Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/15/2026 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION "d Improved Safety, Environmental Improvements, Quality of Life, Efficient Delivery, Coordination, Education AGENDA Meeting Location: Town Hall, 53095 Main Rd, Southold, NY 11971 Town Hall Conference Room Meeting Date/Time: June 15, 2026 4:15 PM Type of Meeting: ® Regular Meeting ❑Special Meeting ❑ Emergency Meeting ATTENDANCE: P A P A ❑ ❑ Margaret Newman,chairperson [] ❑ Eric McClure ❑ Councilwoman Anne H.Smith,Town Beard Liason © ❑ Daniel J.Goodwin,Superintendent of Highways ❑ ❑ Mary Bess Phillips,Cireenport Village Liaison Q ❑ Steven Grattan,Chief of Police Q ❑ Jahn Carter Q ❑ Brian Cummings,Southold ToAvn Planning Department ❑ ❑ Charles Gtjeli © ❑ Heather Lanza,Planning Department Representative ❑ ❑ James Kaliln © ❑ Tahitha A.Manwaring,Secretary ❑ ❑ C'hristopherShashkin 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF PRIOR MEETING MINUTES Approval of Minutes from March 2na, March 16rh, and April 201h ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved with corrections (listed below) Motion by: Seconded by: Vote: 3. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: CHAPTER 4,TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOCUS ON GOALS AND OBJECTIVES,WITH ATTENTION TO GOAL 3: INCREASE PEDESTRIAN, CYCLIST,AND TRAFFIC SAFETY Southold Town Comprehensive Plan I Southold, NY - Official Website 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION "d Improved Safety, Environmental Improvements, Quality of Life, Efficient Delivery, Coordination, Education 4. DISCUSSION: FREQUENCY OF MEETINGS 5. DISCUSSION: STRUCTURE OF COMMISSION-SUBCOMMITTEES, WORKING GROUPS 6. LETTER RE: NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE IN MATTITUCK HAMLET (SEE ATTACHED). 7. CRITERIA FOR CO-NAMING A STREET Review summary for presentation to Town Board (see attached draft). ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING DATE: JULY 20TH,2026 2 December 8, 2025 Al Krupski Southold Town Supervisor Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Rd POBox 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Supervisor Krupski: In regards to SCTM# 1000-114-12-31 on New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck Hamlet: We have been full-time residents of this block of New Suffolk Avenue for 22 years. We welcome the "workforce" or"affordable" housing units in this neighborhood, at this location, and in all other hamlets in Southold Town. We request that the proposed project go forward within the stated goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan and in light of findings of a study under the New York State Environmental Quality and Review Act (SEQR). We make this request for at least these reasons: Ecological Concerns: The Comprehensive Plan prioritizes protecting ground- and surfacewater quality. The impact of this proposal on water quality must be studied, discussed, and understood. The proposed project is located over a sole source aquifer and adjacent to James Creek. Acknowledging the proposal's I/A septic system, we note that it must accommodate 10 rental apartments on a property that already includes a long-operating commercial laundry. What is the limit for septic discharge for the entire property? How will the discharge from +/- 20 bedrooms impact the aquifer and creek?What will be the impact of runoff from 20 parking spaces and all other impervious surfaces? Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Concerns: "Walkability"within a community is also prioritized in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is within walking distance of bus/rail lines, essential businesses and services, entertainment, and a school and a library. Does this mean that"walkability" has been achieved to take advantage of these key destinations in a walkable community? Not yet. The proposed project faces New Suffolk Avenue and is close to Main Road. Where New Suffolk Avenue and Main Road meet and within several blocks in each direction are some of the most heavily travelled, fast-moving, and collision-prone intersections in Southold Town. Sidewalks here are few, intermittent, and often unmaintained. Pedestrians are forced onto Main Road's shoulder and into New Suffolk Avenue. Vehicle speeds in proximity to the proposed project are routinely well over the 30 mph limit. The traffic-calming/pedestrian-protecting measures in place on Main Road are occasional "pedestrian crossing" signs and road surface paint. The traffic calming measure on New Suffolk Avenue is one "your speed" radar sign. This inadequate safety management has been recognized for years. If more cars and trucks and pedestrians are bound for these unsafe roads, intersections, and sidewalks, vehicle and pedestrian safety will be further diminished. Quality of Life Concerns: This is another priority of the Comprehensive Plan. The land on which the proposed project would be built is already home to a convenience store, commercial laundry, and barber shop. Those businesses have shown themselves to be good neighbors. Not so, the property owner, who is the developer of the proposed project. Trash and drainage have long been problems on the proposed building site. The partially demolished retaining wall and the Town's buckling and crumbling sidewalk along New Suffolk Avenue are eyesores and hazards. Unpleasant odors emanating from the rear of the parking lot are too common. The property's outdoor lighting is another cause for concern for two reasons. First, the lighting is in direct and ongoing violation of the Town's outdoor lighting ordinance. These powerful lights shine directly into the neighboring residential area. Second, over the course of years, written complaints about these lighting violations have been submitted to the Town through its formal complaint process. The complaints have yielded no action—nothing. Who can support a developer who demonstrates little interest