Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-122.-7-3.1 (3) i' JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold. New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: ~~ C:.-. FOR: -<f,3:r.;. /PO.,. _ -# ~G:." _ o CASH ckffiECK ff 1"Z4 ~ BY: RECEIPT 047lJ78 DATE -r't- 19 ~ . $ ::;.s-: 01 13 ~'- - ~ '- 047486 JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK RECEIPT Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: ~",-f!",- FOR: o CASH Q.,C;I1'E'CK 1f 7 -07f () / JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK Town of Southold Southold, New York 11971 Phone: 516-765-1801 RECEIVED OF: _11 - S B J< , FOR: ~ o CASH ~CK /:1(;07 BY: BY: l.l ..,1.,/0-- l. RECEIPT 048318 19 <t ;:3 $ 9uo.04 ~ , . w~ SITE PLAN -� Presubmission conference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received (within 4 months of presub. conference) Application reviewed at work session _ I M.` a (within 10 days of receipt) pzal INFO. Applicant advised of necessary revisions z _ (within 30 days of review) — Revised submission received ,�.` oK AM OK IMFO. Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination o REFERRED TO: 0 z V Zoning Board of Appeals �S _. Ise] w4.*�Kn�"'I-- O (written comments within 60 days of request) Q w Board of TrusteesI (, �,ro.` oK H -_ V O Building Department (certification) G-�-��93 oK W s;r0 wSuffolk County Department of Planning `/6 ioL9'/ I � o Department.of Transportation -State S Iro.` oK z � .a V Department of Transportation - County Suffolk County Dept. of Health /!�s '.` OK'r Y, Fire Commissioners r/ Sent: - -_/L/- r Received RECEIVED: aa.Y P ✓Y-/S Draft Covenants and Restrictions -- EEL i Filed Covenants and Restrictions — Landscape plan - 'WT INFO.Iox Lighting plan i C QK Curb Cut approval 1a9�E�aP� V� „a oK Health approval /� "'0*.` C D ' 9� IN oK Drainage iiin � alI t" (1e4ll J, - Reviewed by Engineer Approval of site plan Endorsement of site plan Certificate of Occupancy inspection One year review WE oK - - - - - INFO. t AF PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION AUG 3 1 1993 1 1 Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action pro ose mayJh :Y,;ed7s1`biiific�ant e;fect on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these g1feaRfions�v�ills be_ycons.idered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION COFAM REALTY , owner of Property for Proposed Fast-Food Restaurant LOCATION OF ACTION(Include Street Address, Munlelpallly and County) Main Road (State Route 25 ) Mattituck , Town of Southold , Suffolk County NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE COFAM REALTY , Owner ( _ ADDRESS c/o Charles R . Cuddy CITYfPO SN YE �1 19��I 180 Old CoLotry Road , Riverhead , NAME OF OWNER(It dltlurent) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Same t ) ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Site plan for proposed fast-food restaurant in accordance with applicable zoning and other applicable laws and regulations . ( See site plans submitted ) Also see Conditioned Negative Declaration by Southold Town. Planning Board dated 2/5/91 for a restaurant at this site r Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: []Urban ❑Industrial []Commercial ❑Residential (suburban) ®Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest C1Agriculture []Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 3 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Bfushland (Non-agricultural) 3 acres 0 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres _ acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 acres 1 . 1 acres Other (Indicate type) Landscaped area 0 acres 1 • 9 acres 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Loam and sand a. Soil drainage: I@Well drained 1 00 % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? ❑Yes 13No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) _ r �. .1;,proa:mate percentage of proposed project site with slopes: 2-1/2 _15% or greater 2-1/2 „o 6. Is project substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of Historic Places? Dyes fgNo 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? ZYes �No 8. What is the depth of the water table? 50t (in feet) 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ®Yes i:7No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Oyes BNo 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that Is identified as threatened or endangered? Oyes WNo According to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Dyes @No Describe 13. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Oyes VINO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? OYes Ilo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none 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 none b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? ®Yes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Dyes Flo 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? Dyes ERNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? OYes Mo 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 _ acres. b. Project acreage to be developed: _ 3 acres initially; 3 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped 0 acres. d. Length of project, in miles: --- (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed --- %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 ; proposed S 5 ( P.1 5 ). G. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 176 (upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially --- Ultimately --- L Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 231 height; 42' -width; 751 length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 371 ft. 3 ?. glow inucl► natural material(i.c. -:_►ck, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?$.400 , flues/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas be reclaimed? UYes ❑No ON/A a. If yes, for what intend..,. purpose is the site being reclaimed? landscaped, parking, restaurant b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? NYes ONo C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Oyes Mo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1-112 acres: 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes 1ANo 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 4 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated -- (number). b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes ❑No 8. Will blasting occur during construction? Oyes ONo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 35 ; after project is complete 40 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes EINo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal Involved? Mes ❑No Type Domestic sewage 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes Flo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Dyes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? Mes ONo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1 tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Dyes Mo C. If yes, give name _ ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? ®Yes ONo e. If Yes, explain not to be disposed of in Southold Sanitary landfill 17. Will the project involve the disppsal of solid waste? Dyes ONO a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years. r 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ®No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes E]No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Dyes' RNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? Mes ONo If yes , indicate type(s) Electrical 22. If water'supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day 25M gallons/day, 24. Does project involve local, State or Federal funding? Dyes f]No If Yes, explain 4 15 Approva:s Requ:•ed: Submittal Type Date City, Town. 1'iil,,;e Board :Yes ENO City. Town, Village Planning Board Nye, ONO Site Plan (Amended) 3/ /93 City, Town Zoning Board ZYes ONO Special Exception Approved City, County Health Department i5aYes ONO Commercial 8/ /9 Other Local Agencies lKYes ONO Zoning certification - BuildinQ/ 93 Other Regional Agencies ❑Yes ®No Department State Agencies ®Yes ONO NYS Dept. of Transportation / /93 Federal Agencies ❑Yes ®NO C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? flYes ❑No If Yes, indicate decision required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance E?special use permit Osubdivision ®site plan Onew/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan ❑other 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? __ B aeneral business _ 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? Lot coverage - 30% 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? - N/A { -- 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONo 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/4 mile radius of proposed action? B L 1.0 R-80 A-C, R=40 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a 1/4 mile? ®Yes -ONO 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? --- a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/-A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? ❑Yes1No 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ®Yes ONO a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? ayes ONO 12. Will the proposed action result'in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, is-the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? Dyes ONO D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant!Sponsor Mme COFAM REALTY Date 8/ ae /93 Signature _ Title Owner _ If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 MA 1110 Southold, N.Y. 11971 (516) 765-1938 A M E N D E D n APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF SITE PLAN Date of -Application 5/25/93 Filing Fee $525 Date Rec ' d New Use Change of Use Re-Use Extension of Existing Use Revision of an Approved Site- Plan n a (Date of Approval ) Other X Specify amended to reflect owner as applican 9ricicic**9c�c*�kk�cic�c�c*�t9c Name of Business or Site COFAM REALTY CO. Location of Site south side Main Road, Mattituck, New or Address of Site, if available Name of Applicant Cofam Realty Co. Address of Applicant_4623A Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, New York 11716 Telephone 567-4747 Person to be responsible for Construction Telephone Applicant' s interest in site-check one: Owner of Land X Under contract }to purchase Owner of- Fee Title to Land Cofam Realty Co. -- Address 4623A Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, N Telephone 516-567-4747 Site Plans Prepared by Donald A. Denis _License No. 007758 Address Main Rd., POB 565, A quebogue, New York 11931 Telephone 516-722-3511 Total Land Area of Site 2.9986 AC Sq. Ft. Zone District Business B Existing Use of Site vacant Proposed Use of Site retal _ Gross Floor Area of Existing Structure( s) 0 sgft . 