency incidents. There is one aspect of emergency protection which should also be considered. The Town of Southold Subdivisi~o,,n, Regulations (Article 3 Design Standards Section A106-32 Street layout), state that A subdivision containing 20 lots or more shall have at least 2 street connections with existing public streets or ,s, treets shown on an official map, if such exists, or streets on the recorded final plan. In the case of Jem Commons, only one street connection is provided for 171 lots. There is an emergency access right-of-way depicted on the conceptual plan; however, it is noted that this right-of-way aligns with an existing house which fronts on Sound Road west of the project site. Therefore, this access does not appear to be viable. The Town Board is concerned with providing adequate access for emergency vehicles, in order to ensure the safety of future residents of the project. Page 9 of 10 Jem Commons, Greenport Sta~ment of Findings Certification of Findings Having considered the Draft and Final ElS, and having considered the preceding written facts and conclusions relied upon to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.9, this Statement of Findings certifies that: The procedural requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 for notice, filing, coordination and Final EIS content have been met as outlined in the introductory discussion, and Consistent with the social, economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives thereto, the action does not minimize or avoid adverse environmental effects to the ma:dmum extent practicable; including the effects disclosed in the Draft and Final EIS, and Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations, to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental effects revealed in the environmental impact statement process will not be minimized or avoided by the incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures which were identified as practicable. Consistent with the applicable policies, this action will not achieve a balance between the protection of the environment and the need to accommodate social and economic considerations. The lead agency does find that from among the alternatives evaluated in the Draft and Final EIS, all of the alternatives analyzed provide a greater environmental compatibility to varying degrees depending upon desigg, and density when compared to the proposed project. Greater environmental compatibility should be sought through the followingmeasures, for any land use application occurring on site: protect bluff by enlarged setbacks and retention of natural vegetation (preferably through common ownership); preserve a greater percentage of habitat/open space and align contiguous open space with adjacent properties; ensure adequate water supply and sanitary waste treatment; provide adequate emergency access; and,provide a creative housing mix which will be a visual/cultural amenity to the site andarea. Name of Agency Signature of Responsible Official (Print and Sign) Title of Responsible Official Address of Agency Date Page 10 of 10 CRAM'ER, V00RHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental And Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road MILLER PLACE. NEW YORK 11764 (516) 331-1455 STATEMENT March 12, 1992 DATE Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Town of Southold P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 DATE 3/12/92 ~1110 BALANCE ~:O,qW~RO [~ #1110 :atement of SOUTHO~ TO~ ~ above ~NNIN~ BOA~ ~ ~ct as per .. Lution of $500.00 $500.00 Jem Commons Greenport, Completion of F~ndings for the referenced proj. Town Board 12/10/91. CRAMER. VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES, INC. Aq~unt Number. Invoice ~. Date. March 12, 92 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, N.Y., Dr. PAY TO: Payee Name: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Address: .~:~.N~{~h.qgqq~.gq~4 ............. .H~%~.~gqff~.t{~...~ ............. Payee Identification or Social Security Number: Payee Re~erence: Phone No. ( .... ) ....................... Vendor Contact Cash Discount ................. % ......... Days .................................... item Description of Material,,Service Quantity Unit Amount No. Price RE: Jem Cc~mons Invoice #1110 Completion of Statement of Findinqs for the __ ~bove referenced Dro~ect as Der Town B~ard resolution of 12/10/91. /' ~ $500.00 ~ ~,., ~ ,~'~ ~iscount ~et ~50o. oo The undersigned (]D~$X~a't~) (Ac ng on behalf of above named claimant) does hereby certify that the foregoing ciaim is true and correct and that no part thereof has been paid, except as therein stated, and that the balance therein stated is actually due and owing. Oared ..................... ~..~. ~.,~..~. . .Q-:~.t~.~..Q_}.c,.~. ~.r~ ........ ~ Signature . 3/10/92 10:55 A.M. BY PHONE WILLIAM BARRON 1055 SHIPYARD LANE EAST MARION, NEW YORK 11939 477-9499 COMPLAINT - AGAINST DOWNZONING OF JEMS COMMONS SOUTHOL8 ~ '. ~ANNING BOARD - f WILLIAM O TUT}{ILL R D ~1 34625 MAIN ORIENT, NY 11957 FEB ! 9 1992 Board has recommended denyin,q this r~u~t_,_ So does the NFEC. t, The density of the plan is simply too high [or a site on Long Island So~nd. demonstrated public benefit. There is no such benefit [rom this project. 3. It doesn't meet Southold'5 criteria for affordable housing. £ SYDNEY S. BREESE, JR. 17oo CEDAR BEACH ROAD $OUTHOLD, L.I. NEW YORK 11971 SUPERVISORS OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~cott darris ~outbold ri' O ~dn Greetings: JL., Commons project a3proved by the Town of ooutno£d since the density-,of housing is too great and the market for i]ous~ng at what may be non-affordable prices is drobabiy it is important that any of tht~se crojects be £ooked at in Light of the b.a. /IO.N. ¢[ann[ng discussions sinc~ ~'urther more it would seem with the water and sewage handling capacities aLreddy being stretched that he addition oL 171 units ~ou£d be ~tmost absurd, ~ ~ant toregister my objection to th~ whore croject. ~s ~~aleska 2. The laws requires that for a change of zone, there mugt ~e a demonstrated p~b]ic benefit_ There is no suzh bpnefit from this project_ :eh. l'd, 1991 too we].l known to nee-~ listin~ hero-- we urge our Town Board not to grant ~.~r. .]ontok~sta the c ~'~mg~: cf zono that will pa~'mit him to build ]71 housing units ~ 62 seres in Greenport. ~ ~,~ ncerely yours, FEB 1 $1997- Sound in Gceenport. The developer, Immanuel Kontokasta, is asking the Town Board for a change of zo.e f~om agricoltu~al-resldential to hamlet (high) density- The Plasni.9 Board has r~commended denyin9 this request. So does the NFEC. 5ecause the fina! public hearing has been held, it is important to c~ll Town Hall immediately, 765-1800, and explain that: 1. The density of tbs plan is simply too high for a site on Lot g Island Sound. 2. The laws requires that for a change o~ ~$he, there mu.~t be a d~_trated p.~c benefit. There is q~_~ch-~neflt from this ~~hold, s ~'~a f fordable housing. _ _ '~-~C 1 tO build ~71 housing unit.: on 62 acc Bnard has recommended denying ~ .... q --~ ~= '- ~= ~mnoftant l 1- The density of the plan is ~imply too high for a site on Long Island Hound. project. FEB t819~ RECEIVED FEll ~ :3 lgg2 ~u~nl,'l ? ..... ucoject. PUBLIC HEARING SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD February 4, 1992 7:00 P.M. ON THE PROPOSAL OF JEM REALTY CO. (JEM COMMONS) TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE, INCLUDING THE MAP, OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK. Present: Absent: Supervisor Scott L. Harris Councilman George L. Penny IV Councilman Thomas H. Wickham Councilwoman Alice J. Hussie Town Clerk Judith T. Terry Town Attorney Harvey A. Arnoff Justice Raymond W. Edwards (out of town) Councilman Joseph J. Lizewski SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Southold Town Board Public Hearing being held tonight, scheduled for 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, on a proposal of Jem Realty Co., Jem Commons to amend the Zoning Code, including the Zoning Map of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the north side of North Road, New York State 25, east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York, under the following proposal, and at this time I'II have George Penny read proof of verification, and publication. COUNCILMAN PENNY: "Notice of hearing on proposal to amend Zoning Ordinance and Map. Pursuant too Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, $outhold, New York, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, on the proposal of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York, under the following proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - 1 acre minimum). The applicant proposes to construct 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. Pg 2 - PH Jem Realty Co. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more parti- cularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly said of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 249.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 38 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or palce of beginning. Dated: January 17, 1992. Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." We have the affidavit of publication from The Suffolk Times, an affidavit from The Traveler-Watchman, an affidavit of posting by our Town Clerk. We have several communications. We'll start with the County of Suffolk Department of Planning, May 3, 1990, Dear Mrs. Terry, Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the Suffolk County Planning Commission on May 2, 1990 reviewed the above captioned application, and after due study and deliberation, considered a motion to approve it subject to the following: 1. The number of dwelling units/ lots shall not exceed 170 preferable less~ 2. The sales price of twenty (20%) percent of the dwelling units/lots shall be in accordance with requirements of the Affordable Housing District; 3. The parcels shall he developed jointly pre- ferably for cluster housing purposes; 4. Emergency vehictdar access shall be Pg 3 PH Jem Realty Co. available to the premises; 5. The project will be constructed in a timely manner consistent with market demands and appraisals of need; and 6. Approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. There is an asterisk in there. The motion failed to carry. Very truly, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning. It appears as if the motion was not denied, but it failed to carry. Could we ask Mr. Pachman? HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like you to read the letter of May 24, 1990, which is subsequent to that. It may explain that. COUNCILMAN PENNY: Okay. County of Suffolk Department of Planning, May 24, 1990. That's 21 days after this letter to the Town. Dear Mr. Kontokesta: In response to your letter of 5/21/90 regarding the above referenced, please be advised that since the Suffolk County Planning Commission did not render an official determination within the prescribed 45 days County Administrative Code notification period commencing 4/2/90, said application is considered as automatically approved as submitted. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, Arthur H. Kunz, Director of Planning, who signed the previous letter also for the Town. We have a memo from the Town Planning Board to Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk, from the Chairman of the Planning Board. The Planning Board wishes to go on record as opposing this change of zone application. Following is the Planning Board's resolution of March 26, 1990. WHEREAS the subject property consists of more than 60 acres of residentially zoned land, and WHEREAS the subject property could be developed for residential purposes under the current zoning, and BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends denial of the proposed petition. We have the following communication. Please read into the record at the public hearing on 2/4/92. Dear Supervisor Harris: Please deny a change of zone on Jem Properties located east of Sound Road and north of Route 25 in the Unincor- porated Village of Greenport. There is a market for affordable housing in Southold but apparently not in Greenport, as evidenced by the poor sales at Cedar Fields, which was forced to open up its sales to buyers outside our area. Even if there was a demand for affordable housing in Greenport, no zone change should be granted until a study is done to determine where hamlet density is appropriate. Futhermore hamlet density should never be given away without getting something in return, namely the preservation of our farmlands .The purpose of making a hamlet designation is to allow the property owners in a hamlet to purchase development rights from those farmers interested in selling their development rights. Hamlet density as a zoning tool is our best hope for protecting the character of the North Fork, please refrain from using it until it can be done wisely. Thank you for considering this matter carefully. Sincerely, Randy Wade. 440 6th Street, Greenport. We have a communication from the Planning Board, February 4, 1992 to the Supervisor and the Town Board. The Planning Board has re-reviewed this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. Twenty acres fronting on Long Island Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder Hamlet Density. We found that the Final Environmental Impact Statement did not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requested of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take our concerns into consideration. At this public hearing on the petition, we wish to reiterate the Planning Board's concerns for the record. The project will result in a signi- ficant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned, one unit for every two acres, is estimated take to be about twenty seven (27) single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots Pg ~I- Ph Jem Realty Co. of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 units per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than t~ne current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. In fact, the Village of Greenport I~as just notified another potential sewage client, Nicolas Aliano, who wishes to construct a completely affordable apartment complex in Greenport, that there is insufficient capacity to serve his project. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. This Board sees no value in granting change of zone approvals that will tie Lip future sewage allocations indefinitely. Further, as we reported in a previous memorandum of November 2~2, 1991, the County's Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the Town's Affordable Housing District. IJnder the County's program only 20% of the units in a project must be priced significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the County's program, the Town's program requires that 50% of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound or logical arguments. The argu- ment put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with $outhold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple tl~eir density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short- sighted, particularly when we know that there is no way to handle the resultant sewage in the near future. It is unwise to commit land to uses with an uncertain timetable for completion. That's from the Chairman of the Planning Board. We have a letter from the Village of Greenport to Mr. Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Dear Mr. Raynor, We are in receipt of your letter of December 2, 1991 with regards to hooking up to the Village of Greenport's water and sewage system to supply 40 units of rental apartments on the property. That was an attachment from the Planning Board. We have another memo to Judith T. Terry from Bennett Orlowski, Chairman. November 22, 1991. The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. That's basically the first letter. Now we have a new communication from the Orient Association dated February 3, 1992 to t~e Supervisor, Members of the Town Council, reason Jem Commons. Dear Supervisor and Councilmen, We urge you to make no decision on the above-cited rezoning proposal at this time. This proposed development involves many of the concerns that may be expected to be addressed in the planning initiative which is about to be undertaken by the Town Board, Planning and projected Task Force. Availability of water, adequate sewage disposal, potential traffic congestion, and economic viability are only the most obvious of these issues. This is precisely the sort of proposal which demands reference to a cohesive blueprint for Southold's development, and should await the results of tl~e effort which is about to get underway. With the good will and intention demonstratecl so far, the wait should not be overlong. We strongly urge you to make no major zoning changes until the process has been completed. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger, President of the Orient Association. We have another communication, which was received on February 3rd. Mr. Scott Harris, Southold Town Board, Gentlemen~ I oppose the proposed rezoning fo the I~ontokosta Project on Route 25, including the lands along tl~e Long Island Sound. This change proposal, if passed, would further erode and denegrate Pg 5 - Ph Jem Realty Co. this fragile area. Bear in mind Brecknock Hall scandal and preserve what we richly have inherited. Very truly yours, Frank J. Mclntosh, Greenport. This one is received on February 3rd. Dear Mrs. Terry, As full-time resident of 64 Sound Rd. Greenport, second house back from the Sound, east side of road, I would like to enter my formal protest against the zoning change proposal sub- mitted by Jem Realty for approximately 500% increase in allowable building density on the 62 acre plot north of North Road, and east of Sound Road. Please ensure this protest is entered into the proceedings on this matter at the Town meeting Tuesday, February 4, at 7 P.M. Clearly, on all accounts, the developer's proposal for 160 building units is grossly incompatible with both the land use and enviro- mental requirements. See your reference to Town consultant's determination citing 10 specific reasons, which negate such development. Jem Realty's proposal is in total disregard of the 2 acre zoning restrictions set forth for this area in the 1989 Master Plan. It is, therefore, submitted that approval of this zoning variance would weaken the very fiber of meaning and intent set out in the 1989 Master Plan thereby establishing a dangerous precedent for future development. I would urge the Town of Southold and the Village of Greenport to be most wary of temptations for the increased tax revenues from the 160 properties they see resulting from this project, while Jem Realty must be flush financially to initiate such a project in a down market, they are nevertheless shrewd and prudent businessmenl Therefore, it is most unlikely they intend to build more than a token number of houses in the beginning due to flat real estate sales in this area, and, at this rate, tax revenues would only be realized as a trickle, while the cost of increased water mains, in-ground sewage lines, possibility of need of widen adjacent segments of North Road, and install a stop light would suck up taxpa,ver money. All business have made mistakes by missing on their timing. Jem Realty have already missed significantly on their timing with the commercial store rental property just west of Greenport Post Office on Front Street. All of the negative conditions before us now could very likely ensure missing the mark, again, this time. The poor economy and reduced housing demand, especially vacation housing, could produce a veritable ghost town development, or a track home version of the ill-fated Sterlington Mall. Jem is milking this zoning proposal for all it's worth, and without apparent regard for prudent land use. They are taking avantage of the hamlet density allowance, Master Plan loophole, if within ½ mile of the town, and trying to stretch that same relative density to include the full 40 acre lower segment of the plot. Undoubledly, a sizable portion of that lower 40 acres does not comply with the necessary ½ mile proximity to town provision, and, even in the 20 acre luxury segment, north end of property by Sound. They want twice as many homes as the current 2-acre zoning provision allows. The luxury designation for the 20 acre, Sound front segment of the proposal is most suspect. For example, can we really believe that people will purchase truly luxury homes adjacent to maximum hamlet density housing? Only a wide buffer zone could begin to provide the necessary separation to make such coe×istence a reality. Most realistically, the level of density from the luxury segment southward, should be allowed to increase in a very gradual transition. One approach which could ensure this transition is to stagger a larger number of the luxury homes within a larger area of 30 to 40 acres. This would provide a more pleasing transition into the increasingly dense developments below. In closing, I suggest that other than their good judgement, fairness, and responsi- bility to the community, the town be guided by appropriate land use and environ- mental impact studies in restricting the magnitude of this proposed zoning variance. Further, I urge the Town of Southold to be cognisant of the very real community impact of magnified noise stemming from the increased traffic to be generated. Respectively yours, Victor Brown. The next one was received on February 3rd. Pg 6 - PH Jem Realty Co. Southold Town Board, Scott Harris, Members of the Board: We register our strong opposition to the proposal which will come before the Board this Tuesday night, February 4th, to allow a variance to Jem Realty for the downzoning of it's property on the North Road, Greenport. The downzoning of this area will create an additional burden on the already stretched water and sewage system of Greenport Village. There is no demonstrated need to increase the density of this area since there are existing affordable moderate housing and vacant condos in the Village. From our environmental standpoint, we believe this proposal would further destroy what is one of the Town's natural treasures, it's coastline. In addition, Mr. Kontokosta has not demonstrated any significant interest in enhancing our community. To the contrary, he owns several properties in the business district, a lot in front of the Chowder Pot Pub, a lot next to the Mills Building, and a small shopping center near the post office, which he has allowed to deteriorate. Lots are overgrown despite requests from the Village that areas be made presentable. Stores are vacant. In general the appearance is one of urban blight. If there is any reservation on the part of Board members to vote no to this proposal, we invite you to survey Mr. Kontokosta's properties in the village. It will become apparent that he is once again attempting to exploit the Village of Greenport by making a quick buck at the e×pense of the taxpayers. Sincerely, registered voters and taxpayers, Linda and Richard Bonforte. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Excellent job, Councilman Penny. At this time, Mr. Packman, Mr. Kontokosta, would you like to make your presentation? HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like to give members of the Board a detail of the Zoning Map as it presently exists. The parcel in question is marked in yellow, and is shown. Supervisor and members of the Town Board, my name is Howard Packman. I'm a attorney. The address is 366 Veterans Memorial Highway, Commack, New York, and I'm the attorney for the petition of Jem Realty Company, a partner- ship. Manual Kontokosta is the managing partner. It is interesting to note that one of the letters said we have missed the boat on the timing of this. I find that somewhat amusing. This application was filed in March of 1990, and we have waited until February of 1992 to have our public hearing, and one of the reasons for that is during this time, we've been submitting to the Board, and their files, an Environmental Impact Statement, because there where a lot of questions raised, a lot of issues proposed by reason of this development, and I believe by anyone who has spent any time, and a little effort to review that Draft Environmental Impact will see that many of the purported concerns, that some people have raised, who don't even know what all the issues are, are addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement, and I do believe that it is appropriate, and we'll solve, and we'll answer the questions, that are raised. At the outset it is important to note, that is anything is spot zones, placing this parcel of property as a R-80 is spot zoned. If you look at the R-40, that surrounds this property, the only other R-80 piece is the cemetery, and I think that is well being used at this particular time, and to the right hamlet density is Brecknock Hall. That's a filed map, and that is already zoned that way. So, to take this parcel of property, and arbitrarily place that in R-80 is now only poor zoning, an inactivism to the zoning of the area. Our application to change the 62 acres to a mixed zone. Obviously when it fronts on the Sound, is land which is more valuable, and which has greater ability to be developed, and the present two _~cre zoning should be comported to what we believe is an appropriate zone, which would be R-80, one acre zoning. The balance of the property, 42 acres, and where we are asking for Hamlet Density. Hamlet Density is defined in the Ordinance, that was past after the Master Plan, and the tremendous changes that were made in the Town Zoning Code, and the very Pg ? - PH Jem Realty Co. purpose of Hamlet Density is defined in the Ordinance, as follows, the purpose of Hamlet Density HD residential district is to permit a mix of housing type, and a level of residential density appropriate to the area in, and around the major hamlet center, particularly Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, Orient, and Village of Greenport. So, one of the very areas targeted for the Hamlet Density district is the area adjacent to the Village of Greenport. Then it has a second section, which is deemed to be applicability, That say, again in the Ordinance, that you passed after you adopted the Master Plan, that Hamlet Density residential district may be designated on the Zoning Map by the Town Board by it's own motion, or by petition, and we are coming here by petition, on parcels within one half mile of the hamlet business district of Mattituck, Cutchogue, Southold, and within one quarter mile of the hamlet business district of Orient, and within one half mile of the Village of Greenport. This parcel of property is within one half mile of the Village of Greenport, so the very ordinance which you passed, the very standards that you have set, is what we're asking that change this particular parcel to be Hamlet Density, and the reason for that, as I stated before it is an inaccurism to have a parcel of property zoned for two acre zoning, when it is totally surrounded by, oddly enough R-40. But if you look at the development of this area, that's quarter acre zoning. That's land that was developed prior to your changing zoning to R-40, so have here small intensive parcels of land, and I think one of the letters you may have gotten from this gentleman over here, who probably feels that he's on a very small piece of property, and likes the piece of property behind, because it creates a rear yard park for which he doesn't pay taxes, but probably enjoys the benefits of the amenities. So, therefore, the continuous and existing use of a Hamlet Density classification would be an appropriate change of zone. As I said before for the last two years this project has been subject to an exhausted environmental impact study. The comments by the Town as lead agency through it's consultants, Kramer & Voorhis, have been responded to, and have been attended to in the Draft Environmental ~lmpact Statement. I believe at some time tonight, or sometime after this meeting, the Board is going to make some determination on the final aspect of how they're going to handle, and make a determination on that, and we have not had a chance to respond to it, so I can't add to it at this particular point. Hopefully, they will see that what we have responded to, and placed in there, and all the mitigations, including one person made a comment, that this would have an increase in traffic on 25. There's a study from a traffic engineer to indicate that it would have no impact. The project sponsor, Jem Realty, has an overall objective to create a well planned, properly serviced, conveniently located housing project consisting of 19 luxury homes, 122 moderately priced homes, and 30 affordable priced homes, all architectually well coordinated, so as to provide for an economically, and ingenious residential community. The~eproposed dwellings will provide an opportunity for younger families to find a modest, a moderate municipal service house, so that they and their families could remain on Long Island, particularly on the North Fork. It would, also, help stabilize a potentially increase in the labor force, which is badly needed, not only in the North Fork, but on Long Island in general. The project, as I indicated to you, is in two stages. The northern portion being, changing it. We're talking about 20 acres from here to here, just an estimate, which is from the R-80 to the R-40, and the balance of the tract, which is 42 acres will be the Hamlet Density residential district. The uniqueness of the subdivision,as it is proposed, is to blend affordable, moderate and luxury homes, and to neutralize a mix of housing, would implement a planned community of homes. No home will stand alone. They'll be incorporated into the subdivision. This plan, I believe, will be unique in Southold. Basically, all houses will be designed in common model. The only difference in cost will be the number, size of rooms, total square footage, the type of dwelling, the Pg ~' - PH Jem Realty Co. amenities of the site, the location on the site, and the finish. The change of zone is only the beginning of the development process. If this Board in it's wisdom grants our change of zone, that does not end the process. We then have to go through the subdivision approval process, which is not only before the Planning Board of the Town of Southold, but before the Suffolk County Planning Board. We have to get State DEC permission to access to the roads on 25. We must get building permits, submit plans to the Building Department. The permits will have to be approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health for water purposes, and sewer purposes. Water will have to be obtained from the Village of Greenport on availability basis, and also, ~ewage as and when needed. As you have heard by the letters read by Councilman Penny, there has been pre-approval obtained from the Suffolk County Department of Planning with reference to the fast tracking, and affordable housing laws of Suffolk County. Now, from the onset when the Master Plan, one of the most important things, when someone comes in for a change of zone, the first thing you ask, what does the Master Plan say? Is this in conflict with the Master Plan? Is it a change in the Master Plan, or is it consistent with the Master Plan? We have an application which is consistent with the Master Plan. From the very beginning, from it's very beginning in it's notes and comments, Raymond, Parrish and Pine, when they made the decision to make their report, they said, Hamlet Density is the key place, where you can have your highly dense concentration of dwellings, and affordable houses, whether it be Cutchogue, Mattituck, Southold, or at or near the Village of Greenport. They continued that concept when they wrote their report, their first memorandum in '83, and they did it again in '85, and when they ultimately wrote their comments for the Master Plan, and the updated summary, they clearly restated that, and that was part of the Master Plan, when it was submitted to the Town Board for their acceptance, and approval, and Hamlet Density, and this is what it says, the plan proposes that the major hamlet census continue, the residential business service centers of the town, they are also the areas where the Plan reflects the primary efforts to provide for lower cost housing, and it outlines the areas where it should be. The Hamlet Density areas are not shown on a Townwide Plan. One of the things they said, we want to leave that for the time when an application will be made, where someone will come in, and say, this is the place