in property management?Who can support a developer who has shown contempt for Town ordinance?Where is Town code enforcement? These questions erode our confidence in the proposal. Community Character Concerns: This, too, is a Comprehensive Plan priority. The architecture of the proposed project is out of character with the adjacent residential neighborhood. The scale of the proposed building is large and the massing is inconsistent with neighboring structures, other than The Handy Pantry building. This proposed project is located in the transition zone between the busy Main Road corridor and a more than 100-year-old residential neighborhood. The project should be designed to address these sensitive and particular conditions. Future Growth and The Comprehensive Plan: Does the proposed project contribute to the ove r-d ensifi cation of the center of Mattituck Hamlet? Under existing zoning codes, tens of thousands of square feet of commercial space (including residential)can be built across New Suffolk Avenue from the proposed project.Adjacent to that site are roughly a half dozen smaller properties that, if consolidated, would allow tens of thousands more square feet of commercial space to be built. How can such substantial development be integrated into this already traffic-congested community? How can the already lacking traffic and pedestrian infrastructure respond?At what point is this neighborhood's environmental capacity exhausted and overwhelmed? Existing zoning codes were adapted decades ago and much has changed since. Years spent updating and passing the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan should not be wasted. It takes time to convert the Plan into policy and code and the Town's Zoning Update Committee has much work to do. Let that work progress and conclude to inform Town decisions. In conclusion: "YES!"to workforce housing in our neighborhood. And "yes" to publicly and expertly addressing all questions and concerns generated by the proposal. The environment deserves it. The neighborhood deserves it. Mattituck deserves it. The Town deserves it, too. Sincerely, Meryl Kramer and John Carter Mattituck, New York cc: Heather Lanza, Southold Town Planning Director Daniel Goodwin, Southold Town Superintendent of Highways Glenn Goldsmith, Southold Town Board of Trustees President Bruce Nelligan, Southold Town Zoning Update Committee Margaret Newman, Transportation Commission Chairperson Proposed Guidelines for Co-Naming of Town Streets 1. Posthumous Honor Almost every policy we’ve reviewed required that the honoree be deceased, with the period of time since death varying. Three to five years seems to be the norm. 2. Record of Community Service/Impact Other jurisdictions’ guidelines tend to set a fairly high bar for qualification. New York City Council guidelines require that the honoree was a native or long-time city resident or “an individual of particular importance to a significant population of New York City,” and that the person made a meaningful contribution to city life (in the areas arts, science, culture, politics, education, society, health, or safety), or knowingly risked their life to save another person, or engaged in “extensive community involvement or activism,” or was a uniformed service member who died in the line of duty. Some guidelines establish a minimum period of impact, such as at least 10 years of community involvement. Submission of a detailed biography of the proposed honoree is a common requirement, as well. 3. Community Support for the Honor Most guidelines prescribe a minimum threshold for local support for the honoree, usually in the form of petition signatures, generally from the immediate area adjacent to the location of the street for which co-naming is being proposed. The numbers we reviewed varied quite a bit, with examples ranging from 20 to 150 signatures. It’s probably a good idea to keep in mind the population density of a community in this regard, as several hundred people could live in one apartment building in New York City. Many guidelines include an additional requirement in the form of letters of support from local civic organizations, religious institutions, elected officials, businesses, or other entities. 4. Process for Designation In New York City, the process for designation typically follows this sequence: application for co-naming is made to the local Community Board (there are 59 boards covering the city), where the application is most commonly reviewed by the board’s Transportation Committee before being voted on by the full board. Board-approved applications are then introduced as a resolution by the local City Council Member for a vote by the full City Council, and then co-naming resolutions passed by the Council are signed by the mayor. The Transportation Committee (or in our case, the Transportation Commission) doesn’t quite feel like the right place for review, since a co-naming is much more a cultural matter than a transportation issue. 5. Sign Installation For approved co-naming designations, the Department of Transportation or Highway Department produces a single street sign for installation and typically makes replica signs available to the family of the honoree at cost. The co-naming sign is generally affixed to the pole holding the actual street sign just below the existing sign, in one location only. 6. A Caveat About the Co-Naming Process One thing that most Community Boards and Council Members encounter in the co-naming process is the difficulty of saying no to an applicant. These are typically folks who’ve lost a loved one in the not-so-distant past, so even if the proposed honoree may be someone who’s not really deserving of being memorialized in such a public and permanent way, it can be deeply uncomfortable to reject the application. That’s something the town board may want to consider, and setting a relatively high bar for qualifying an honoree likely will limit the number of marginal applications.