0 sgft . Gross Floor Area of Proposed Structure( s) 3,000 sqf t. sqf t. Percent of Lot Coverage by Building( s)_ 3% Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) per Town Code Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) per Town Code Datum(Specify)U.S.G.S . Other_ survey Has applicant been granted a XMXiXD=RX) axdkar special exception by Board of Appeals yes Case Number 3970-SE Name of Applicant COFAM REALTY CO. Date of Decision 12/16/91 Expiration Date Will any toxic or hazardous materials, as defined by the Suffolk County Board of Health, be stored or handled at the site? no If so, have proper permits been obtained? Number and Date of permit issued NO ACTION (EXCAVATION OR CONSTRUCTION) MAY BE UNDERTAKEN"'lUN-hL�AFPF.OVAL OF SITE PLAN BY THE PLANNING BOARD. JUN UTFiOLD TOVVN f, LpL�__APdf•JfyG BOAcD __ t APPLICANT' S AFFIDAVIT STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STANLEY COHEN being duly sworn, deposes and says that he resides at in the State of New York, and that he is the .owner of -Effe7 above property, or that he is the Partner of the Cofam Realty Co. , (Title) ( Specify whether Partnership a Partnership which is hereby\ making application; that the or Corporation) owner or his heirs, successors or assigns will, at his own expense, install the required site improvements in accordance with Article XIII of the Code of the Town of Southold for the area stated herein and that there are no existing structures or improvements on the land which are not shown on the Site Plan; that title to the entire parcel , including all rights-of-way, have been clearly established and are shown on said Plan; that no part of the Plan infringes upon any duly filed plan which has not been abandoned. both as to lots and as to roads; that he has examined all rules and regulations adopted by the. Planning Board for the filing of Site Plans and will comply with same; that the plans submitted, as approved, will not be altered or changed in any manner without the approval of the Planning Board; and that the actual physical improvements will be installed in strict accordance with the plans submitted. Signed - STANLEY COHE , Partner (owner) Sworn to before me this 0,5�_ ay of May, 1993 (Notary Public) Signed CHARLES R.CUDDY ( Partner or Corporate Officer and Title) Notary Public,State of Now York No..5872225 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires December 31,199y 0 A ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT FOR PROPOSED BURGER KING MAIN ROAD, HAMLET OF MATTITUCK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK Prepared for: COFAM Realty Corp. c/o Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Road ® Riverhead, New York 11901 Prepared by: Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. l+ 368 Veterans Memorial Highway Commack, New York 11725 Contact: Theresa Elkowitz, Principal (516) 499-2222 June, 1993 14] g Ai JUN 3 0 1993 SOU7rdO D TOWN PLANNING BOARD INTRODUCTION Freudenthal & Elkowitz Consulting Group, Inc. (hereinafter F&E) was contracted by COFAM Realty Corp. through its attorney, Charles R. Cuddy, to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the development of a Burger King of 3,000 square feet on the south side of Main Road, Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold. In addition, F&E was asked to compare these potential impacts to those identified.with the prior proposal to construct a 4,100 square foot McDonald's on the same property. Finally, based upon review of relevant documentation, F&E was requested to render an opinion as to whether the development and occupancy.by a Burger King, as opposed to a McDonald's, requires a separate review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. In order to complete this evaluation, F&E reviewed the following documents: 1. Site Plan, SP-2, of proposed McDonald's prepared by Raymond F. Fellman, Architect, with survey information prepared by Teas, Barrett, Lanzisera &Frink dated April 6, 1990. 2. Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) listing McDonald's Corporation dated July 31, 1990. 3. Short EAF listing McDonald's Corporation dated August 14, 1990. 4. Conditional Negative Declaration issued by the Town of Southold Planning Board dated February 5, 1991. 5. Action of the Board of Appeals for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance for a fast-food restaurant (decision rendered December 16, 1991). 1 6. Site Plan of proposed Burger King prepared by Donald A. Denis, Registered Architect, dated March 26, 1993 with final revision date of May 14, 1993. 7. Correspondence from Town of Southold Board of Appeals confirming that the site plan prepared by Donald A. Denis is "primarily in conformance with the Special Exception permit issued to the owner (Cofam Realty) and original plan approved thereunder" dated March 30, 1993. 8. Site cross-section of proposed Burger King prepared by Donald A. Denis. All documents reviewed and relied upon, with the exception of the site plans (items 1 and 6, above), are included in Appendix A. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Methodology For each potentially significant environmental issue relating to the development of the proposed Burger King, F&E reviewed the information provided (see Introduction) and compared said impacts with those identified as being associated with the previously proposed McDonald's. At the forefront, it should be understood that environmental impacts are related to the development and operation of a particular use, in this case, a fast food establishment. Thus, when viewing this matter, there are no differing environmental impacts between Burger King and McDonald's. Both those establishments are fast food restaurants; the name of the establishment has no environmental effect whatsoever. Therefore, the comparison of environmental impacts enumerated below relate to the development of a fast food restaurant. The narrative references to McDonald's and Burger King are used solely to distinguish between the original plan prepared by Raymond F. Fellman in 1990 and the revised plan prepared by Donald A. Denis in 1993. Site Location and Area The site originally proposed for development as a McDonald's is exactly the same as that currently proposed for development as a Burger King. The subject property is located on the south side of Main Road, Hamlet of Mattituck and is designated in the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000 - Section 122 - Block 7 - Lot 3.1. The site area consists of 2.9986 acres (130,621 square feet). 3 Building Area and Coverage .The McDonald's building was proposed to be 4,113 square feet in size with lot coverage calculated at 3.1 percent. Paved area was proposed at 40,358 square feet (31 percent), and landscaped/natural area was calculated at 86,150 square feet (66 percent). The Burger King site plan indicates building area as 3,000 square feet with lot coverage calculated at 2.3 percent. Thus, the proposed building is 27 percent smaller than the originally proposed fast food establishment. Paved area for the Burger King equals 43,508 square feet (33.3 percent), and landscaped/natural area is calculated at 64.4 percent. Thus, the magnitude of post-development impervious and pervious areas are substantively similar. Parking The Town of Southold requires one parking space per two seats in a fast food restaurant or one parking space per 50 square feet, whichever is greater. The 4,113 square foot proposed McDonald's required 83 parking spaces. The McDonald's site plan included the paving of 55 parking spaces and the landbanking of 28 spaces. The 3,000 square foot proposed Burger King requires 60 parking spaces. This site.plan indicates that 55 parking spaces will be paved and 15 spaces will be landbanked. Both plans conform with parking requirements. Additionally, both McDonald's and Burger King propose the initial development of 55 parking spaces. 4 Sanitary Sewage The subject property lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV which permits a maximum flow of 300 gallons per day (gpd) per acre. Thus, the maximum permitted sanitary flow is calculated as: 2.9986 acres x 300 gpd/acre = 899.58 gpd The Conditioned Negative Declaration issued by the Town of Southold indicated that, with regard to sanitary sewage, the McDonald's would not exceed maximum permitted daily flow. As excerpted from said Conditioned Negative Declaration, "The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which has determined that the project will not discharge more than 300 gallons per day per acre, which is the sanitary discharge limitation in Groundwater Management Zone IV." Information contained on the site plan for Burger King calculates the daily sanitary flow at 860 gpd. Thus, the Burger King will conform with the regulations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for sites situated within Groundwater Management Zone IV. Transportation Issues The original projection of peak hour vehicular trips for McDonald's included a drive-through window. This projection was 250 vehicles in the peak hour. However, the Town of Southold denied the request for a drive-through window. The projection of peak hour trips for the proposed Burger King is estimated at 160 vehicles per hour. 5 McDonald's agreed to,provide roadway improvements as required by the New York State Department of Transportation. Burger King has also agreed to provide improvements as required by the Department of Transportation. Aesthetics In order to mitigate aesthetic impacts, the McDonald's building was to be set 140 feet back from the road and was to have landscaped buffers along property boundaries. Further, the building was designed as in a cape cod style in order to conform with the general architectural character of the area. The Burger King site plan indicates a building setback of 140 feet from Main Road with landscaped buffers along property boundaries. In addition, the Burger King building is also being designed in a cape cod style to blend with area architecture. It should also be noted that the grade has been changed to comply with the Town Code and to reduce the incline at the entrance. 6 CONCLUSION Based upon review of available information and documentation, it has been determined that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed Burger King do not substantially differ from those associated with the original proposal for a McDonald's. Further, the Burger King plan is in conformance with the reasons supporting the Conditioned Negative Declaration issued for the McDonald's application by the Town of Southold Planning Board on February 5, 1991. In conclusion, the environmental review has been completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and no further environmental study is necessary. 7 APPENDIX A FREUDENTHAL & ELKowrrz CONSULTING GROUP, INC. skiF FO(,� APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Off' COG SCOTT L.HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P.Goehringer, Chairman y Ze. Serge Doyen,Jr. p Town Hall, 53095 Main Road James Dinizio,Jr. �' O! P.O.Box 1179 Robert A.Villa l �a Southold, New York 11971 Richard C.Wilton Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1809 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD March 30, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Stanley Cohen, Cofam Realty (Owner) Proposed Fast Food Restaurant at Mattituck 1000-122-7. 3 . 1 ( 2. 99 acres) Dear Mr. Cuddy: This will confirm that the footprint for the proposed fast-food restaurant, without drive-thru facilities, as shown on the latest plan (prepared by Donald A. Denis received March 29, 1993) is acceptable and the plan is found to be primarily ( 90-95%) in conformance with the Special Exception permit issued to the owner (Cofam Realty) and original plan approved thereunder. Based on this map, a new Special Exception permit will not be required. The property owner will, of course, be required to proceed in obtaining final site plan approval from the Southold Town Planning Board, as well as obtaining approvals from the County Health Department, N.Y.S. Department of Transportation, and Town Building Department. Very truly. yours, GERARD P. GOEHRINGER CHAIRMAN TEALS BOARD MEMBERS - l :�} ►=� �1 Scow L. I IARRIS .:►�°: rard P. Gocliringer, Chairman %>- = �� ,� Supervisor Charles Grigonis, Jr. :� Scrgc Doyen, Jr. . . i ''J✓� Town Ilall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, Ncw York 11971 James Dinizio. Jr. BOARD Or APPEALS Fax (516) 765-,1823 Robert A. Villa TOWN OF SOU'T'I[OLU lcic hone 516 765-1800 lone (516) 765-1809 p (. ) ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Upon Application No. 3970 dated November 19, 1991 made by COFAM REALTY COMPANY for a Special Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, ' for a fast-food restaurant and a drive-through restaurant window facility. Provisions of the Zoning Code under which this application has been made is Article X, Section 100-101B. WHEREAS, after due notice, public hearings were held on March 8, 1991, April 5; 1991, and November 21, 1991 , at which time all persons, corporations , organizations and the like, who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and . WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and .are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: SITE INFORMATION 1. The premises in question is located along the south side of the Main Road (State Route 25) in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 122, Block 7, Lot 3. 