where we would like to provide that kind of type Hamlet Density, and they left it open. They did not preplan, they did not predetermine where these should be, and here is an application being made by a builder, and by a developer with imagination, who has come in, and said, I can develop this piece of property for Hamlet Density. I can use this because one of the problems one has in normally preparing for affordable housing is that the cost of the land becomes so expensive, that it is impossible to build a house for an affordable profit. What Mr. Kontokosta is proposing I can take an area where I can put luxury homes. I can put moderately priced homes. I can put affordable housing, and I could average out the cost of that ability to know what the cost of my land development is, and I can bring down the cost of that land, so I can supply homes at an affordable and moderately priced, and that's why it is important that this mix of homes be provided with luxury, with moderately priced homes, and with affordable homes. That brings your average cost of land development down, and makes the ability for the applicant to find and provide the kind of homes that are needed in this area. This should be encouraged. This should be supported, and not looked at with askance by people, who think that this is a intrusion into the area, and changing what already exists, and they say what is already there is High Intensity housing. You've got the Brecknock Hall, which is also High Density, and then to have this quarter acre developed zoning, eight acre developeel zoning, and call it 1~-40, when in truth when developed it's less than that. W~'ve already Pg 9 - PH JeT Realty Co. provided High Density over here. You have High Density to the south of this. You've got light business, office business over here, and then to have in the middle of this piece, an R-80 piece, is sea of land which in any action brought would be deemed to be spot zoned. Again, the UK Plan, which recently was reviewed by the Town, US/UK Plan, had in their own report two recommendations. One of them, in talking about affordable housing, they say that Southold should develop a capital improvement program for water and sewage to allow for growth areas in and around the villages, so that they begin to help provide the inter- structure for the developing in those areas, and that recommendation coupled with recommendation number- 10, the Town of Southold should develop an affordable housing plan, which would encourage the diversity of quality housing, including rental units, equity sharing concept, etc., in the Hamlet Density area, shows that all good plans, whether they come from the United States, or the United Kingdom, see the wisdom of this area being developed in this particular fashion, and so does your Master Plan so stated. It is somewhat ignominious that the Planning Department has written several letters of reiection. The first one was written, to my surprise, without ever consulting with myself, or my client, as to what the proposal was, and how it was proposed. Without benefit of inviting us, or even having a hearing, they turned down the application. From the outset, when we started working on the SEQR Plan, and the environmental plan, we have only seen opposition, never any constructive criticism, any ability to see how can we work this out? How can we develop this, so we have a mutual product on hand? In the very beginning to today, the February 4th letter, vote this thing down. That's not good planning (tape change) There's two kinds of housing, those that have, and those that have not. Unfortunately the price of land, coupled with the cost of building, as I said, makes material, and costs, very expensive, and also, go through that aspect of it again, but unless affordable housing, and at times you will find that there may not be a market for it, but that is a determination made by the market place. It should not be made by those who determine what zoning should be. If a builder- has the wisdom, and the foresight to want to build affordable housing, and wants to spend his money for that, that's the important situation. We should not make that determination, whether he can, or can not, make it, and whether others could, or could not, make it, and are able to build, or market affordable housing. The developer- can spend, I indicate this. To deny this application will continue to have Southold take a course which they may be happy with, or not happy with. It could be a tourist community, or it could be a second bedroom community, or it could be community which provides housing for it's younger- people, who'll stay on, because they can afford to get a house, or it will allow people to have houses, that want to move up, and therefore make a market place available for younger people, who would move into that housing, would provide housing for the older people, who will not necessarily want to move because of the cost of continuing to live in an area where housing is expensive, and taxes are high. The ability to get this project moving after two years, and maybe another year, if the zoning is granted to the planning process, and the development process, and haven't seen a subdivision come through to fruition Jn Suffolk County in less a year, and I don't care what town you go to, and I~ve worked in all ten towns in the County of Suffolk. It's just a long process to go through it, and meet what is necessary to satisfy all that you need. I believe the new housing will add to the tax base. It will provide jobs for building, and the building trade. Jobs create income. Income provides money for- the people to use, and spend at the local businesses, and the local professionals, for their' goods, and their services. I think this is a good zoning application. I would hope you would consider it favorably, and I hope that we'll be given an opportunity to respond to any questions, or matters, that may arise after my presentation. Thank you. Pg fO- PH Jem Realty Co. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Pachman. Mr. Kontokosta, do you have anything you would like to say at this time? EMANUAL KONTOKOSTA: Not at the moment. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: At this time, are there any members of the audience, that would to address this proposal, and address Mr. Pachman, or Mr. Kontokosta? Let me start in the back, and I'll work myself up. I'll start in the left hand aisle first. Ellen? I'll remind you, that this is a public hearing, and five minutes is the limitation of your speech. I'm sorry it's ten minutes. ELLEN LATSON: Thank you, Scott, and members of the Town Board. Mr. Kontokosta purchased this property in 1979. His Draft..his Final Environmental Impact Statement suggests that the existing R-80 zoning is not compatible to the land use in adjacent areas. From Chapel Lane to Island's End Golf and Country Club there are potential thousand additional units for development in Southold Town through Hamlet Density. I would suggest to the contrary, that if anything is needed in this immediate area, it's maintenance of a two acre zone. To suggest that this two acre zone is incompatible is to suggest that Central Park is incompatible to New York City, In reviewing the map, I'd just like to point out to the Town Board, that the tie line on the 20 acres proposed parcel for the R-~I0 one acre zone goes out to the Long Island Sound, and the bluff area as far as I read it, is considered in yield acreage. That looks to me, with my naked eye, to be about 15% of the property, which would bring the R-II0 zone down to less one acre zoning, if it was approved in that area. Mr. Kontokosta throughout the DEIS suggests that the alternates, when he submitted Draft Environmental Impact Statement, you're supposed to show other alternatives can be done on the property, and Mr. Kontokosta in the DEIS suggests that the alternatives are not accessible, merely because there's additional HD dense zoning in the immediate area, but if you take the 136 acres of 13recknock Hall, that is zoned HD, and the lacking of sewage and water in the Village of Greenport, you can really overexaust the Village of Greenport, and that was pointed out in the review by our consultants. I also don't feel that the County actually approved this, because they didn't pass on it, then just let it lapse within 45 days, so there's no County seal of approval. It was just no action on their part. The Town Board would far better to look into the needs of their existing affordable housing where there is 50%, affordable housing for 50% development, and in the finding statement these things can be layed out. One, that the existing zoning is compatible with the site, that the existing bluff has important resources to the town, that it is clustered, that we will be maintaining the open space, which is the overall goal of the Master Plan through our two acre zoning, that the lack of public sewer and water tied up to the Village of Greenport will always have a system that doesn't even know if in a term can provide water to the zones, that are already there, and three that a 20% affordable housing, 117 units proposed on 62 acres, when the allowable lot yield should be 31. One hundred seventy one units, 19 proposed along the bluff, 122 moderate income, which is moderate is termed at $129,000.00 to $165,000.00, and the lower affordable at $100,000.00. I don't feel that the Town Board should grant the zone change based on this criteria. You're not really providing a service to the town, only overutilizing an already strained resource of public water and public sewer, and you are undermining the two acre zoning within the immediate hamlet facility. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. We'll move to the back now. Who is next? Pg 11 - PH Jem Realty Co. EVERETT HOLLAND: Everett Holland. Greenport. I'm very concerned with this sewer and water hookups in Greenport. He keeps talking about being a taxpayer, and a homeowner in Greenport. ~ know that my sewer and water taxes have gone up tremendously this past year, and because of the legal suit against the Village of Greenport on it's current sewage plant, we lost it, and we now have to increase our sewage plant at a very large cost, and a very big bond issue, and we are, also, at this point told that in increasing our sewer plant, we will not have anymore available usage of this plant, even with the current increase, because once we hook up to Brecknock Hall, which we've been told by courts to do, that that's it, Now, this is what we are told as ta×payers, that our townt our village needed, and it bothers me a great deal to hear that he keeps wanting hookup to Greenport water and sewer. I think, also, you look at the density in the area, to have some space around us, I think, is very, very needed. I think you ought to consider that. The other thing, ~ think you should also drive down Greenport, and look at current property that Mr. Kontokosta owns. It is a huge blight through our village. He has r~peatedly been requested to mow, and maintain these properties, and it goes on to deaf ears. I think working with somebody who obviously looks upon the village, and it's taxpayers, and thumbs his nose at them, is very annoying. I hope you consider his previous efforts in working with the government as being non-existing, and keep that in mind as well. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS~ Thank you. Yes, sir? FRANK MCINTOSH: My name is Frank Mclntosh. I live adjacent to the Floyd property. I made one very impassioned plea about five, or si× years ago, prior to Brecknock Hall change of zoning, and I think that we only have to look at I~recknock Hall, and see what's happened there, because it certainly has been incredibly scandalous. I am very priviledged to travel all over the world, and I have choosen this community to live in, because it is the garden spot of the world, and think you should preserve it, and preserve it inteligently, and passionately is very much needed. This area from the turnaround by Porky's, and eastward out to Orient is the most treasured spot of land that I know of. It was a land grant. The property, as you know, was a land grant. Brecknock Hall was a very dignified~ and very elegant homestead for the Floyds, and the Floyd family, and it's been practically ruined with the sand and gravel, that was permitted to go on there. I think that zoning is fine, but I think that to do on that soundfront which is so beautiful, and all this area, which is eastward should be five acre zoning. You can attract incredible people out herew You're getting incredible people from the South Shore, and you're getting a lot of money people, and I spend a lot of money in this community. I've spent thousands, and thousands of dollars restoring the Floyd house, which was built in 1680. I think to do it, and do it sensitively, and to do it authentically, and to do it beautifully is what this cor~munity stands for, and has always stood for. I'm very passion about how this goes, because once it's gone, you can't recreate this, and it is very, very special indeed. I just hope that when you ta× ul~on it, you will evaluate it, and be certain that the houses are not on tacky acre spots, and if you will preserve it. Once this North Road is gone, it's gone. That was the King's Highway. George Washington traveled it. Benjamin Franklin traveled it, You people, many of you live in Orient, you're not confronted with this. Greenport..So~thold and Orient are completely separate from Greenport, so Greenport needs to be nutured a bit, and I just plea that you will do it with sensitivity, and with intelligence. Pg 12- PH Jem Realty Co SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Mclntosh. Anybody else? I'll start in the back and come forward. DECIA FATES: My name is Decia Fates. I live in Greenport. I strongly object to the proposed zone change and I urge the Board to deny the applicant's request. The reasons for my objection is numberous. As far as I can understand in the recommendationsof the US/UK Steward team indicate the need for reviewing reconsideration of current town zone regulations. Given my understanding that the Town intends to pursue this goal in the immediate future, and that significant zoning code changes could result, it seems best imprudent and at worst foolhardy to approve zoning changes for specific individual projects at this time. I suspect personally, that the applicant is simply trying to slip in under the wire, fearing that changes to come may make the process more difficult if not impossible. If we are truly interested in preserving open spaces in the Town of Southold, a well-thought-out plan that addresses the aggregate development possibilities in all the hamlets, in the town as a whole, should be created before individual actions are taken that will only compound existing maldistribution of density, and by that specifically, I mean Greenport has already been much more than it's fair share to contribute. Approving cricial zone changes on a piecemeal basis, in the absence of a comprehensive plan, invites the disaster of the domino effect, as future applicants cite precedent, and threaten litigation to bulldoze their way through local government. It foreshadows a day in my mind, when the North Road looks more like Northern Boulevard, and Southold Town looks more like Levittown. Although I do not know..I know more now, about the applicant's specific plans. It seems unlikely given today's economic climate and the financial difficulties currently plaguing projects like Mohring and Brecknock that any actual construction will take place in the near future. Thus, there seems to be little legitimate urgency attached to this request and no immediate need for a zone change. The requested zone change will facilitate the construction of housing that recent experience indicates will be difficult to sell, assuming it is ever constructed in the first place. If it is not, Greenport may end up with nothing on that side of the North Road, excepting Mclntosh's home, Porky's, and twin sandpits. If it is, this project may face the same problems as Cedarfields, which struggled to find qualified buyers for homes billed as affordable. This problem will only be compounded for higher-priced homes, which make up considerable preportion of the proposed project. Southold Town would do well to consider whether it has not already unfairly victimized the residents of both incorporated and unincorporated Greenport through past zoning bloopers, namely the Greenport Commons project. This site remains a mute testament to time and public money wasted and to the unnecessary destruction and visual hlight that can result when zoning changes are approached shortsightedly and cavalierly, and as a Greenport resident, I firmly believe that the Town owes us one for Greenport Commons. The applicant..the people of Greenport have already paid a high price to support the pipe dreams nf developers. For example, they have seen their water and sewer rates rise again and again to finance facilities expansions accomodating such fantasies as Brecknock, which will probably never be built under these conditions. Any developer who believes that a one-time hook-up fee paid to the Village is adequate or fair in the face of the incessant and permanent rate increases paid by its residents is dead wrnng. And a developer who expects that Villagers will sit still for more should think again. In closing, I urge the members of the Southold Town Board to deny the applicant's request at this time. Please, take the time to think carefully and plan carefully before you make decisions about our future that you cannot undo. Think about what we really need and where we really need it. Think about what is economically realistic, environmentally sensible, sensitive to the wishes of the Pg 13 - PH Jem Realty Co residents. Do not rush. The land isn't going anywhere. Applications can always be resubmitted. There is always another chance, but open spaces and quality of life don't get a second chance. Once they are lost or diminished, they can not be recovered. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Is there anybody else in the back, that's coming up? JANE GOHREL: Jan Gohrel. East Marion. Coincidentally or not, this proposal comes at .the very outset of the Town's efforts to pursue implementation of the US/UK Team's recommendations. It dramatically illustrates the urgent need for the Board to get on with that good work. The Team's findings embody the combined knowledge and experience of outside experts working in close co-operation with the local citizenry. They reflect the feelings and conerns of a broad spectrum of the community. The piecemeal patchwork approach to development, particularly where major parcels and major zoning changes are involved, is in direct conflict with the collective goal of limiting land fragmentation and suburban sprawl. Down-zoning this 62 acre area with land Sound frontage to allow a density more that five times greater than currently permitted is undoubtedly seen by the folks at Jem Realty as more cost effective. It could however have disastrous implications for the rest of us. The Village of Greenport and its rate payers would bear the most obvious burden here for what seems no positive return. The Town would, also, be a loser, suffering further erosion of it's unique rural character, and envrionmental integrity so important to our quality of life and ecomonic health. The signal would be given to other developers to try to jump in now before a new order is put in place. Southold Town's Planning Board rightly recommends against this proposal, and now it's time for this Board to reject it, in view of the process begum by you two weeks ago. It's time for leadership and positive action if the North Fork is to remain one of America's great places. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there someone else in the back? Yes? CARL KREBS: Carl Krebs. On the adjacent property, I reside at 66 Sound Road, Greenport. I wish to voice my strong objection to this proposal of Jem Realty to amend the Zoning Code to 2 acre zoning on Route 25 to the Long Island Sound. The Master Plan, and Zoning Code is an improvement to your attempt to preserve some of the rural character of the North Fork, the channel developing responsible environmentally sound fashion. This rezoning is a special exception in terms of dense development, characteristic of suburban communities. The application of hamlet density to 62 acre undeveloped site bordering Long Island Sound is a ludicrous interpretation of the Master Plan. This site has no existing services, no streets, or hamlet type development, and possibly discourage investment in existing housing in the Village of Greenport. The zoning applica- tion proposes such a drastic increase in density from 30 more houses to 171. It's a harm to the environment with potentially considerable groundwater contami- nation, noise, traffic, and increased use of the local water and sewage system. I stronly urge the Board to reject the application. I'd like to mention for the offical record, as an adjacent owner, I've never received ar~ykind of formal notification in the mail about this application, or this hearing, and the one neighbor that I was talking to about it, also, has not received any notification. I would also like to just mention that, I'm one of the people who live on Sound Road, and I can look at this property, and I'm not taxed for a park. I'd like to mention, we're not here to object to development, we're objectioning to 500% increase in the development of this site. I, also, would like to point out that the very unfortunate precedent that was set by Brecknock development should not be used an excuse to continue with the density development of this particu- lar site. I don't think that two wrongs will make it right. Thank you. I would also like to see the proof of notifying the adjacent property owner. Pg 1'4- PH Jem Realty Co. TOWN CLERK TERRY: I have it right here. It was mailed to you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: We have a returned receipt from you, also. TOWN CLERK TERRY: It was mailed to Robert Becker, and Carl Frimann Krebbs, 202 West 82nd Street, New York, and Mr. Becker received it, and it's dated March 14, 1990. That was when they were required, when they filed the petition, they're required to notify all the adjacent property owners. CARL KREBS: I see. They were notified two years past. TOWN CLERK TERRY: That is when they filed their petition. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Next, please. ANN LOWERY: My name is Ann Lowry. I'm the Vice President of the North Fork Environmental Council. I'd like to make a few remarks to be included. I won't review what has been said about the composition of the site. Virtually all of the land on this site as proposed would be covered. This land is designated as agriculture conservation district as in the amended Master Plan, and in the comments by Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, consultants for the Town of Southold on the DEIS by the developer, they state under the heading, Affected Agricultual District, that, quote, It should be noted that agricultural use is allowable in an R-80 district. Regardless of the use and zoning, the site is prime farmland with Haven loam soils. The proposed project represents a permanent foreclosure of agriculture, which should be acknowledged. The developer tries to make the case for public need for this project to justify such a drastic change of zoning from R-80 to HD. We have been told by half a dozen real estate agencies in this area this past week that each has at least 50 to 60 houses available in the moderate, $129,000 to $165,000, priced range, ready for sale immediately. Is it really the public need that would be served by building 122 more moderately priced units, or the developer's wants? We are sympathetic to the need for affordable housing, but this project is not even presented as one consistent with the Southold Town Affordable Housing Code which would require 50% of the units to be "affordable". Public need, or the developer's? As presented, even in the three alternative plans, there is no room designated for a packaged sewer treatment facility. This appears to be the way the developer would have to go, because in a letter from Mayor Pell to Henry Raynor dated January 8, 1992, the Mayor stated that Greenport could not accomodate any more sewerag~ clients at this time. These packaged facilities are not looked on with favor at the County level. They are said to require a lot of maintenance, tend to be neglected, and do not perform well. To summarize, this project as proposed is not in keeping with the overall goals of the Town of Southold. We support the statement of the Planning Board in it's memo of November 22, 1991, quote, it is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short- sighted. The end result will be wall-to-wall development within the hamlets, and unremitting suburban sprawl outside of them. This project creates enor~nous density by special permit, at a place which is already stressed by traffic and crossroads. It uses all of a piece of land which is good farmland. It does not even conform to the Southold Affordable Housing Code, but uses the County's Code to designate a smaller number of units, and it does nothing for the concept of stewardship of the land, which is a key concept in the US/UK recommendations for Southold. The Town is working towards the goal of Community Stewardship, Pg 15 - PH Jem Realty Co. caring for this town in ways which will be in the interests of the people now, and in the interests of future generations. The Town wishes to be sure that large actions taken are in the interest of the public. This project is only in the interest of the developer. We ask that the Town Board reject this change of zone application, and that they not consider any projects of such density at this time, when they are considering taking some steps which may allow for new and creative ways to preserve the best aspects of this Town. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Lowry. Moving up front. Yes, Ronnie? RONNIE WACKER: Good evening. My name is Ronnie Wacker, and I'm a Board member of Southold 2000. l'm a member of the NFEC, and I'm a member of the North Fork Planning Conference. I mention these not s~ggest that I don't know what else to do with my evenings, and afternoons, but that I am very concerned about where this Town is going, and I'm helping in any way I can. Last summer the Town Board was host to a team of e×perts from the United State, and the United Kingdom. They came here to study the potential in this community, and we had been choosen as one of six out of some nineteen applicants to this group, because we were considered to be, you know, a state where we needed help immediately. After a week, or so study, they came up with a number of recommendations. The Town Board is now considering appointments to a Task Force, that will study these recommendations, and how they can be applied to the various hamlets and towns. This is an e×traordinary event. I don't how many other towns, or areas,in United States have had this opportunity to take advantage of the expertise of a number of people, who know what they're talking about. We have the opportunity to design our destiny, and I just hope that we can hold off. I'm not critizing the development that is proposed, I'm just saying let us wait until we decide what direction we should take. There will have to be some changes made. We all agree to that, and this is what some of the planning experts told us. So, let us see what those changes are, and maybe this is the way that we should go, maybe not, but let's first study it very carefully, so that we know what we should be doing. I would recommend very strongly, that right now you do not approve this. Let us think about it. There will be time. The land will still be there. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. RUTH OLIVA: Ruth Oliva. Let me give you a brief history of this area. About ten years ago, Jem Realty came before the Town Board for a change of zone to end multiple dwelling, which is the same as our present HD zone. The applica- tion was denied. Also, about ten years ago, Brecknock Hall came into the Board for a change of zone. Even though many of us opposed the change of zone, asking that it be postponed as a Master Plan was being prepared. The zone was past. Now, we have a moon crater and a foreclosure on the Brecknock property. Where is the economic benefit on that piece of property? The inter- structure on the Jem Realty property is not there. I've spoken to the Greenport Utilities. Jem Realty is not on the top of the list for water service, and has not even applied for sewer service. Greenport is developing several new wells, but without additional water from the west, they will not be able to serve everyone on their water list. Southold Town is still in the process of developing a water management program for the whole town. Greenport only has permission to expand their sewer plant by 150,000 gallons. A study for recharge is prerequisite for allowing the plant to expand another 150,000 gallons. Again, the waiting list for sewage is long. The developer mentions the possibility of constructing a Pg 16 - PH Jem Realty Co. package sewer treatment plant. Those plants have not been looked favorable on the Department of Health Services, because of poor operation and maintenance by a homeowner's association, or the developer. Now, unless the Town Board would like to develop a sewer district, and become Commissioners, then I would suggest a sewer treatment, sewage plant would be out of the question. The property is located near one of the worse intersections in town. Two years ago, many citizens petitioned the State for a light at that intersection. It was denied. With the increase of ferry traffic, and only one ingress, and one egress from the property. It should be a real safety concern for the Board. There is one emergency ingress and egress. The developer proposes 19 or 20 one acre lots on the Sound. Unless the Town provides very strignent C & R's to impose on the developer, why should any affordable units be built when he could expect a return of about four million dollars on the Sound lots, at $200,000.00 a piece~ Also, he is not asked for the AHD zoning, that the Town proposes, so as to be included in our program. This is a very dense use of a piece of property, that is adjacent to a another proposed densely developed property, therefore my recommendation to the Board is to postpone any decision on the change of zone. We are in the process of gethering information, and ideas, pursuant to the LIS/UK Report, and implementing some of them as quickly as possible. At that time, I am sure the Town, and the developer could sit down and work out a plan for this property, that would be mutually beneficial to both. I would like to urge the Board not to make the mistake, that we did almost ten years ago, on Brecknock Hall, and hastily pass a change of zone, until a Master Plan, or an amendment to it is brought up. I would like to see that more developers, and the Town, get together in developing these pieces of property, because I think it could be done, that it can be economically viable for the developer, and environmentally sensitive to the Town. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Yes? KATHLEEN LATHAM: I'm Kathleen Latham. I just want to say I'm impressed with your reader, who reads all those things without glasses. COUNCILMAN PENNY: That won't be for long, believe me. KATFILEEN LATHAM: Also, I just want to say that when Mr. Pachman gave his presentation, I thought he did a very good presentation. It sounded reasonable. The only thing is, it's..we have to think of where we are. It's not just a map, but it's in this whole locality, where we have too many houses already. Since we've made the mistake of having too many so far, we don't want to make the mistake of having still more. I still think it's very important that we listen to our Planning Board. That is an arm of the Town Board, which has looked into this in greater detail than I could, and has a recommendation, I believe, with good reason. So, I would just like to say to the Town Board making a change in the zoning at this time, instead of going in a backwards direction, doesn't seem wise when we're just getting ready to consider all of our again. So, I'm hoping, and trusting that you won't do that. Thank you. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Latham. Anybody else in the middle? STEVE LATSON: I'm Steve Latson. I live in Southold. As Chairman of the Waterfront Revilization Advisory Committee we went all around the town, and our comment in this area was that Brecknock Hall is a disaster, because of the incredible zoning, and of course, the big problem is you have intensive zoning Pg I?