1 . 2 . The subject premises is vacant land and consists of a total area of 130, 621 sq. ft. (2 . 9986 acres) , with 371 . 37 ft. -' frontage along the Main Road and 317 . 14 ft. along Old. Main Road. 3 . Architectural renditions have been furnished for reliance by the board members in making this determination which shows the building to be of cape cod design. It should be noted that the architectural renditions are also before the Town Planning Board. Architectural reviews will also be required by the Town Planning Board when processing the site plan application under the site plan regulations of the zoning code. Also in considering this application, site plan elements, egress, ingress, accessory parking, etc. as proposed by the applicant are more particularly shown on the maps prepared by Raymond F.' Fellman, A. I .A. (site plan maps lastly dated June 7 , 1991; Water and Sewer Plan SP-3 dated 9-23-91; etc. ) . Page 2 - Appl . No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 IMPROPER PARTY STATUS 4 . During the initial stage of this project, an application was filed with the Southold Town Planning Board for site plan approval (which has not been decided as of this date and is pending site plan reviews) and with the Southold Town Board of Appeals, both filed by McDonald' s Corporation through its agents and attorneys for the proposed: (a) establishment of a fast-food restaurant, and (b) establishment of a drive-thru window restaurant. . 5 . After the first and second hearings, the following ` factors became apparent: (a) The -applicant, McDonald 's Corporation, did not appear to be a proper party to this application since McDonald's Corporation, although claiming on the written documentation to be .a Contract Vendee, was neither a Contract Vendee or the owner. The application therefore was not properly before the Board of Appeals up until the date of the final hearing in November 1991. (b) Rather than conclude the hearing process and continue with a defective application, the applicant and parties involved were advised of this defect, by .written notice, and were provided with an opportunity to amend their application to make same procedurally correct.. (c) On November 19, 1991, two days prior to the final hearing under Application No. 3970, CoFam Realty, the landowner, made application to this Board as a proper party for a "Special Exception for a proposed restaurant- under Article X, Section 100-101B, subsection 9 " It is their application which is being addressed, although the board is aware that the ultimate intent is to erect a Mcbonalds restaurant. 6 . Therefore, this Board is pursuing the application process for the applicant-owner, CoFam Realty with the owner's intent to establish a restaurant pursuant to those standards and conditions for such a Special Exception set forth in the Southold Town Zoning Code. RESTAURANTS BY CODE, DEFINITIONS 7 . A "restaurant" is defined in the Southold Town Zoning Code under Section 100-13 as follows : " Any premises where food is commercially sold for on-premises consumption to patrons f� - Page 3 - Appl . No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16 , 1991 seated at tables or counters . Any facility making use of a carhop or parking lot service to cars or for the consumption of food to be eaten in said cars or outdoors shall not be considered a "restaurant" for the purpose of this (zoning) chapter and shall be deemed to be a "drive-in or fast-food restaurant. " 8 . Such a "restaurant" which is only for patrons seated at tables or counters is permitted subject to site plan approval by the Town Planning Board in the following Zone Districts : (a) , per Section 100791A( 7 ) - Hamlet Business (b) per Section 100-101A( 2 ) - General B Business (c) per Section 100-81A( 2d) - Light Business . 9 . A "fast-food restaurant" is defined in the Southold Town Zoning Code under Section 100-13 as follows : RESTAURANT, DRIVE-IN OR FAST-FOOD - Any establishment whose principal business is the sale of foods , frozen desserts, or beverages to the customer in a ready to consume state, usually served in paper, plastic or other disposal containers, for consumption within the restaurant building, elsewhere on the premises or for carryout for consumption off the premises . 10 . A "drive-thru or drive-up" (the latter being a term utilized by the applicant) restaurant is a use other than a carhop or drive7in facility as defined in our zoning code. The inside counter service which is the norin available for patrons to purchase foods for consumption off the premises is not ' accessible, and instead motor vehicles are used for accessibility between the building and off-premises consumption instead of passengers leaving parked cars . - There is no provision in the Southold Town Zoning code for a .drive-thru -or drive-up restaurant, especially by special exceptions (special permit) _ application. 11 . A minimum of 40, 000 sq. ft. of land is required for each restaurant use, regardless of whether it is a table-service restaurant, a fast-food restaurant, or a car-hop restaurant use. By reason of the fact that there is no public water or sewer facilities available to the site the Suffolk County Department of Health Services recommended that any fast food restaurant such as the one specified herein be placed upon a lot having an area of not less than one hundred twenty thousand square feet. By this application it was clearly demonstrated to the Board that, in fact, what was contemplated represented not one, but two principal restaurant uses-the first being a "Fast- Food 11 Restaurant and the second ,being a "dr.ive-thru/drive-up" Page 4 - Appl . No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered November 21, 1991 restaurant. The site in question as set forth above is one-hundred thirty thousand six hundred twenty one square feet. APPLICANT'S TWO PROPOSED RESTAURANT .FACILITIES 12 . The applicant has requested a Special Exception for both a fast-food restaurant and a drive-thru restaurant. From testimony during the hearings, it is evident that the fast-food corporation intending to enter into a Contract of Sale with the current owner is proposing not only a fast-food restaurant with a food counter for removal to on-site tables or off-premises consumption, but also a separate restaurant area for access from an area other than a parking lot and solely by motor vehicles . The applicant has also indicated that such a secondary restaurant use will provide 40% or more of the business . 13 . Such a "drive-thru restaurant" is clearly not a carhop . facility defined in our zoning code, and it is clearly in this Board' s determination a secondary restaurant use able to operate independently and separate from a fast-food table/counter restaurant use. 14 . . The area to be utilized for the "drive-thru restaurant" is also not in an area utilized as a parking lot, and instead utilizes that area used by all other vehicles entering and exiting the subject premises, which also has an increase of vehicular traffic congestion within the site, which in turn causes increased risk and danger to pedestrians entering the building from the parking lot(s) . CODE STANDARDS FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS 15 . Article XXVI, Section 100-263, Sub-paragraphs A through F of the Zoning Code provides several standards, which standards the Board Members have considered concerning the use of the fast-food restaurant only in this Special Exception application. 16 . Other considerations by the Board were also given, among other things, to sub-paragraphs A through P of Section 100-264 . 17 . Another area also considered at length by the Board is the issue of the removal of 'solid waste and its effects upon town facilities . The applicant has agreed to covenant ship the solid waste resulting from this proposed fast-food restaurant and related uses out of town and not to utilize the Southold Town landfill during operation of this new business . (The Town has a court action pending at this time and consideration of the effects of such new restaurant uses and their effects, cumulatively or otherwise upon the town landfill, if permitted by the State to remain open, must be further evaluated. ) Page 5 - Appl . No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT a Special Exception ur,'ter Article X, Section 100-101B(9) , for the establishment of a fast-food restaurant only as defined and described in paragraph #9, supra, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. An emergency exit must be made available off of Old Main Road for fire and emergency purposes; 2 . Sufficient on-site parking areas must be made available for numerous transient buses as recommended by the Southold Town Planning Board; 3 . No directional, advertising or other off-premises signs shall be permitted. 4 . No other separate business or restaurant use shall be permitted other than a fast-food restaurant use. 5 . This Special Exception approval is limited to that applied for and shown for consideration as per the plans and drawings submitted to this Board, and any change in the footprint of the building requires re-application for re-consideration, after proper notice and public hearing. An original final site plan print shall be furnished to the Board of Appeals for• review prior to Planning Board Chairman' s signing of the final maps for updating purposes, acquiescence, and permanent record-keeping purposes (without the need for further hearing, etc. for such review) . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that portion of the subject application as it pertains to "drive-thru or drive-up restaurant" is and the same is hereby Denied for the following reason: 1 . The use intended is not permitted by Special Exception under the Zoning Code of.. the Town Southold either by definition or within the respective zone. 1 2 . There is insufficient square footage on site to support approval of a second primary restaurant use. 3 . The increase traffic flow resulting from drive- thru/drive-up restaurant would adversely impact upon the existing two lane highway which provides access to the site furthermore, the preexisting nonconforming residential use to the west and the hundred acre residential (AR-40) zone directly to the south and east of - the premises renders this particular location not suitable for this particular use (section 100-264A) . Page 6 - Appl . No. 3970-SE Matter of COFAM REALTY Decision Rendered December 16, 1991 4 . The approval of a second restaurant use would put unnecessary strain upon the private water and sewer facilities available to the site( 100-264D) , 5 . The site has insufficient square footage per the recommendation of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services ( 100-264K) . 6 . Access to the site is by means of State Road SR25 (two-lane east-west highway) which provides access to and from the hamlet of Mattituck and is not suitable to the use intended ( 100-264M) 7 . Although the applicant agreed to covenant not to deposit solid waste in the landfill of the Town of Southold, it refused to covenant to not deposit any of its waste in any transfer station in the event the landfill would. ultimately close. Considering the amount of solid waste generated by the applicant same will provide an undue strain upon such transfer station( 100-2640) . VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Messrs . Goehringer, Dinizio and Doyen. NAYES: Members Villa and Grigonis . (Members Villa and Grigonis felt the application should be denied in its entirety for several reasons : out of character with the area, there is a better profitable use to which this property may be used, excessive burdens on governmental facilities, etc . ) . This resolution was duly adopted with a 3-to-2 margin. lk GERARD P. GOEHRINGER�CHAIRMAN PLANNING BOARD NIEMBI-RS SCO'T7 L. NAIZRIS Y Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman i;• �' —�'. ;y Supervisor .� �•„ ,� George Ritchie Latham. Jr. rn, Richard G. Ward �i 'v Town 11,111. 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald ^' '' P.O. Brix 1 179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICESouthold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Far 1516) 765-1823 State Environmental Quality Review CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance February 5 , 1991 This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Law. The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement will not be prepared. Name of Action: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald' s Corporation SCTrlff : 1000-122-7-3 . 2 Location: South side of Main Road, east of Bray Avenue, Mattituck SEQR Status: . Type I ( ) Unlisted ( X) Description of Action: Proposed restaurant on 2 . 98 acres for McDonald' s Corporation. Conditioned Negative Declaration: yes (x ) No ( ) Page 2 McDonald' s Corporation Conditions for McDonalds Restaurant 1. The impacts that will result from the present lack of turning lanes shall be addressed by the installation of roadway modifications to State Route 25 to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised, and that road capacity does not fall below 1990 service levels. 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. Subject property is zoned B (Business) . The proposed use is consistent with this zoning district. The project has been compared to the bulk and dimensional requirements of the zoning district and is found to be in conformance with these requirements. 2. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, which has determined that the project will not discharge more than 300 gallons per day per acre, which is the . sanitary discharge limitation in Groundwater Management Zone IV, when public water is not available. The scope of the project is consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 Study, and Suffolk County' s Sanitary Code (Article 6) . 3 . The site is mostly devoid of native vegetation. It is being recolonized by herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain any unique species of vegetation or wildlife. 4 . The applicant has supplied architectural elevations in order to identify the "style" of the structure. Review of these elevations finds that the project is in conformance with the general architectural style of the area. Page 3 McDonalds 5. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project is not likely . to have an undue burden on the road transportation system of the immediate area. The quantified traffic impacts can be mitigated by the installation of roadway modifications such as, but not limited to, turning • lanes, strengthened shoulders, and a deceleration lane. 6• The building has been set back 140 feet from the road. Further, the site design provides for "landbanking" of parking stalls in order to -maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to improve visual aesthetics, and provide a buffer for neighboring residentially zoned properties. For Further 'Information: • Contact Person: Robert G. Kassner Address: Planning Board Telephone Number: ( 516) 765-1938 cc: Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County .Planning Commission David Morrell, DEC Judith Terry, Town Clerk Building Department • Board of Trustees Applicant NY State Department of Transportation • y 617.21 'SCQR Appendix C I' State Environmental Ouality Review SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only . PART I-1 ..CT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) r5V5FPSCRl0E lCANT InPONSCR 2. PROJECT NAME onalds Corporation site Ian dICT LCCATIO!i: ' attituckCounty Suffolk t3E LCCATION (Street address and road Intersections,prominent landmark%etc.,or provide map) outh aide Main - Road, east of Bray Avenue, Mattituck OPOSED ACTION: New C,J Expansion ❑Modificationlalteratlon lDE PROJECT BRIEFLY: aurant construction 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: In(tially 2-9 8 86 acres Ultimately 2. 9 88 6 acres 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS7 :Q Yes ❑No It No,describe briefly 9. WrrH-1AT I� S WHAT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? ClResidential ❑Industrial �®Commercial Descnoe: ❑Agriculture, ❑Park/ForesuOpen space L._7 Other 10. GOES AC710N INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL,OR FUNDING,NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY(FFDE AL, UTATE OR LOCAL)? Yes NO It yes,list ageney(s)and permit/approvals, Southold Town Plaming Board, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, New York State Department of Transportation 11. uUt::i ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? Lr Yes ®No 11 yes,list agency name and permitlapproval 12. AS A RESULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? Cl.Yee ©No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED A'13OVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE Ap4LaanNspona9rname!" �4" P 11 Da e• �; If the action is in the Coastal Area. and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment . OVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) 'LUVJI,'J riVLU F'ARTPRC7JECT INFORMAT ON Prepared by P Project S onsor Xinformation ocument is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect ent. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered plication for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review. Provide any additional believe will be needed to complete Parts 2.and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or inyestigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION — McDonald ,5 Corporation site plan LOCATION OF ACTION (Include Street Address,Municipality and County) I s/s Main Road, Mattituck, New York -- County of Suffolk NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR I BUSINESS TELEPHONE McDonald ,s Corporation, c/o HenryE. Raynor, Jr. A 616 )298-4 67 ADDRESS 320 Love Lane C1Ty1PO STATE ZIP CCDE Mattituck 11952 NAME OF OWNER(if different) gtJSINESS TELEPHONE Cofam Realty ( ) [ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION construction of restaurant: I I • Please Complete Each Question--Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of.overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: OUrban Olndustrial ❑Commercial CResidential(suburban) Mural (non-farm) OForest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area:. 2. 9986 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) - go 86 acres 0 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECQ acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces acres a,:res Other (Indicate tvpe) acres acres 3. What is predominant soil tvpe(s) on project,site? loam and sand a. Soil drainage: ®Well drained 100 % of site ❑Moderately well drained % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. It any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? 0acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? OYes 9JNo a. What is depth to bedrock? _ (in feet) 2 TT'd TT :Z-O OG, TO �)flh le e percentage of proposed prole mee with slopes: E0-10% 98— °' �10-15% 2 �� 015% or ter ubstantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National i Historic Places? ❑Yes KINo bstantially canti�;uous to a sitelisted on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? DYes [3 No depth of the water table? } 50 (in feet) ed over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ❑Yes t_1N0 10. Do hunting. fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? ©Yes ONO 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endangered? Dyes FjNo According to identify each species 12, Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) Ayes ON Describe -- 13. Is the project site presently used .by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? ❑Yes ®No If yes, explain -- 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes [ZNO 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: NONE 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 —NONE b. Size (In acres) 17. Is the site served by existing public utilities? . TiYes []No a) if Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? InYes ONo b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? XuYes 0:JNo 18. is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 25••AA, Section 303 and 304? ❑Yes {t]No 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? DYes EINo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? ❑Yes KJNo 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 O acres. h. Project acreage to be developed: 2._9986 acres initially; 2.9986 acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped . 0. acres. d. Length of project, in miles: (if appropriate) . e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed %; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing _� proposed per code g. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour , 250 (upon completion of project)? ( 125 ingress & 125 egress ) h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately per code i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 18 height; 52— width; 100length. F j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 31- ft. n/s & 37_, f -I/ 3 0t d 0i:L0 06, To Ana_ /5. Will h natural material li.N , rock, rah, etc.) will be removed from site? 0 tons cubic Wards rbed areas be reclad? �'es ❑No ❑N/A ycs, for what intend., purpose is the site being reclaimed? __ rAt-a; i ill topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? MYes ONO as needed ll upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ®Yes C]No as needed y acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? + i acres. mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Cites UNo 6. I,f single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 5 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: . a. Total number of phases anticipated (number), b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month year. d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Oyes ONO 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes ONO 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 ; after project is complete+100 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project b 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes IRNo If yes, explain 12. is surface liquid waste disposal involved? ❑Yes ®No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc,) and amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? C$Yes ONo Type aome_s_t —9.eWera9P 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? OYcs Z]No Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? OYes ;ONO 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ' 83Yes CiNo. a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1- tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes ONO C. if yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill? Dyes TKNo e. if Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? Oyes KINo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? years, 18_ Will project use herbicides or pesticides? ❑Yes ®No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more: than one hour per day)? DYes KINo 20• Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient'noise levels? Oyes CRNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? CRYes, ONO If yes , indicate type(s) electricity22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. Pei;' SCDOHS code 23. Total anticipated water usage per day Z_ 20 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ' ❑Yes ®No if Yes, explain 4 6•d 0T:L0 06, To gnu PP /;ovals Required: � _ �ui�mift.