- PH Jam Realty Co. in this whole area, except for this area, and then over here there are some open spaces, also, but you have a sewage outfall pipe. One of our concerns was public beaches. I mean, we're trying to look ahead fifty years. What's Southold going to look like when it's totally developed? Consequently, we made up a list of properties around the town, that are basically or essentially vacant, and it totals about 3,000 acres, including Robins Island. It's very modest, abnut 10% of the town, but on the waterfront, environmentally sensitve areas, and also, areas that in future might be needed for recreational use. The con- sideration is, after Town Beach in Southold there are no public beaches for town-wide use, especially in this Greenport area on Long Island Sound, which obviouslythere'sjellyfish, you have Brown Tide, it's very important to go to the Sound. So, we felt that this area could be best used without. . you know, we didn't look into what are people doing with properties, what they want to do. We're just looking Southold fifty years from now, and the feeling on this property was, and the recommendation was, that the Town already owns a little plot right here, that this area could be utilized for public beach. You have to consider that meanwhile you have everything else developed fifty years from now, theoricall¥, at this point in time. So, this would be public beach area, possible open field area for recreation for all the dense population everywhere in the surrounding areas, and a possible nature walk area in this region. In other words, a multiple use, recreation, public beach, and wildlife, all together. This whole region, right now, is a wildlife area. Brecknock Hall is a terrific wildlife area. Obviously, when, and if, that area get developed, they're really going to decide on this one area. Obviously, they're not going to do that. But the real key here is to just look ahead fifty years. Invision Southold fifty years from now, and boy, if developed all this, and developed all this, and I don't care if you're talking about two acre zoning, or HD zoning, or anything else, this place is going to look just like that way. It's going to look just like that, and that's the real concern, now how to not have it look like that, yet supply all the other things. Well, there's an awful lot of high density housing in this area already. I mean, if you ever look at a high density area in Southold Town, Greenport is it. That's the last thing they need. They need some open space long term. But, anyway, that was the findings of the Waterfront Committee. Obviously, we haven't completed our report, or anything else like that. If we had I think you would see that on the list, and we could make a statement on it. I think long term, you just have to start setting aside open spaces, and maybe Mr. Kontokosta will like to buy it, etc., but we have to start thinking on those terms. (tape change) so you can preserve some. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Latson. Over here, in the hack? ROBERT VILLA: I'm Robert Villa, and I don't want to take up too much of your time, but I had a couple of brief remarks. I think it's premature at this time to consider a project like this, what with the planning stage under review, and I just wanted to clarify one thing, this whole thing is premised on getting public water, and public sewers. If, they don't get it from Greenport, I don't think they're going to get sewers on site, because that means subdivision, that any rule require that any system like that be turned over to the County. It's not left in the hands in a homeowners' association. You know the County policy in the past has been that, anything under two hundred units they don't look at favorable because of the economics involved. So, to look at a package plan on this site, first of all, you're talking probably setting aside about 20 or 25 acres for the plant itself with a buffer zone, and then a number units and the cost involved, I don't see that as a viable option. 'Pg 1'8 PH Jem Realty Co. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Villa. Yes? MICHAEL ZWIEG: My name is Michael Zwieg. I would just like to point out a couple of things. The idea that you've g~t this R-40 in dense development to the west, to the east you've got Brecknock Hall, I'd just like to point out two things. Number one, Brecknock area has not yet been developed. There may still be people, County, or other people may come forth to bankrupcy. That may yet be preserved. I know there's a lot of people interested in that. What we really have is this R-40 over here, which is densely developed on the edge of the development along the Sound. You go east from there, it's pretty open for quite some distance. I would urge you not to fall into what you might call salami package. You take a slice here. You take a slice there, a slice in the middle, and pretty soon you're marching east, and well, there has to be a limit to where the development goes, and if you alway have the situation where all the property next to where it's developed, you come in and say, well, look we developed over here, let's develop a little further. You have to draw the line. The question of where the hamlet density is going to be, is a profound question for the whole town, and we're about to make a change in the whole process, and I think that this proposal should not be looked at by itself. It should be looked at in the context of what the Town is involved in now. What's being asked for here is a variance. You don't have to do this. There's no right to this. It is not automatic here, that you have to say, yes. So, just say, no. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to make a comment? Yes? BETTY ROSS: My name is Betty Ross. I would just like to dispute Mr. Pachman's statement, that this would add to the tax base. Study after study has shown that development does not add to the tax base. That new houses and new homes require more services than they pay for. So, that is not a valid arguement, and I would suggest that the wise course would be to follow the Planning Board's recommendation, and deny the request. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mrs. Ross. Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment at this time? (No response.) If not, Mr. Pachman, Mr. Kontokosta, would you like to say anthing in closing? HOWARD PACHMAN: I would like to thank the Town Board for it's attention, and hope that they will take what they heard today into consideration. That's why we have public hearings, but I'm somewhat concerned about the tact, that many people have said, not the frontal attack to turn this application down, but let's study the proposition again. My recollection of what took place in this town over the last eight or ten years ago, we said, let's have a Master Plan study, and a professional group was hired. Civic Associations and groups were impounded to work with the Planning Department, and come up with a Master Plan, and for the we had a Generic Environmental Impact Statement, and more planning was done, and more studing was done, and finally the concensus was the Master Plan. We now have a Master Plan, based on that Master Plan we recodified the Zoning Ordiance to incorporate that Master Plan, and now it's in place, and we have an application that's pending, and then we had the good 'Pg 1§ - PH Jem Realty Co. fortune of having the US/UK group come down, spent four days of intensive consultation, and they pretty much came up with a study, what is the vision of the Town of Southold? That's repeated page after page. What is our vision? Our vision is, we don't want anymore development I assume, because now they say, let's go and restudy this thing, and find out how we can keep everything in status quo. The people who live next door would like the status quo. I would like to have that status quo, if I had that in my backyard, but that's not the way things happen. You've adopted a Master Plan. You've adopted a Code. We are coming in under the existing standards, that you have set, and made an application. We ask that you consider that application based upon your current Master Plan, and your Zoning, and don't say to us, come back in three year, we may revise this thing, we may come up with a new plan. You can afford to keep that piece of property a couple of more years, and maybe we'll consider it at that time. That's unfair. That's not the way you do business. You've adopted your Master Plan. We'd like to accomodate your Master Plan. Give us an opportunity to do that. If we made a valid, viable application, pass that application. Thank you, very much. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Pachman. Mr. Konokosta, do you have anything else you would like to add? EMANUAL KONTOKOSTA_- No. I don't. SUPERVISOR HARRIS: Anyone else in the audience? (No response.) If not, I'll declare this public hearing closed, and thank you for your participation. '~' - Judith T. ~-erry ~/' Southold Town Clerk JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fa~ ~516) 765-1823 Telephone 1516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 12, 1992 Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) Dear Chic: This is to confirm your appointment to meet with the Town Board at 11:15 A.M., Tuesday, February 25, 1992, Southold Town Hall, to discuss the Findings Statement with respect to the abovecaptioned proposal. I am enclosing herewith the minutes of the public hearing held on February 4, 1992 on the Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) change of zone petition. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure cc: E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. (with enclosure) H.E. Pachman, Esq. (with enclosure) To: From: Date: RE: Members of the Southold Town Board Decia Fates, 526 Second Street, Greenport, NY 11944 February 4, 1992 Public Hearing: Jem Realty Co_ (Jem commons) Proposal to Amend Southold Town Zoning Code and Map I strongly object tf~ t.he proposed zone change and I urge the Board tn deny the applicant's request. The reasons for my objection are numerous. · The recommendations of the US/UK Countryside Stewardship Excl:ange Team indicate ~e need for review and reconsidera~on of current To~ zoning regula~ons. Given my unders~nding that ~e To~<~ in~nds to pursue this goal in ~e irnmedia~ future, and ~at ~ignificant ~oning cod~ ~p~tft~.md.,~ . p ~] ............. :~pprove zoning changes for ~ ~:' '~ ' ::~ dual r<: ~ at thJ~ fJK~e i suspect ~at ~e ~pplicant i: ~imply ~:ying ~ slip in under the wire. fearing ~at changes ~ come may make ~e process more difficult if not impossible. * If we are truly interested in preserving open spaces in the Town of Southold, a well-thought-out plan that addresses the aggregate development possibilities in all hamlets-in the town as a whole- should be created before indi?idual actions are ~.ken that ~11 only compound existing maldlotrlbution oI density * Approving crucial zone changes on a piecemeal basis, in the absence of a comprehensive plan, invites the disaster of a domino effect, as future applicants cite precedent and threaten litigation to bulldoze their w~y through local government. It foreshadows a day when the North Road looks more like Northern Boulevard. * Although I do not know the applicant's ~peclfic plans, it seems unlikely, given b~ay's economic climate and the financial difficulties currently plaguing projects like Mol:ring and Brecknock, that any actual construction will take place in the near future. Thus, there seems to be little legitimate urgency attached to this :equest and no immediate need for a zone change. * The r~quested zone change w~ll facd]tate the construction of housing that recent e:~-.erlence indicates will be difficult ;-.~, sell-assuming it :~ ~ver ,'.<~nst.ructe,: in the first place. If it is not., Greenport may end up w~th nothing on that side of the North Road but Porky's and t.w~n sandpi~£ If it is, ~t~e project may fac~ ~he same problems as Cedarfields, which struggled to find qualified buyers for homes billed as "affordable." This problem will c, nly be compounded for higher-priced homes Southoid Town Board from Fate$/2-4-92/Page 2 · Southold To'¢~'n would do well to consider whether it has not already unfairly victimized the residents of both incorporated and unincorporated Greenport through past zoning "bloopers:" namely, the ill-conceived Greenport Commons project. This site remains a mute testament to time and p~_~bltc money wast~_.d and to the unnecessary destruction and vtsual bltght that can result when zoning changes are approached shortsightedly and <:avallerly As a Greenport Villager, I believe the Tow~: owes us one for Greenport Commons. · The applicant has not, to my mind, demonstrated responsibility or "good neighborliness" in maintaining properties already owned by him within the Village of Greenport. Can we reasonably expect anything different from this ,.ndlvldu_al m the future? · The people of Greenport have already paid a high price to support the pipe dreams of developers. For example, they have seen their water and sewer rates rise again and again to finance facilities expansions accommodating such "fantasies" as ]~recknock, which will probably never be built. Any developer who believes that a one-time hook-up fee paid to the Village is adequate or fair in the face of the incessant and permanent rate increases paid by its residents is dead wrong. And a developer who expects that Villagers will sit still for more should think again. in closing, I urge the members of the Southold To:~n Board to deny the applicant's request at this time. Please, take the time to think carefully and plan carefully before you make decisions about our future that you cannot undo. Think about What we really need and where we really need it. Think about what is economically realistic, environmentally sensible, sensitive to ~.he wlshes of residents. Do not rush The land isn't going anyWher~ Applications can always be resubmitted. There is al',~'~.~a..ys anofJ:er chance. BuL open spaces and quality of life don't get a second chance. Once they are lost or diminished, they cannot be recovered. Thank you for your consideration. ~cerely, Pebr~a~. h, 1992 hemarks to be incl,~ded in the record of the Jem Com~ons Project as presented by ~nne Lowry, Vice President of the ~orth Fork ~nvironmen- tal Co~ncil for that organlzatlon. This is a site conposed of two parcels of land, totalling 62 acres in Greenport. It is presentl?, zoned R-80; with that zoning abo~t 29 ho~ses would be permitted. T~e developer wants to b~ild 171 individual ~uuits on these 62 acres. T-~.~? l~xury homes wo~'ld be b~ilt on 20 acres along the northern edge of the site which faces the L.I. Sound, down-zoning this parcel to R-40. So~th of that, on the rest of the property down to the I'~ain Road, ~here wo,,ld be 1~2 units on 42 acres, 30 to be affordable ho~sing and 122 moderate priced ho~'sing, down-zoning to HD. Virt~ally all of the land on this site wot~ld be covered, ~se6 up. This lane is also in the ",~grict~lt~ral Conservation District" as design=ted in the amended iqaster Plan. In the comments by Cramer, Voorhis, & ~ssociates, consultants for the Town of So~'thold on the DaIS by the developer, they state Dnder the heading "~ffected Agric~lt~ral District" that "It sho~ld be noted that agricultural ~se is allowable in an R-80 district~ t~egard- less of ~?se and zoning, the site is prime farmland with haven loam soils -- the proposed project represents a permanent foreclosz~re of agric~lt~re, which sho~ld be acknowledged." The developer tries to make the case for Pt~blic ?~eed for this project to justify, s~ch a drustic c~-ange of zonin.g from R-80 to HD. We have been told by half a dozen real estate aCencies in this area this week that each has at least ~0 to 60 ho~.ses available in the moderate ($129,000-1b%,O00) priced range. ~.eadv for sale immediately. Is it reall,z the P~blic .:eed that wo~ld be served by b,,ildin~ 122 more moderatel,? priced units, - or the developer's wants~ We are sympathe- tic to the need for affordable ho~sing, b~t this project is not even preset, ted as one consistent with the So,'thold Town ~ffordaule Ho~,slng Code which wo~'ld reqt~ire ~0% of ~nit~s to be "affordable". P~,blic ~,eed? Or the developer' s? ~,s presented, even in the three alternative plans, there is no room designated for a packaged sewer treatment facility. This appears to be the way the developer wo~'ld have to ~o beca~se, in a letter from ~avor ?ell to henry Ra-nor dated Jan%~ary 8, 1992, the ~.ayor stated that Greenport co~:ld not accomoeate an~ more sewerage clients at this ti~eo Thes~ packagem facilities are not looked on with favor at the Co~nty level They a~e said t~ req~ire a lot of maintenance, tend to be neglected, and do not perform well. To s~:mr~arize: Ynls project as proposed is not in keeping with the ove:.