�l r' Ype l* Da-le Town. Village Board. 0 Dyes ONO City, Town, Village Planning Board 12Yes ONO side plan City, Town Zoning Board Eyes ONO �— �n�c; - City, County Health Departmen't JOYes ONO Other Local Agencies Oyes ONO Other Regional Agencies dyes ❑No SCPC State Agencies 91Yes ONO NXS Dept of Transportation Federal Agencies OYes MNo C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? Wye$ ONO if yes, indicate decision required: 07-Oning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit Clsubdivision ®site'plan iJnew/revision of master plan . ❑resource management plan g0ther _..�,ae6 �� �•,,,�nh; ter} 2. What is the zoning clas,sification(s)of the site? R 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? per So -hog d Town 2ori�ttsx_Code 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? �_ R 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning?T� ) per Southold Town Zoning Code � 6. Is'the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? CYes ON 7. What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a % mile radius of proposed action? 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? Oyes ONO 9. If. the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? 10. Will proposed action require any authorizations) for'the•formation of sewer or water districts? rJyes ,x Ito 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any .community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? EDYes ONO a. if yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Ryes ONo 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? ❑Yes 1RNo a. 'If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffics' ❑Yes QNo D. informational Details Attach any additional information as may be-heeded to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. E. Verification I certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sponsor Name — r'Ne t2 ��Fl I n'. ro Signature •1�-� r Date �: _^= � Title Cl ^-•• �r-Z -' — If the action' in the doastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment, 5 e•d 6o:LO 06, to ef1H ' - FxrT - - I • wF� Ca1vE Z1iR1J-GY3f�l��— —— — �.••ST P,�rrr-J...rcv - ---�.y; - - - yam.. - - _ +t�.r:+�-_` .. . - _ . - � - __ -- '--: - _ - -+•�-.:-�'_ uorE: Sa- JNG[�7Ft� AS jT►e JisT�.�= of?}JE kj-�gzlT 1tN L:n%E FAS-A-LPL To WE N�R7r} rRc -- £—;Fwr�silt=r�P—r. _ sl rE c a } II. , WORTH. FORK E ROk4MEk4TA12 'COU*1 L ' Route 25 at Love Lane;PO Box 799`-*Mat'dtuck, NY=11952 51&?98 8880 'N 5, .ovember ..l 1.993, Richard Ward, Chairman ; ' 'So,uthold Planning ,Board. Southo ld Town 'Hall Southold, NY 11971 , Re; Bur ger`.King application Dear Chairman Ward and Members o;f the Pl,annrng .Board,., The North Fork 'Envi.ronmental Council` requests' tkiat " theePlanning Board "issue a Positive Declaration o.n'-,the -pr.pposed Burger King application _As We ha'Ve s:tated. ;breve ou,sly,,..we believe: full .Envi :,onmental " Impact Statement -�(EISj is: required.: on, this p.roject,,`.,under the: New. ' ` Stat:e Environmental'".Quality :Review, Act (SEQR) , due to' its particularly}sens:itive arid. controversial TYie , cont rove=r`sy .generated "b,y the. building of` a Burger King: in, . Ma-ttituck .,cannot';b'e unexpected :either­'b"y,•:the.'Plarinirig;.,�Board or: ahe. developer : It" was -.only two',yea"rs "ago that ,public outcry :- „ Against a` proposed,,McDonald'.! s on tt e, .s-ame s1, a ,was sro, extensi`v.•e that ':our ,T.own`3uper,vi so:r announced h,is. intention.,to change_.,_ e Town :.CoFde. to; p'reve.nt th`e developmentl' of: fast 'fpod; r,estaurants,,'.in the town of Southold = There .are, ,wo particular issues •which wea would like 'to raise at is 't.ime.,' The'.f_irst :ins the issue, of, trash 'and garbage I.`�-Whl;e- the documents ,provided .thus far stat"e that garbager from the ' Burger. King, will7. trucked:,out of town,,.: this re:f;er,s. only,_ao 'the gar, age at -,he facility; itself , t•' does ,no't • address. the`,ad. ed arash,.ge_nerated by,,the ',:customers, of .the "Bu`rger K1-ng In light of th;e new garbage fees and` requirements: An 'Southold; this Impact must be assessed Illegal dumping ;of garbage• is s : alread a concsrri, under. the`.,new law's ;Take=qut; customers; of the Y.:, Burger King would have;to `hold onto ':,ther trash until it .can be d, spo_sed' of in .-ar► of_f,icialyell'ow plastic., bag . - they• cannot, even,,` tYirow,- it away y, n' a'. garbage', can This new law pre"sen.ts an- unusual.. .' situation,•, the;-environmental impact,:"of trash- gene'ra.ted by.: the".: customers.`of, this e�stablishinent,mus-t:. b,�e, looked a;t' in :`a anew ligh b; Y Secondly, the 'US/UK Stewar.dship,Task Force an 'offi.cial~ Commit"tee''o,f the- sbuthbld `.Town Board -..has ,recommended that the `code' be :changed -to,•allow these .enterer ises 'only 'in h"amlet., bus.iness._z:ones, This r`econiinendation is part'; o'f °a consistent anon.-profit organization for,the preservatlo'h,f land,sea,air and icluallty,of life printed on 1o0%o recycled,paper long-range plan to focus business and high density residential units in our hamlet centers. This concept has been endorsed by our elected officials, the people of our town, and, we believe, the Planning Board itself. The proposed development of a Burger King on this site flies in the face of this recommendation and the overall long-range planning goals of the Town. The impact of this unplanned use on our community character must be assessed under SEAR. I direct your attention once again to NYCRR Part 617.11 (a) .(5) . Criteria used to indicate the- significance of an unlisted action include "the impairment of the character or quality of existing community or neighborhood character" . Nowhere in the applicant' s LEAF or your consultant' s analysis is this assessed. If you do not issue a Positive Declaration on this project, you are stating that there is no impact on the existing character of the Town, despite the fact that this will be the very first "fast food" type of establishment in the 350+ year history of our rural community. A hard look at this issue has not yet been taken, in fact you have not even attempted to address it. We believe that failure to issue a Positive Declaration at this time is in violation of SEQR. You must take a hard look at these issues - there will be trash on the streets, our community character will be affected. We request that as required by SEQR you "make every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies, and the public in the SEQR process" . (NYCRR 617. 3 (g) ) In this case, that mandate can only be carried out by issuing a Positive Declaration. Sincerely, Linda Levy Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council ;m � k, G ART,ES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW too OLD COuNTaY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O.sox .1547 RTVMM wD,NY 11901 ADJACENT TO TEL:(516)389-8200 MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT -FAX:(516)360-9080 November 12, 1993 a Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York, 11971 Gentlemen: Re: Burger King In response to your letter of October .3, 1993, please find enclosed the following: (1) Confirmation letter from me as the applicant's. attorney regarding handling of the solid waste. (2) Letter from the office of Donald Denis regarding steps to .be taken to minimize erosion of slope area. (3) Response from Dunn Engineering with regard to traffic analysis (items 3, 4 and 5 in your letter). . Also attached are revised plans, elevations, and sign drawings as requested at. your meeting of November 8. If any additional information or documentation is required, _please advise. ' Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC :jme Enclosures *actual date : November 3 , . 1993 ; NOV 15 IM a, r==- DONALD A. DENIS A R C H I T E C T S Aquebogue Square Route 25/P.O. Box 565 Aquebogue, New York 11931 (516)722-3511 FAX:516-722-3859 Donald A. Denis,A.I.A. Frederick R.Weber, R.A. Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,New York, 11971 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road,Mattituck,NY Planning Board, We have reviewed the site plan in reference to the concerns of site erosion on steep pitches and offer the following remarks: The existing site contains a steep embankment along Main Road(NYS Rt25). This embankment is being eliminated and a more gradual site profile is being established to provide safe vehicular access to and from the site. Where this revised site profile joins the existing topography on the adjacent property to the west a natural steep pitch exists as the adjacent property cannot be modified. The existing situation poses no visible erosion problems and new grass/sod will be planted to prevent any future erosion.During construction hay bales and/or matting will be used along Main Road to eliminate sediment transport. The only other location where steep slopes occur is along the west side of the entry drive where the property line cuts back eastward into the site. The revised site plan indicates ground cover in this area. If you have any questions or require further information,please contact this office. Ve ly yours, Frederick R. Weber,R.A. s � NOV .11513 GHAizmES B. GuDDY ATTOBNEY AT LAw 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P.O.BOX 1547 PrvmRE Ate,NY 11fl01 ADJACENT TO _ TEL:(516)389-8200 MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT FAX:(516)369-9080 November 10, 1993 Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant_ 2oning District: General .Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3. 1 Gentlemen: I reviewed the consultant's report in connection with the .above site plan and in particular I have noted the recommendation as to the handling of solid. waste. This is to confirm that the condition of approval with respect to solid waste being transported out of the Town of Southold will be adhered -to by the applicant. Said waste will not be delivered to the Town collection center. This is in accordance with representations previously made that solid waste will not be disposed of in the Southold sanitary land fill. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/pc ` 8 NOV 151993 SOUTH OLD D IrOWU PLAWNG BOARD Dunn Enginee,„,'9 Associates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 November 12, 1993 Mr. Charles N. Cuddy, Attorney at Law, 180 Old County Road, P.O. Box 1547, Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Dear Mr. Cuddy: We have received the review of the Traffic Impact Study for the above project performed for the Town of Southold by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. Our responses to the Town's comments are as follows: Comment Recalculate trips based on an 86 seat facility. Response The trip generation analysis performed for the Traffic Impact Study was based on an average of the results of the rate per seat and the rate per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area found at the Southampton facility. While it may have been unclear, the analysis did utilize an 86 seat facility comprised of 3,000 square feet. Therefore no recalculation is required. Comment The analysis to determine directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. Response .The analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed by assuming that the westerly limit of the drawing area for the proposed Burger King is a line equidistant from the proposed facility and the nearest existing fast food restaurant (i.e. the McDonald's in Riverhead) and that the easterly limit is the eastern Southhold "census designated place" border (see Figure 1). Thus, 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 1). Therefore, 8.0% of the primary trips will originate in the east and return to the east (right turn out of the site) and 20% will do so from and to the west (left turn out of site). Traffic on Route 25 travelling past the site was found to originate 54% from the west and 46% from the east during the peak hour of site generated traffic (weekday midday), based on the turning movement counts performed for the Traffic Impact Study. Therefore, it was assumed that 54% of the pass- by trips, or 38% of the total trips, would originate in the west and continue to the east, and 46% of the pass-by trips, or 32% of the total, would originate in the east and continue their trip to the west after leaving the Burger King. This information is presented in Figure 2. It should be noted that the analysis for the pass-by trip pattern assumes a 70% pass-by rate. Thus, the number of vehicle leaving the proposed site via a northbound to westbound left turn is maximized, an a conservative traffic analysis is presented, since these vehicles require a gap in both directions of traffic on Route 25 to leave the site. When the number of pass-by trips decreases, the number of primary trips will increase, thereby increasing the right turn movement out of the site. In fact, when a 40% pass-by credit, as used in the study, is applied instead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 70%. Finally, preparation of this letter led to the discovery that an error in assigning the site generated traffic had occurred. This error has been corrected, and the capacity analyses at the site entering driveway recalculated. The results of the revised analyses are attached. The revised traffic assignment results in extremely minor changes at the outlying intersections even during the busiest period for the proposed restaurant. For example, during the midday peak hour at Factory Avenue, the revisions results in two fewer eastbound vehicles and eight additional westbound vehicles. These minor differences result in virtually no change in the results of the capacity analyses. Therefore, the analyses for the outlying inter- sections have not been recalculated. PROPOSED BURGER KING DRAWING AREA EASTERN LIMIT DRAWING AREA WESTERN LIMIT - EXISTING MCDONALD'S a , 4 ...n ' 11'�•titi.. a_' - /ice -, `� �,\ �. �`� -- ,>-� \� ', , Riverhead -��- s r f , , % .. r - Gardiners Bay _ :S.6V Little' • •r -. _;, Peconic Bay,. — - �` Great `- M r Peconic Bay /=•; �, - �y `� -: Iy 4rt 6�r ,j"\[c� orrn. �A �.,,w.�.. 1/• `ti. .. f� "�wr hrl /�t r_ _ •' .qu+... ly�`"' ) �.111-r. �l J�s�� -. =`--- �. (� '"„�, �'"� .�r Vim.. , �.- -�,� _I /-;�•,r�,, 'il •�.� Shinnecock Bay ' �� °" � .�' •" •,� '� •Morches Bay �.,.._,s;,,a�1f•�., � r �---- _ P�. + tee„-_...—_ Block Island Sound -. L t b CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES 1. SOUTHOLD 2. PECONIC 3. CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK 4. MATTITUCK FIGURE 1 s. LAUREL 6. JAMESPORT DRAWING AREA 7. NORTHVILLE PROPOSED BURGER KING MA"TUCK PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN 20%OUT 80% IN 46% OUT 46% IN 20%IN \ 80%O IT b4%IN � 1 PRIMARY TRIPS=30% PASS-BY TRIPS=70% FROM EAST TO EAST=80% FROM EAST TO WEST=46% .80x.30= .24=24% .46 x.70=.322 = 32% FROM WEST TO WEST= 20% FROM WEST TO EAST= 54% .20x.30= .06,=06% .54 x.70= .378 = 38% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING r FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST. 6% 24% 6% 24% +38% +32% +32% +38% 44% 56% 38% 62% FIGURE 2 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS Comment Capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes in trip generation/seating capacity an directional distribution. Level of service should be arrayed for easy review. Response No changes were required due to trip generation or seating capacity. However, as stated, some of the capacity analyses were recalculated to account for a minor change in directional distribution. The results all analyses, presented in Table 2, indicate that no undue traffic impact will occur as a result of the construction of the proposed Burger King Restaurant. We trust that the foregoing successfully addresses any concerns regarding traffic engineering aspects of the project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please contact me. Sincerely, Vincent Corrado . Engineer VC/jh L930553 TO EAST TO WEST Peconic 1309 Mattituck (20%) 889 Southold 5540 Laurel (90%) 1015 Cutchogue 3082 Northville (20%) 686 Mattituck (80%) 3553 Jamesport (70%) 837 Laurel (10%) 113 3427 13,597 TABLE 1 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED BURGER KING MATTITUCK 1993 1994 1994 LOCATION TIME EXISTING NO-BUILD BUILD Route 25 at Factory A.M. A A A Avenue/Sigsbee Rd. MID C C D Northbound Approach P.M. D D D SAT. E E E Route 25 at A.M. C C C Bray Avenue MID D D D P.M. D B D SAT. D D D Route 25 at Laurel A.M. B B B Lake Drive MID D D D P.M. A A A SAT. D D E Route 25 at Western A.M. N/A N/A A Site Driveway (Enter MID N/A N/A A only) P.M. N/A N/A B SAT. N/A N/A C Route 25 at Eastern A.M. N/A N/A D Site Driveway (Exit MID N/A N/A E only) P.M. N/A N/A E SAT. N/A N/A !_ N/A = Not applicable Levels of service are for combined sidestreet apparoaches, except where noted. TABLE 2 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED BURGER KING MATTITUCK i 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-13-93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD BURGER KING MATTITUCK 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 12 1 -- THRU 466 504 0 -- RIGHT 9 0 1 -- NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LANES 1 1 2 -- ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-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 0. 00 90 20 N SOUTHBOUND ----- --- --- - VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND --- --- --- CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS NB 6. 10 6. 10 0. 00 6. 10 MAJOR LEFTS WB 5. 30 5. 30 0. 00 5. 30 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0. 00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-13-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD BURGER KING MATTITUCK CAPACITY AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE Page-3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT v(pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------- -------- --------- ------------ ------------ --- MINOR STREET NB LEFT 1 144 142 142 141 D RIGHT 1 523 523 523 521 A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 15 640 640 640 626 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-13-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD BURGER KING MATTITUCK ti SUBUR HIUHTAIG LU � INAIRE ,, Night is bdghter with the Sentry S LJ B 'N L,, The Sentry SUB-NI_ is a'roadway post-top luminaire precisel ";•,5• y '::.y_�, .,; tailored to the natural flux of today's mercury and high-pressure sodium lamps, A prismatic refractor completely encloses a vertically positioned lamp (or effective light control.The four light-transmitting side panels-are made of indestructible Lexano for highly effective protection of the lamp and refractor assembly. Y Full visual environment The prismatic refractor of the SUB-NL yields soft, uniform light that illuminates the nearby roadway, the sidewalk and the surrounding grounds. Yet it is expressly designed to prevent excess glare and flashing of unwanted light into nearby residential windows, thereby respecting the privacy of nearby homes. Uniform distribution The SUB-NIL can be supplied with LES, Type III or V light distribution to satisfy all of your street, walkway; and roadway needs. Further versatility can be built into this *Versatile for ost•tr> > ;� li- luminaire by selecting any of several shades of color for the p i pp vandal-resistant lens panels, including blue, blue-green, and cations. Slip-fitter accomo- bronze. dates a 3-inch diameter post- Further characteristics and specifications are to be found on the top tenon. other side of this catalog sheet, $Positive screw latching makes relamping and maintenance safe and simple. luminaire interior is fully, instantly accessible, •Lower maintenance cci5ts; replaceable acrylic band refractor easily drops into luminaire; and low-cost lens- panels made of indestruc. tible LexanO arc easily :replaced. *Prisms on refractor spread light evenly over a broad area, not just under the lamp post. *No unwanted light in nearby residential windows. A unique combination of radial and circular prisms form a ��. •� prismatic shield at the verb-* cal angles necessary toj prevent light ftoin entering windows. l MODELS AVAII LE. WATTS MODEL - WATTS MODEL. MERCURY HIGH,PRESSURE SODIUM 100 SUB/NL-100 NPF TRIGGER START SUB/NL-100 CWA 50 SUB/NL-50 HPS/ST :..•�.:• . 175 $UB/NL-175 NPF 70 SUB/NL-70 HPS/ST SUB/NL-175 CWA 100 SUB/NL-100 HPS/ST 250 SUB/NL.250 tiff 150 SUB/NL-150/55 HPS/ST . SUs/NL-M CWA 150 SUEIML-150/100 HPS/ST HIGIi"PAESSURE SAUIUM 'METAL HALIDE FE"J.NG START 175 SUB/Ni-175 MH VA 150 • SUB/NL-150 HPS/SP SPECIFICATION 250 SUB/NL-250 MH LPA 21. SUB/N.L-215 HPS/SP The luminaire shall be Sentry Electric �U1ef' (model,I.E.S.Type,and voltage) 1. Voltages available: 120,208, 240,277,u:480. Please specify voltage. consisting Of cast aluminum housing 2. Add suffix R to model number for photo cuntlol receptacle. Othersr•ise Pineal will be Supplied, and hood;with hood hinged one side and secured on opposite side with captive screw; integrally mounted Is dole. prewired ballast and porcelain mogul ntetnt dole. ,Ilsu ata�ldtlle for u1hel t�.f.o.lamf>s.1 socket with lamp grips and photo control receptacle;acrylic band ISOLUX LUAIIHAIRE `' refractor of appropriate LE.S. . d1te.1}.teurr hu.r1.b7a5n T indestructible Lexan®side pane ls ; S$BN.175-2U A cast slipfitter suitable for 3-inch o,d, �fl2 IES TYPE YYY tenon; and corrosion-resistant hard- ] iA►+PH39-KB 1.75 c:lcar ware. Dimensions are 21T/2-in.high, I LUMENS 7340 16-in.wide,16-in,deep.Maximum -.oz 7 WATTS 125 weight 24 pounds,depending on 0V twRM"POSITIONVe.TL'1E:p1 ballast,Wind load projected area 1.6 :.__..._ _ ._. .. _�_ �.� square feet, MOUNTING HEIGHT CORRECTION FACTORS TO OIT'AIN ILLVMINA7101! VALUES Ai OTHER MOUNTINO HEIGHTS $o UTILIZATION �a A IKItAU..I HEW rIADO VAluts IAt ONC S ACROSS STIIEETI SASED ON I I SEtICIID MOVNT" HEM -d0 AM CATI COESPONO" ►Oi1110H ON CNAAI A OtltMwrt FOOTCANOtt o to VAIVT r •,'p 11.MUI101Y tHls 1oorcANUlt vAttn T+ /10o1-.Str;,A Side lI hint FOA Htw "UNnHO I• HIIuX, Q I lA� YOUh IIN(, Y•SO .ZD I I ._nl iGN1 IACIQ •� 10 rt . 2.25 .S I 12 1 .50 so 1 I .1 •1S H e Silt' 2 — — - - - — 15 I .co. 1 f' (:EI to 3 .24 �56 S' rsa y DATA FROM E354-247 D 1 3 4 j •VuIICOMAAJA•LOL.K� w� L"rSt_V1~MAILt�rr• . APPR.IT iA+.cwoi.IMr«a AAw Ot D 1 3 A 6 DATE 6/7/7] Iui»iiti:.Ii~%w/worowtI A "`huloua,n. AA 110 �lCtiO!/ RELATED DATA SKETS F[[iiG�iT+1l $NKID SS9N-10 SONSentry Electric Corporation 185 Buffalo Avenue Freeport, New York 11520 Telephone(516)379-4660 8 0 lzx- q G � Z7 . 1, 00, ti� ,. i ��� dew y J .�, .� ZX _ Ju­6r/L . WARD ASSOCIATES, � v. � r Landscape Architects, Arco FAX;nglneefs X r S" T L 1500 Lakeland Avenue BOHEMIA, NEW YORK 11716 -- Fax. (516) 563-480 ' : (616) 5634800 TO - _..,_.._... — - - , NUMBER OF PAGES iNCLUDING TRANSMITTAL I > WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Undor separate cover via—,-._.,,, __,,,.,,,_.- .,,,,,,,._,the following items: 0 Shop drawings 0 Prints 0 Plans C_1 Samples L'] .Specifications 0 Copy of letter CD Change order GJ COPIES DAIFE No. OESCRIPTION l ............... M,......,._ -..._._...... ...._ .. THESE ARE TRANStvjIrTEb as checked below: 0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted f i fZesubmit__.Copies for approval 0 For your use ❑ Approved as noted 0 Submit Copies for distribution > 0 As requested L7 Rc-turned for Corrections I'] Return—corrected prints 0 For rovicw and comment Cl -----___-.. 0 FOR SIDS DUE 19 : C] PRINTS RFTLIRNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS l I 1 :11V COPY TO_ - SIGNED: P Arm Ao JA F _ .� 31 532 PL 4 4 �A ry � NoPak 7.*, 3- It 6' 6rLE� I �Exce�ioR STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY JAMES A.HUZI.OS%I HAUPPAUGE,N.Y. 11788 JOHN C.EGAN REGIONAL DUCECTOR COB04LSMONER November 9, 1993 Mr. Vincent Corrado Dunn Engineering Associates 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, NY 11788 Dear Mr. Corrado: Our Case No. 90-393 Burger King Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Your August 25, 1993 Submission The Department' s review of the subject Traffic Impact Study and site plan was coordinated by Mr. J. Lentini of my staff. Our comments are as follows: We do not agree with your assessment that a westbound left turn lane into this site is not needed. Although the projected left turn volumes into this site are lower than the projections of the previous applicant the existing 8 foot wide shoulder on the north side of Route 25 is insufficient to safely allow a westbound through vehicle to pass a standing vehicle waiting to turn into this site. A left turn lane must be installed as part of this project. Concerning observations presented on page 30 of your report regarding the lack of left turn standing lanes on Route 25 in this area, please be advised the installation of a continuous two-way left turn lane is currently in our work program for the section of Route 25 east of your site. This section begins west of Factory Avenue and continues easterly to east of Bay Avenue. This work is scheduled for our 1994 pavement marking program. The site plan prepared by Architect Donald A. Dennis must be revised as follows: IUN.Pi NOV 1 21M +� =v11ffl fI Mr. Vincent Corrad ` page 2 November 9, 1993 1. Provide standard drop type curb cuts at both driveways. 2 . Remove the existing drainage basin on the east side of the exit driveway. Install a new precast drainage basin on the existing pipe at the low point and a drainage basin east and west of the low point of the road. Show the grades along Route 25 . 3 . Attached is a marked plan sheet for your use. Also attached is a copy of our plan sheet showing the positive drainage system in the area. 4 . Provide regulatory signing at the proposed curb cuts onto Route 25 ie: "Stop" "One Way" and "Do Not Enter" signs as necessary. All signs must be reflectorized and conform to the M.U.T.C.D. They must also be installed in accordance with the attached installation detail sheet. Show the installation details on the plans. 5. Roadway Improvement and pavement striping plans must be submitted for the construction of a westbound left turn lane and any necessary widening on Route 25 . Kindly submit 10 sets of roadway improvement plans addressing the comments presented above. Send these plans to Mr. Vito Lena, our Regional Permit Engineer at the above address. Refer to our case number in all correspondence. Very truly ygurs, Original Signed By JAMES 0. FREIN JAMES O. FREIN Regional Traffic Engineer cc: V4s. Valerie Scopaz JOF:JL:BT Attachment PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS v Via. ,�� SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �� y 7 ^��d Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. P.O. Box 1179 Mark S.-McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD November 5, 1993 George T. Woodhull, Chairman Board of Fire Commissioners Mattituck Fire District P.O. Box 666, 1000 Pike Street Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 .1 Dear Mr. Woodhull, The Planning Board has received your letter of October 19, 1993 . The well site should be on the Property of Burger King. Please, review this request and respond in writing with the findings of your review. If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact this office. (2;a gd . ' W ard Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS :t �l Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman ;, ^emu✓' �� ' George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �� <'; Town Hall, 53095 Main Road ' �1 Bennett Orlowski,Jr. �.� P. O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 3 , 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Road (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cuddy- The Planning Board has received its consultants report on the above referenced project, (copy enclosed) . Please provide additional data as requested under section four of the EAF analysis and summary section of the traffic analysis as follows: 1. Additional detail on the handling of solid waste. 2 . Means of minimizing potential erosion of steep slope areas in excess of 30 percent. 3 . Recalculate trips based on an 86 seat facility. 4. The analysis to determine directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. 5 . Capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes in trip generation/seating capacity and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. If you have any questions, or require further information, please co act this office, inc rely, i ar` G. Ward e Chairman Encl. cc: Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector In Charge Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals E 4 ER V �AH` � '�' aJCIATES CRAM ' ENVIRONMENT !'� `\ G CONSULTANTS FAX TRANSMITTNALT Fax dumber (516) 331-8046 Date: /0 --2q -- )3 To: _,'7V A 1, From: Num.6r. of Pages (including c,-vcr): If the total transmittal Is not received call (S16) 311-I465 Comments: r/U 54-2 NORTH COUNTRY ROAM. MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 • 'CRAMER, V /""X � / . OCIATES ENVIRONMENT ���{VG CONSULTANTS October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G. 'Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Tall, S3Q95 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Bur&er King Restaurant Review of Long EAIF and Traffic Study SC'd JA No. 1000-122-7.3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: As pi-�r the your request,we have completed aRreti.-inF revie:v of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. 1asks and completed actu"'ities are identified as fof lows: 1. Revhw Part t LEAF _ The parcel.has been field inspected by CIA, and the LEAS, has been re,riewed and amended as necessary, A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part 17 LEAF The :Part T LEAF checklist has been completed avid is also attache-di. Additionalinformation concerning our findings is included below. 3. Envu•orunental and Flanning Conaideratiora The parcel has been inspected and envirommental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 3 acres of overgrown teid that is currently vacant. The proposal involves site plan -approval fora Buy�ger King Restaurant. The site is zoned General Business (B). The use is perrnissibl.e in accordance with a special exception ppreviously approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a similar use on the site. The subject parcel is comprised of steep r,'sh2g torography loin Main Road south to a plateau. Some localized slopes attain 30 percent; however, the majorityof this area ranges from 12 to 1$ percent slo v, 'lhe ;!;-; , d P P pth to ,7o�,nda .ter is appr6ximately 19 feet and there are no wetlands or unique flora or fauna associated with the site. The ;cite lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV but is,not,.within the North Fork Water Budget Area. ne area west of the site is identified as bring subject to elevated nitrogen levels and the area south of and including the subject site is identified as having aldicarb..coutamination %is a result of fdzxnir_•g activities. A test well located on the subject Site and sampled in 1990 indicated iron and manganese in excess of dri Lang water limitations; however, other constituents were within an acceptable range. Water supply is proposed to be from an on site source and on-site sanitary disposal is proposed, tiV;�ter supply w;11 regre appro��;d of the source, County Department of Health Services; however, i iron/manganese removal is 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 Burger icing @ Mattituck Long P-A-P Rcvicw pprovided it appears as though the source •rill be acceptable. the mug :A part I indicatcs a water use of 2,5e0 gpllons per day. Ar•d& 6 l nibs on size discharge to 900 gallons per day, therefore, the discharge of nitrogen bearing waste is assumed to be less than 900 gallons.`This would involve a split flow szgregatm.g non-nitrogenMtchen (fires,,water)waster from sazait'; waste. Regardless, the approval of the SuNlk C unity Department of Health �ervices for water supply aYd sanitary diposal should be demonstrated prior to sigaina of the site plan. The:,proposed site use t-g-ludeA a drive-in Nvffidow that was included Ln the arior appplicatton for the site. This is consistent with the 'board of Zor�vr Appeals decision. The;project will generate significant trafCe, and a traffic impact st sly'hU s been prep.aced and submitted in connection with the project. A separate review of the traffic study has been completed by CVA and is included as Attachment A. Ile 1project will likely generate significant solid waste, a concern e:pressed by the $ZA,in review of the prior application. The Long EAF indicates that such waste will "rot be disposed of in Southold Sanitary Landfill 4. Recommendations It is recosmended that theyroposed use be compared to the BZLA decision to ensure con!tfflance with the Special Exception. 'file a� iac,'t t should provide a dd.itional detail o' the handling of solid waste in order tc ensure that VA solid waste handling capacity of the Town is not exacerbated. The applicant should provide a means of minimizing potential erosion of steep slope areas in excess of 30 percent. 'The pitch of the la d and proxirn ty to i9�-lain oad cause: concern for sediment transport,durir g comt—ruction ctiyat,es. 'X"ne sit- pIa;� shou;'d indicate a means of avoiding this situation. The Ixaffic study provides information regarding existing tr�c volumes Drooject t,-i generation, traffic disL�ibutiou and level of service. The traffic SrUT* aas Seen P reviewed in detail and.included as Attachraent A. It is recomm-ndod that tha recommendations of the traffic impact study review be Meowed• SMIRS approval of water supply and sanitary waste, diposal should be den:otistrated prior to sipping of the site plan. . The project calls for a use that appears to be in corfor nance %,Ath the Boaxd of Zoning Appeals Special Exception allowing the construction of a f;st-food restaurant on the subject site. Several minor issues are in need of additional Aatorinadon or clan—cation• These items are noted above in -subsection 4 of this 1�;ttyr. if tht� I'lanaing 'board is in agreement, the applicant should be directed to provide thi; information e thex during a hearing on Che site plan or o4 a supplement prior to schdcluling of the site plan he�;ng• I believe that if this information is Addressed to the Safisfak-t-lon of the plaj=g 'board, a Negative Declaration will be appropriate. We would be pleased to rer iew a&!tional information at your request. CRAMER, V \\1SOCIATES Page 2 ENVIRONMENT �_ � `\ G CONSULTANTS a Burger King 0 I`iattitucl, ?long EAF Review If you have an questions or wish any der input with regard to this utter,please do not hesitate to call. Very tr` YiYo -,IS, �.. AZT,es J. rhis,CEP,AICp CRAMER, V I \ f�` SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT �' // \�1G CONSULTANTS page 3 . `' r '� •7 C a us'� ..n � . .. . •� r, � � • :. .