- all goals of %ne ]cwn of ~.o~'~hcld. ',',~e s~_~port the state?.ent of the Plmnning ~omrd in its me~_o cf :~oveF~er 22, 1991, "It is clear %c. this ~oard that allowing developers to qua~r~ple shelr densit~ ~nder the gl~ise of fl~lfil!in~ %he assignee6 intent of trio ~._as~er Plan Is short- siyht~.d. The end r~?)l~ will oe wall-to-w~ll cevelcpmen% within ~he ha~.lets, an~ ~lnrer~iuting s~b!~rban sprawl o~tside of them." Znis project creates enor~.io~s e~nsit~, hy s[ecial part. it, a~ a place wr~ch is already stressed by traffic a~d crossroads; i% ~'ses all of a piece of land w~iich is ~oac~ f~rr~land; i% aces no~ ever couf~rn to. nhe ~c.~hol~ ~fford~bla nc~sln- ,iota p~t ~ses ~he Co~ln%v's Code tc i~signaue a smaller n~er of l~nits; anc, is d~es nothing for t~ie concerti of "stewardship" of the lane which is a kev cc: cept in the ~-~-~ ~ recov~ or, dar!one for 2c~thold. The qow~ is working towarcs the goal of Cor~n~n~t'~ 5tewarosh!p, carin~ for this Town in ways which will be in the interests of the people now ama in the interests of f~t~'re generations. The Town wishes to be s~:re that large actions taken are in the interests of t~e p~blic. This pro- Ject is only in the intent of the developer. We ask that the Town Board reject this change of zone application and that they not consider any projects of Sl~ch density at this time when they are considering taking some steps which mav allow for new and creative ways to preserve the best aspects of this Town° slirling Please read into the record at the Public Hearing on SUPERVISORS O~FIC~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLO 2/4/92. February 3, 1992 Supervisor Scott L. Harris Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor Harris: Please deny a change of zone to Gem Properties (located east of Sound Road and north of Route 25 in the Unincorporated Village of Greenport). There is a market for affordable housing in Southold but apparently not in Greenport--as evidenced by the poor sales at Cedar Fields which was forced to open up its sales to buyers from outside our area. Even if there was a demand for affordable housing in Greenport, no zone change should be granted until a study is done to determine where hamlet density is appropriate. Furthermore, hamlet density should never be given away without getting something in return, namely the preservation of our farmlands. The purpose of making a hamlet designation is to allow the property owners in a hamlet to purchase development-rights from those farmers interested in selling their development-rights. Hamlet density as a zoning tool is our best hope for protecting the character of the North Fork, please refrain from using it until it can be done wisely. Thank you for considering this matter carefully. Sincerely, 440 6th Street P.O. Box 5 Greenport, New York 11944 cc: Southold Town Board Members PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. IV[cDonald Kenneth k Ed'a, ards 'Felcphone (516~ 765-1938 SCO~I' L. HARRIS Supervisor PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box II79 Southold. New York 11971 Fax {5161 765-1823 ~EMOR~DUM RECEIVED FEB 4 1§§2 TO: Scott Harris. Suoervisor and Members of the Town Board Southold To,,,, FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Comments for the Public Record for the February 4, 1992 public hearing for the Change of Zone Petition of Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' east of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: February 3, 1992 The Planning Board has re-reviewed this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. Twenty acres fronting on Long Island Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder Hamlet Density. We found that the Final Environmental Impact Statement did not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requested of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take our concerns into consideration.. At this public hearing on the petition, we wish to reiterate the Planning Board's concerns for the record. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) is estimated take to be about twenty seven 127) single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. page 2 Jem Co~uRons The petition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty (20) waterfront acres and 3.6 units per acre on the remaining forty two (42) acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. In fact, the Village of Greenport has just notified another potential sewage client, Nicholas Aliano, who wishes to construct a completely affordable apartment complex in Greenport, that there is insufficient capacity to serve his project. A copy of this letter is attached for your information. This Board sees no value in granting change of zone approvals that will tie up future sewage allocations indefinitely. Further, as we reported in a previous memorandum of November 22, 1991, the County's Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the Town's Affordable Housing District. Under the county's program only 20% of the units in a project must be priced significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the County's program, the Town's program requires that 50% of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound or logical arguments. The argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers is flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with Southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted, particularly when we know that there is no way to handle the resultant sewage in the near future. It is unwise to commit land to uses with an uncertain timetable for completion. Encls. MAYOR WILLIAM R PELL TRUSTEES THIRD STREET January 8, 1992 Mr. Henr~ E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, Ne~ York 11952 We are in receipt of your letter of December 2, 1991 with regards to hooking up to the Village of Greenport's %rater and sewer syst~ to supply40 u~its of rental a~,~ume~ts on the property located at the south side of Route 25, wost of the Driftwood Cove complex. · he ~rd of Trustees met on December 12, 'i991 to discuss you~ request and have concluded that the Village of G~eenp~rt, at the present would be able to supply ~rater but at the present and irxaediate future will not be able to supply the sewer allocation that you require. Unfortunately, we do not foresee this allocation to be available for sometime. We regret wo cannot accam~date you at this time. Sincerely, ///~ William~ - R. Pell, I~~ Mayor 320 hove Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 January 24, 1992 Southold Town Planning Plain Road Southold, NY 11971 Board RE: Property of Nicholas Aliano at south side Plain Road, Greenport, New York Dear Sirs: Please find enclosed a copy of the Village of Greenport's letter stating that sewerage would not be available to the above referenced property in the near future. As sewerage is certainly a vital aspect of developing this property into low to moderate income units as previously discussed with your board, we request an appointment with your Board to discuss this project at your earliest posszble convenience. Sincerely, HER:ml Enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George R~tchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone (516) 765-1938 MEMORANDUM PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCO'FF L. HARRIS Supc~'isor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport. DATE: November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final EnviroNmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 62 acres from two acre zoning to a mix of Hamlet Density and one acre zoning. The twenty acres fronting the Sound would be zoned R-40, and the remainder HD. We find that the FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the following information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be about 27 single family lots, which could be clustered onto lots of forty thousand square feet apiece. If public water were available, the lots could be as small as twenty thousand square feet apiece. The Detition before you is to increase that density to one unit per acre on the twenty waterfront acres and 3.6 per acre on the remaining forty two acres. This change will add 144 more dwelling units than the current zone allows. This increase in density may result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant if access cannot be obtained to the Greenport sewage treatment system. All the comparisons between thc County's affordable homes program and the Town's affordable program that were made in our memorandum on the Southold Commons' petition apply to this project as well. In conclusion, we find that this change of zone petition cannot be supported by sound planning arguments. As with Southold Commons, the argument put forth by the applicant that the Town Board has to approve this change of zone because the Master Plan encourages the concentration of population density within a half-mile of the hamlet business centers ~s flawed. The applicant fails to consider some broader issues which have clear relevance to the Town. I include them here for the Town Board's consideration. The Town Board has committed itself to improve the implementation of, and, if necessary, update the Master Plan. One of the key issues before us is how to accommodate population growth without destroying the quality of life that we have come to associate with Southold Town. It is clear to this Board that allowing developers to quadruple their density under the guise of fulfilling the assumed intent of the Master Plan is short-sighted. The end result will be wall-to wall development within the h~mlets, and unremitting suburban sprawl outside of them. The Town must assess whether to add other tried and proven zoning tools to its Code to encourage a mix of increased residential and commercial development within the existing hamlets while at the same time ensuring the preservation of the 'agricultural and open space lands around their perimeter. The granting of either of these change of zone proposals is felt to be counter-productive to the Town Board's intent to refine the implementation of the Master Plan so as to achieve its goals for a better quality of life for Southold Town's residents. Jem Corrrnons: Page two 2,'qlNG BOARD MEMB[:~RS Oflowski, Jr., Chairman :0rge Rhchie Lalham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S McDonald Kcnnelh L. Ed~ards Trlephone {516) PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SCO'IT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Somhold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 t4EI~ORAND~4 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Change of Zone Petition for Southold Commons Young' s and Boisseau Avenues, Southold November 22, 1991 The Planning Board has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement[FEIS) for this petition to change the zone of 32 acres of property located between Young's and Boisseau Avenues in Southold from R-80 [two acre zoning) to HD (quarter acre zoning). The FEIS does not answer some key questions that were raised during the review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, the Planning Board respectfully requests of the Town Board that its issuance of a Findings Statement take into consideration the following information. The project will result in a significant increase in the projected density. The theoretical yield of this property as it is presently zoned (one unit for every two acres) could be approximately fourteen single family residences which could be clustered on lots of between twenty to forty thousand square feet in area due to the availability of public water. The petition before you is to increase that density to 3.6 units per acre for a total of one hundred and sixteen (116) units on quarter acre lots. The change of zone will add one hundred and two more units to the property than the current zone allows. It also will result in the need to construct a package sewage treatment plant which would be privately owned. The applicant proposes to comply with the Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program (as explained in Appendix I~ of the DEIS). Under that program, only 23 of these homes ~nwent~r percent of 1161 will be offered at "affordable" rates. The remaining 93 homes will be offered at the market rate. The County's Fast-Tracking program is not the same as the Town's Affordable Housing District. Under the County's program at least 20% of the housing units in a project must be priced significantly below market levels. In striking contrast to the county's Fast-Tracking program, the Town's program requires that half of the proposed units be sold at the affordable rate. Thus, under the Town's program an additional 35 affordable units could be made available for a total of 5B homes. "Households with incomes approximately equal to or less than 120% of the median income for a family of four based on the Department of housing and Urban Development's Section B Income Guidelines will be eligible buyers." (Suffolk County Fast-Tracking Affordable Homes Program. Michael A. LoGrande, Suffolk County Executive. page 4.) In 1991, the maximum allowable income of an eligible home buyer under the County progra~n is $54,500. Under the Town's program, the maximum allowable income of an eligible buyer in 1991 is $49,614.00: a figure that is in keeping with the fact that the median income in Southold Town is lower than that of the County at large. Finally, the County's program requires that the housing be offered to any resident of the county who applies. In contrast, the Town's program gives Town residents (and people who work in Town/ first priority. Finally, a house offered under the County prc. gram cannot exceed $100,000 in price, whereas a house offered under the Town program cannot exceed about $95,000 in price. The Town has approved two affordable housing projects to date. With each, the only applicants that were able to obtain mortgage financing to purchase an "affordable" lot were those at the upper end of the maximum allowable income and those who were had sufficient cash reserves (whether through savings or gifts). In fact, one project ended up selling some of the affordable homes to people who did not live and work in Southold Town because no one else on the eligible list could obtain bank financing. What this means is that even the Town's "affordable" housing program, which is more affordable than the County's, is not affordable enough for those who live and work here. In comparing the two programs and the intent of the Master Plan, the Planning Board finds that it cannot support this change of zone to the Hamlet Density. Southold Comnons: Page two ORIENT ASSOCIATION BOX 282 ORIEN'Y NY 11957 February 3, 1992 Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Members of the Southold Town Council Town Hall Main Road, Southold, New York Re: Jem Commons, CR 48, 564' East of Sound Drive, Greenport Dear Supervisor and Councilmen, We urge you to make no decision on the above-cited rezoning proposal at this time. This proposed development involves many of the concerns that may be expected to be addressed in the planning initiative which is about to be undertaken by the Town Board, Planning Board and projected Task Force. Availability of water, adequate sewage disposal, potential traffic congestion, and economic viability are only the most obvious of these issues. This is precisely the sort of proposal which demands reference to a cohesive blueprint for Southold~s development, and should await the results of the effort which is about to get underway. With the good will and intention demonstrated so far, the wait should not be overlong. We strongly urge you to make no major zoning changes until the process has been completed. Sincerely, Freddie Wachsberger President, Orient Association RECEIVED FEB 5 lgg2 LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF' HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Tov, n Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New York. a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold. at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday., February. 4, 1992, on the proposal of Jem I~llly Cu. IJem Commons) to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk Count~A Ne,~ York. on certain property located on the north side of North Road INYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport. New York. under the follo'Aing proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Resi- dential Low-Density - acres minimum~ to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the north- erly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound 1¥om "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residen- tial Low-Density - I acre mini- mum}. The applicant proposed to construct 30 affordably priced home~. 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amend- meut should appear at the time and place above so :;peri(led. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land. situate, lying and. being at Greenport, Town pi Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel [: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distance, aloug the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25}: (I} North ]0 degrees 16 minutes 30 sec- :mds YVest 1085.53 feet, (2l 'orth 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 econds East 376.4-0 feet. {3) 'c~rth 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 econd~ West 807.87 feet, and q:nning thence from said point ~f beginning South 62 degrees ;6 minutes 40 seconds West brough the land of the party of he first part 1373 47 feet to the and now or formerly of Augus- us Straussner; thence North 27 egrees 33 minntes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of A~gustus Straussoer and of others 672,50 feet to the L~ng Island Sound; a tie-line along-the Long Island Sound hax, ing the following courses and distances: (l) North 60 de- grees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees tO minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degr~s 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly · along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes ~0 sec- onds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 sec- onds East 175.00' feet to the point or place of beginning, Parcel 1I: (southerly pas- ceD: Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westelry side of land now or formerly of EC.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the north- erly side of North Road the fol- lowing COUl~eS and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degr~s 15 minutes 00 degrees West 246.25 feet to nth& land now or formerly of Sinula; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 2~0.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 de- grees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; run- ning thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses an dis- tances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 558.67 feet, (2) North 27 degl'ees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.4'7 feet to said land now or formerly of EC.P. H~me- man; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 deg~es 05 minutes 30 seconds .East 807.87 feet. (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.d0 feet, (3) South 30 degrees (':O[.JN'I'Y OF SUFFOLK S'{'A'!'I[ O(: hI["_W YOI'IK Palrlcia Wood,' being duly sworn, says that site is the Editor, of '{ !-Il:_ LONG ISLAND TRAVELER-WATCHMAN, ;I public nc,,s, spaper printed at 5.outhold, in Suffolk County; ;tll(J IJl,~[ I}le noiice o1' which the annexed is ,1 printed copy, has hecta .ptJI)lished h~ said Long Island 'l'r;ivel~u'-W;Hchmarl day tu'...Jacm..e~z'Ty ....... '19c)~... January 1992 Public BARBARA A, SCHNEIDER NOTA. R'f PUBLIC, Sltte o[ New York No. 4006846 Qu~lilied in SulJolk Commission Expires 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning, DATED: January 17, 1992. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK IX, 1/23/92 (5) LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP pursuant to Scction 265 of thc Town Law and rcquircmen~ of thc Code of the Town of $outhold, Suf- £olk County, New york. a public hearing will be held by the town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town llall, Main Road. Southold. New York, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, Febru- ary 4, 1992, on thc proposal of Jcm Realty Co. (Jem Com- mons) to amend thc Zoning ~ (including thc Zontng Map) of the Town of Southold. Suffolk County. New york. on certain property lo- cated on the north side of North Road (NrYS 25), east of Sound Road. Grecnpon, New York, under thc fol- lowing proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R- 80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density -- acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and thc northcdy 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-gO" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density -- I aerc minimum). Thc applicant proposes to construct 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homc~ on thc 62 acre site. Parcel I: (norlhcrly parcel): Be- North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) seconds West 1085.53 feet. (2) (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 Haneman. formerly Gr' - Robin- son; and from said poi begin- northerly side of North Road thc (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet. (2) distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 feet. (2) Sou~ 66 degrees 00 rain- to the land now or [o~crly of Her- 807.87 feet. (2) South 76 dcgree$ of beginning. STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF SUFFOLI0 ,~'~ ,,~ ~-- o, Mattltuck, In ~ald County, bel~ dul~ sworn, says thai ha/aha Is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a Weekly Newspaper, publIshed el Mattltucl~ In the Town of $outhold, Counly of Suffolk and Stele of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed Is · printed copy, has been regulalty published in said Newspaper once each week for / weeks successively, commencing on the ~ :~'~ day o! Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this day of STATE OF NEW YORK) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) JUDITH T. TERRY, Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, New York, being duly sworn, says that on the 17th day of January 1992 she affixed a notice of which the annexed printed notice is a true copy, in a proper and substantial manner, in a most public place in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, to wit: Town Clerk's Bulletin Board, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York 11971. Legal Notice, Notice of Hearing on Proposal to Amend Zoning Ordinance and h/lap by Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons), 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, 5outhold Town Hall. ~' Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk Sworn to before me this 17th day of January , 1992. UNDA J. COOPER Nola~y Public, State of New York No. 4822563, Suffolk Cou~tyz-.~ .I LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, on the proposal of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Creenport, New York, under the following proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density 1 acre minimum). The applicant proposes to construct 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 6:;? degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 3~,2.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly alonr~ th,~ '~nd nn nr fn I +' ~: Page 2 - Jem Commons degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2] North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerl'/ of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, {3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. DATED: January 17, 1992. JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 23, 19!)2, AND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys H. Pachman, Esq., attorney for the applicant Jem Realty Co., the applicant Village of Greenport Town Clerk's Bulletin Board FORWARD ONE (1) TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February a,, 1992, on the proposal of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, ~lew York, on certain property located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York, under the following proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on I~YS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - 1 acre minimum). The applicant proposes to construct 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (~) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus $chad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 Page. z - Jem Commons degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances~ (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minL~tes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East i~5.b~ feet to the northerly side beginning. DATED: January 17, 199:2. of North Road, at the point or place of JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 23, 1992, AND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, HALL, MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys H. Pachman, Esq., attorney for the applicant Jem Realty Co., the applicant Village of Greenport Town Clerk's Bulletin Board FORWARD ONE (1) TOWN CLERK, TOWN LEGAL NOTICE NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSAL TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP Pursuant to Section 265 of the Town Law and requirements of the Code of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, a public: hearing will be held by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, on the proposal of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) to amend the Zoning Code (including the Zoning Map) of the Town of $outhold, Suffolk County, New York, on certain property located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York, under the following proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R-80" ?nning district (Residential Low-Density - acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density 1 acre minimum). The applicant proposes to construct 30 affordably priced homes, 122 moderately priced homes and 19 luxury priced homes on the 62 acre site. Any person desiring to be heard on the proposed amendment should appear at the time and place above so specified. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances; (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (I) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 Pag, ,~ - Jem Commons degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (I) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.21] feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds ~]est 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerl,/ of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (I) South 21 degrees 05 rnin~tes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, 1,3) SoL. th 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side beginning. DATED: January 17, 1992. of North Road, at the point or place of JUDITH T. TERRY SOUTHOLD TOWI'~ CLERK PLEASE PUBLISH ON JANUARY 23, 1992, AND AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION TO JUDITH TERRY, HALL, MAIN ROAD, 5OUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971. Copies to the following: The Suffolk Times The Traveler-Watchman Town Board Members Town Attorneys H. Pachman, Esq., attorney for the applicant Jem Realty Co., the applicant Village of Greenport Town Clerk's Bulletin Board FORWARD ONE (1) TOWN CLERK, TOWN JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MA~.RIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 }:ax ~516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD December 13, 1991 E.M. Kontokosta, P.E. Kontokosta Associates Engineers/Architects 43 West 54th Street New York, New York 19919 Re: Southold Commons 3em Commons Dear Mr. Kontokosta: Enclosed are certified resolutions of the Southold Town Board, adopted on December 11, 1991, set the public hearings for Jem Commons: 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February tl, 1992 (legal notice will be published on January 23, 1992}, and Southold Commons: 7:00 P.M,, Tuesday, March 10, 1992 (legal notice will be published on February 27, 1992). I will send you a copy of the legal notices once they have been prepared. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosures (2) cc: H. Pachman, Esq. (with enclosures) JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OF~IC[iR Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 1516) 765-1823 Telephone 1516~ 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 10, 1991: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons), by petition received March 1, 1990, applied to the Town Board of the Town of Southold for a change of zone on certain property located on the north side of North Road (NYS 25), east of Sound Road, Greenport, New York, under the following proposal: the southerly 42 acres fronting on NYS 25 from "R-80" zoning district (Residential Low-Density - 2 acres minimum) to "HD" Hamlet Density District; and the northerly 20 acres fronting on Long Island Sound from "R-80" to "R-40" zoning district (Residential Low-Density 1 acre minimum); said property bounded and clescribed as follows: PARCEL I (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad fromt he northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degreees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound;.a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes O0 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. PARCEL II (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 seconds West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 48.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and sitances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 607.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning; and WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County Department of Planning have prepared official reports and recommendations on the aforesaid petition; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that the Town Board hereby sets 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, February 4, 1992, Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York, for a public hearing on the petition of Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons) for a change of zone, at which time any person desiring to be heard should appear at the time and place above so specified; and be it further RESOLVED that the Town Clerk be and she hereby is authorized and directed to cause notice of said hearing to be published in the official newspapers pursuant to the requirements of law. Judith T. Terry ~ Southold Town Clerk December 11, 1992 JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516~ 765-1823 Telephone (5161 765-1801 December 11, 1991 Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP Cramer, Voorhis & Associates 54-2 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Re: Southold Commons Jem Commons Dear Chic: Enclosed is a certified resolution of the Southold Town Board, adopted at their regular meeting held on December 10, 1991, accepting your proposal of November 12, 1991 to complete the environmental process with respect to Southold Commons and Jem Commons at a cost not to exceed $500.00 per project. The final dates set for the public hearings on the change of zone petitions, as recommended and approved by the attorney for the applicant, are: February 4, 1992, 7:00 P.M., Southold Town Hall, Jem Commons; March 10, 1992, 7:00 P.M., $outhold Town Hall, Southold Commons. Very truly yours, Judith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk Enclosure JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Toxin Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax 15161 765-1823 Telephone (5161 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 10, 1991: RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby engages the services of Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Environmental Planning Consultants, to complete the environmental review process with respect to the change of zone petitions of E.M. Kontokosta (Southold Commons), and Jem Realty Co. (Jem Commons), at a cost not to exceed $500.00 per project, all in accordance with their letter dated November 12, 1991. Judith T. Terry ~/ Southold Town Clerk December 11, 1991 CRAMER, VO~HIS, &,AS~SOCIATES ENViRONMENTAL~:.AND:~'L,~I.[~G' .=-._~ · 'z~ ., CONSULTANTS November 12, 1991 Ms. Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re' Southold Commons Jem Commons Notice of Complete Final EISs RECEIVED NOV 1 3 1991 Southold Tnwn Cleric Dear Judy: As per our conversation regarding the above projects, attached, please find the Notices of Completion of Final ElS, for Southold Commons and Jem Commons. If the Board is in agreement, these notices may be xeroxed onto Town Board stationary and adopted by resolution in order to complete the acceptance process. The applicant should also be notified of the need to submit the necessary number of copies of the Final EIS and letter regarding water use estimates. The Final EIS should then be circulated with notice in accordance with Notice and Filing Requirements contained in Part 617. A minimum period of ten (10) days must be provided prior to issuance of Findings and decision on the project. Following this period, the Board should issue a Statement of Findings and Facts on the Final EIS. Subsequently thereafter a decision may be made. The intended time frame for decision in Part 617, is 30 days after completion of the Final EIS. Please discuss with the Board if you would like our assistance in the preparation of the Findings. Please also be advised that additional fees will be required for review of the Final EIS, preparation of the Notice of Completion and preparation of Findings. The first two tasks have been completed with the submission of this letter. It is expected that the total sum for completion of these services will not exceed $500.00 per project. Please call to confirm our meetine of November 26. 1991 if the Board desires our assistance in the preparation of the Findings Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to be of service and please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. enc: Notices of Completion Very t~.nl, ly y~ours, Charles J. Voorhis, CEP, AICP 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 HARVEY A. ARNOFF Town Attorney MAT'FHEW G. KIERNAN Assistant Town Attorney OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOFF L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fan (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 December 11, 1991 Howard Pachman, Esq. 366 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, NY 11725 13E 1. 1991 5outhoM T ..... Re: Southold Commons Jem Commons Dear Mr. Pachman: Pursuant to my telephone conversation with you, this shall confirm that it is agreed that the comments and finding statements on the FEIS shall not be made until after the conclusion of the hearing on the change of zone application on each of the above-referenced projects. However, the findings shall be made contemporaneously with the determination of the change of zone. At present it is our intention to hold the hearing on Jem Commons on February B, 1992 at 7:00 P.M., and the hearing on Southold Commons on March 10, 1992 at 7:00 P.M.. Should those dates be unacceptable to you, kindly advise and other later arrangements can be made [since these are the first dates available, since January 21, 1992 was not acceptable to you). Again, thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter. V e~.~r.u~ rs, Town Attorney HAA:mls cc: Judith T. Terry, Town CLerk DECLA~ATION OF COVENANTS AND RESTRICTIONS THIS DECIJtRATION, made and entered into the 2nd day of DECEMBER , 1993, by JEM REALTY CO., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York (hereinafter referred to as the "Declarant"). RECITALS W"HEREAS, the Declarant is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at on the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as JEM COMe, ONS; and W~EREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residence R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to Residence R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I and R-SO (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and W~EREAS, the Town of Southold, has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and W~EREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the aDproval of the Town Board of the Town of Southo!d to the 1 change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. WITNEBETH NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road. (Route 48) 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residen- tial Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. designated as shall: Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units te be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% 2 ~c t~ be designated "Affordable ~o~sing" un,ts and shall be required to meot the criueria indicated in the "AZfordable Housing" Section of the code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas d~sigrated on tbs site, as open space, if any, shall b~ located, ].f p~acticable, so it shall be adjacent, to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town ~f Southold against the Deci~ran% or the t~en owner of the Premises, or by ]groceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to viol~te any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. b. Th~ ~bove-men~ione~ covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running ~vltk the land and shall be binding upon the ~mc!arant and any and all subsequent owners of th~ said r~al property or part thereof, and upon their helrm, executors and administrators (or their successors or assigns), subject, no~evsr, to the right of the To%~n of $outhOld annul, or repeal ar~y or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. Is! WITNESS WHEREOF, the Declarant has he~-eunto set his hand and seal the day and year first above w~itten. STATE OF NEW JERSEY) ) COUNTY OF PASSAIC) SS: , , / On this ,:/' day of ~(-~""'-~Pi~, 1993, before me personally came Emanuel Kontokosta, to me known and known to me to be a partner of 3EM REALTY CO. and the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument in the partnership name of JEN REALTY C0, , and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the same as and for the act and deed of the said partnership of 3£~ REALTY CO. ,? , ~,,, '--(, ~ Notary Public SARINA MATOS A N~U Public ol New Jef,~ey My Cemmis~on E.xpJre~ 10/5/9a EXHBIT "A" - JEM CO~R~ONS The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and ~lescribed am follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beDinning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thence North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along the Long Island Sound having the following courses and distances: (1) North 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, (2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North 66 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 degrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad the following co~rses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds ~:ast 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 71~ degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 continued - Exhibit "A" - JEM COMMONS degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of $inuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Walter Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: {1) North 30 degrees .58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to th~ land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1] North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds Plest 634.19 feet, running thence ~;outh 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 0S minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, {3) South 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the. northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. JUDITH T. TERRY TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516l 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1801 OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD AT A REGULAR MEETING HELD ON DECEMBER 7, 1993: WHEREAS, Jem Realty Co., by petition filed March 1, 1990, applied to the Town Board of the town of Southold for a change of zone on two (2) parcels located on the northerly side of the North Road, Greenport, from: Parcel 1 the most southerly 42+_ acres from existing "R-O0" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "H-D" Hamlet Density District; Parcel II - the most northerly 20+ acres from "R-80" Residential Low Density District (2-acre minimum) to "R-40" Residential Low Density District (l-acre minimum); and WHEREAS, the said petition was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board and Suffolk County Department of Planning for official recommendations and reports; and WHEREAS, the Town Board, pursuant to due notice, held a public hearing thereon on the 4th day of February, 1992, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED that Jem Realty Co. be and hereby is granted the relief demanded in said petition subject to the execution and recording in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office of the following Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions, which are hereby made a part of the Town Board's decision: WHEREAS, the Declarant (Jem Realty Co., a partnership with offices at 43 West 54th Street, New York, New York) is the owner in fee simple absolute, of premises located at the north side of Main Road (Route 48) east of Sound Avenue, Greenport, New York, Tax Map No. District 1000, Section 35, Lot 24, more specifically described on Exhibit "A" (to follow this recital) and made a part hereof, (hereinafter referred to as the "Premises"), commonly known as Jem Commons; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has made application to the Town of Southold for a change of zone from Residential R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two- acre minimum))to Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) as to Parcel I, and R-80 (Residential Low-Density District (two-acre minimum)) to HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) as to Parcel II; and WHEREAS, the Town of Southold has agreed to grant Declarant's application for a change of zone; and WHEREAS, the Declarant has agreed, in consideration of the approval of the Town Board of the Town of Southold to the change of zone to provide for restrictions concerning the development and use of Premises which the Town of Southold deems in its best interest as whole to obtain; and WHEREAS; the Declarant has agreed to place these covenants and restrictions against the Premises. W I T N ES ET H NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises, and the agreements herein contained, the Declarant hereby declares as follows: 1. In the development of the subject Premises, a proposed subdivision shall provide for two access roads from said subdivision to the Main Road (Route 48). 2. Parcel I (20-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as Residential R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) shall be developed under the R-40 (Residential Low-Density District (one-acre minimum)) criteria and cluster planning concept as called for in the Code of the Town of Southold. 3. Parcel II (42-acre portion) of the Premises to be designated as HD (Hamlet Density Residential District) zoning, shall: A. Be developed at a density equal to one residential unit per one half (1/2) acre. B. Provide that out of the total number of units to be built, (as provided in Subsection 3A) 30% are to be designated "Affordable Housing" units and shall be required to meet the criteria indicated in the "Affordable Housing" Section of the Code of the Town of Southold. C. Provide that all areas designated on the site, as open space, if any, shall be located, if practicable, so it shall be adjacent to the open space areas designated on the parcel of property to the east. 4. The covenants and restrictions contained herein shall be enforceable by the Town of Southold against the Declarant or the then owner of the Premises, or by proceeding at law or in equity against any persons or parties violating or attempting to violate any conditions of this Declaration, to restrain violation, in whole or in part. 5. The above-mentioned covenants and restrictions shall be and constitute real covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon the Declarant and any and all subsequent owners of said real property or part thereof, and upon their heirs, executors and administrators {or their successors or assigns), subject, however, to the right of the Town of Southold annul, or repeal any or all of the foregoing covenants and/or restrictions at any time. The legal description of the aforesaid property is as follows: All that certain plot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being at Greenport, Town of SouthoJd, County of Suffolk, and State of New York, and more particularly bounded and described as follows: Parcel I: (northerly parcel): Beginning at a point on the easterly line of the land now or formerly of Gus Schad, which point is the following courses and distances along the land now or formerly of Gus Schad from the northerly line of North Road (NYS Route 25): (1) North 30 degrees 16 minutes 30 seconds West 1085.53 feet, (2) North 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds East 376.40 feet, (3) North 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds West 807.87 feet, and running thence from said point of beginning South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West through the land of the party of the first part 1373.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner; thehce North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West along the land now or formerly of Augustus Straussner and of others 672.50 feet to the Long Island Sound; a tie-line along ;.he Long Island Sound having the fo!lowing courses and distances: (i) Horth 60 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds East 356.27 feet, {2) North 58 degrees 10 minutes 00 seconds East 386.00 feet, (3) North-66 degrees 10 mir-utes J0 seconds East -2- 342.00 feet, (4) North 79 c~egrees 13 minutes 30 seconds East 357.33 feet, thence southerly along the land now or formerly of Gus $chad the foliowing courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 34 minutes 40 seconds East 410.00 feet, (2) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 175.00 feet to the point or place of beginning. Parcel I1: (southerly parcel): . E~eginning at a point on the northerly side of North Road where the same is intersected by the westerly side of land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman, formerly Grace Robinson; and from said point of beginning running thence along the northerly side of North Road the following courses and distances: (1) South 78 degrees 09 minutes 20 seconds West 329.44 feet, (2) South 75 degrees 15 minutes 00 degrees West 246.26 feet to other land now or formerly of Sinuta; running thence along said land North 26 degrees 56 minutes 20 seconds West 240.77 feet to the land now or formerly of Water Sledjeski; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) North 30 degrees 58 minutes 00 seconds West 198.28 feet, (2) South 66 degrees 00 minutes 30 seconds West 389.47 feet to the land now or formerly of Harrower; running thence along said land and along land of other owners the following two courses and distances: (1) North 27 degrees 47 minutes 30 seconds West 548.67 feet, (2) North 27 degrees 33 minutes 20 seconds West 634.19 feet, running thence South 62 degrees 26 minutes 40 seconds West 1373.47 feet to said land now or formerly of F.C.P. Haneman; running thence along said land the following courses and distances: (1) South 21 degrees 05 minutes 30 seconds East 807.87 feet, (2) South 76 degrees 30 minutes 30 seconds West 376.40 feet, (3) South 30 degrees 16' minutes 30 seconds East 1085.53 feet to the northerly side of North Road, at the point or place of beginning. Southold Town Clerk December 8, 1993 -3- 4 TOTAL- G 2-. ~ ^o~ ~5 - / KONTOKOSTA ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS & ARCHITECTS 43 WEST 54TH STREET NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK 10019