• /�. Tluracr KilL3 @ Mattituck Long EAIT�Rninv CRAMER, V \fi. SOCIATES Wage 4 ENVIRONMENT yG CONSULTANTS ." RAMER V 12ur �,� g ENVIRONMENT l ONSULTANTS . October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G.Ward, Chairman - Southold Plwam'no Board Town 144 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Revs.-.w of,Burger icing @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study SCEW No. 1000.122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Ward: At your request, we have reviewed the Traiac Impact Study for the above rue'renced project. A summary of tre study is as follows: Stvdv.Aooro� The report was prepared using sound tragic eugiucericg practices and followed t¢w analytical methcdology detailed is the 1955 Highway Capacity INIanual. Selected cslc:lotions vier e the key d using HCM software and the results were consistent with the report. Gra d4—&s�P.b t_Dl.tanQ The NYS Route 25 rig hi-of--way in the vicinity of the progo°cd p:oj;ct i$�;encrally Eat with gentle horizontal highway curves oa Route 25. Thus,no sight distance restrictions result,provided adequate turning lanes and radius'are provided at the site mess/egress. r�lsl,�t 1Resords __--- New)'or:State Departrnexit of Tzansportatioa accidents rccor&were neq rcne�for the most r ee .ut three clear accident b1story that was available. Location and f equency 61 ac6 dcras din not revea; Lay high a xideut locations. Dlrectlonal >Dlstrfbt�tlon ' In determining the origins and dcstivatioas for site generated tra.E'ic, a directions-distribution was performed utilizing census inforumtioa from the pubUcadou'Population Su,-if and from t�rni,g movement eouots at key intersection.;nearby. It would be help fid to see the acids'arurysir=d the components of the generated and pass-by trips in t ie distribution. n.. e conclusion of 6203"o, ed r:E trc;rc turning right wid 88Po' tuning left is not apparent and should be supYo,-W. Generated'�-afffc A sound approach to determining trip generation was empl3;•cd by conducting studies at existias Burger King's located in Rocky Point and Southampton. Empirical data was collected to calculate worst case gener2 tion rates using the larger of the obscived rate per?,GCS?SF of gfoss floor area or the ob5crved rate per restaurant s:at. The Southampton Burger ring generated higher traffic rates and since volt=cs on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site axe lower that those at tho Southampton site, this is a conservative approach. Xowei,er, the trip volumes generated for the proposed?,fattitucic sit;, tiring the 50wh=peon roves apptiar to be based on 78 seats,not the 86 seats slated on the,accornpanSdng site plan. If 4.6 seats►s a. irterdzd plan, 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 - Binger sting Q Mattituck Traffic Impact Study the ger=ied tnp volumes would increase by 10% P�3aa.1� � • The report dies studios on the amount Of traf is diverted to a tyj)ical EugerKing fv ciEit;from the existing traffic stream. A 40%pass-by credit was,s0ccted as an average valae Mora the range og values obscnl.,d and is acceptable Ps a reasonable assumption. Trips generated by the proposed facility were assigned to the local roadway uctwork is accordance with the du•ecdonal distn'bution previously determined. Net volumes were assiLmzd after the pass-by credit was applied. Please note that cross volumes were entered onto FYm s 4,1--Sat a fern turn 10Ccdons but net Nolum,s were ultimatety used for the capacity arwlyses so no errors were i.:tr,4xed IWIN tAtt��d IserQe*+tnn t'Auacitt•;na1 sig The methodology employed to evaluate the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility i3 the accepted procedure for ttnsignalized intersecdons detailed in the 1935 Highway Capacity M-antiA Tho analysis determines the lengths of the gaps necesew-y to safely execute given tur=, g moveme=and how many such gaps vdst is the tra fiic stream during the anal}sis period. Tl<r, g►arni. movamient demands are than compared to the availability of corresponding gaps. '11hcsc aaalpsrs Were,L%Utormed for(f) 199;existing conditions,(2)projected 1994 No-Build conditions, and(3) the 1594 Build scenario. ne results indicate sW icient gaps in G•aflic to permit sale ingress and egress at th;,site driveways and nearby iatersc.ctions. . It Is suggested that the gap Sufficiency and level of service results of these anai,,ses be a�da}zd for c=,,,r evaluation and convboradon of eonclusiom in the te--V that".. Clem e Will be a sufj:chunt rmm: er of gaps in the tral frc flow to allow for safe ingress and egress at the itucrsecrons and the site driveways. It shotdd be noted that these analyses were bawd on traffic counts taken during the summer monibs of 1990. The time of year for data coLecGon is appropriate for a conservative aaal;"is,ot;t the counts ase three pears old. Although not stated in the report,the counts were,dju$t:.1 3 o per yea:for a total upward adjastsneut of 97o. More recent traffic counts are,prcfcrable,but this method of adjustment is acceptable. Aomm- Circulatlrw and ra-rls-inz Accros is provided by separate ingress and egess driveways with scpar ate left turn,.ad:i�t Grit lanes fbr the e:dt driveway. Geometries for acass,circulation and paring arc, dtu7ic:ent for good flow. Parking is provided in accordance with the To•,un of Southold cede,including laud-baA-ed stalls,with acceptable layout and dimensions suitable for comfortallo maneuvering. In summary, the traffic report examined potential impact; of t_1;', oxopposed project sufficient detail utilizing sound traffic engineering principles. used upon the analysis, it would appear that no adverse impacts would result frotrt i2nplementattOn Of the project. The traffic impact study is found to be acceptable with the following recoznmendatious: 1. Trips generated by the propdsed facilik should be re ',,)ased On an i✓fi seat facility as de icted on We site plan (u ess the applicant has revised seating propc►s,d to the 76 seats used in the trim gencratton :rraly sis). CRAMER, V I \ ' CIATES Page 2 Eh $' AS�4OG 8VIRONMENT CONSULTANTS -- . - n t + Burger K-173q @ NlattiVicl: 'traffic Impact Study 2. The analysis to determine the directional distriou d'on shio-ald v y pr,,-, ed and reassignments made if necessary. 3• 7'be a pacity analysis should be recalciJated U nece y based G any changes in trip generationJseating capacity and directionl distribution. revels of serVice should be arrayed for easy review. 4. The Town of Southold, in conjunction with the NYSIr .O`I', may,�-uh to require the constnicaon of a westbound left turn lane on;route 25 for improved trafzic safety and in anticipation of higher traffic volumes in tha future. `r appreciate the,opportunity to provide you-Mth this review. pease call if you have any questions. Very truly"YQ -- t-narles J. Voo,his,c-?,AjOP CRAMER, V Rfi /�'` SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT �9t_ , "� G CONSULTANTS / 11� CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G.Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Bur#er King Restaurant ? NOV 1993 Lo Review of ng EAF and Traffic Study '" r-- SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 i'�,'41 NNIIG BOARD Dear Mr.Ward: - Asper the your request,we have completed a preliminary review of the above referenced project in accordance with your request. Tasks and completed activities are identified as follows: 1. Review Part I LEAF The parcel has been field inspected by CVA, and the LEAF has been reviewed and amended as necessary. A copy of same is attached. 2. Prepare Part II LEAF The Part 11 LEAF checklist has been completed and is also attached. Additional information concerning our findings is included below. 3. Environmental and Planning Considerations The parcel has been inspected and environmental references concerning the site and area have been consulted. The site consists of 3 acres of overgrown field that is currently vacant. The proposal involves site plan approval for a Burger King Restaurant. The site is zoned General Business (B). The use is permissible in accordance with a special exception previously,approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals for a similar use on the site. The subject parcel is comprised of steep rising topography from Main Road south to a plateau. Some localized slopes attain 30 percent; however, the majority of this area ranges from 12 to 18 percent slope. The depth to groundwater is approximately 19 feet and there are no wetlands or unique flora or fauna associated with the site. The site lies in Groundwater Management Zone IV but is not within the North Fork Water Budget Area. The area west of the site is identified as being subject to elevated nitrogen levels and the area south of and including the subject site is identified as having aldicarb contamination as a result of farming activities. A test well located on the subject site and sampled in 1990 indicated iron and manganese in excess of drinking water limitations; however, other constituents were within an acceptable range. Water supply is proposed to be from an on site source, and on-site sanitary disposal is proposed. Water supply will regwire approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services; however, if iron/manganese removal is 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Burger King @ Mattituck Long EAF Review provided it appears as though the source will be acceptable. The Long EAF Part I indicates a water use of 2,580 gallons per day. Article 6 limits on site discharge to 900 gallons per day,therefore, the discharge of nitrogen bearing waste is assumed to be less than 900 gallons. This would involve a split flow segregating non-nitrogen kitchen (grey water)waste from sanitary waste. Regardless, the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for water supply and sanitary diposal should be demonstrated prior to signing of the site plan. The proposed site use excludes a drive-in window that was included in the prior application for the site. This is consistent with the Board of Zoning Appeals decision. The project will generate significant traffic, and a traffic impact study has been prepared and submitted in connection with the project. A separate review of the traffic study has been completed by CVA and is included as Attachment A. The project will likely generate significant solid waste, a concern expressed by the BZA in review of the prior application. The Long EAF indicates that such waste will "not be disposed of in Southold Sanitary Landfill". 4. Recommendations It is recommended that the proposed use be compared to the BZA decision to ensure compliance with the Special Exception. The applicant should provide additional detail on the handling of solid waste in order to ensure that the solid waste handling capacity of the Town is not exacerbated. The applicant should provide a means of In potential erosion of steep slope areas in excess of 30 percent. The pitch of the land and proximity to Main Road cause concern for sediment transport during construction activities. The site plan should indicate a means of avoiding this situation. The traffic study provides information regarding existing traffic volumes,project trip generation, traffic distribution and level of service. The traffic study has been reviewed in detail and included as Attachment A. It is recommended that the recommendations of the traffic impact study review be followed. SCDHS approval of water supply and sanitary waste diposal should be demonstrated prior to signing of the site plan. The project calls for a use that appears to be in conformance with the Board of Zoning Appeals Special Exception allowing the construction of a fast-food restaurant on the subject site. Several minor issues-are in need of additional information or clarification. These items are noted above in subsection 4 of this letter. If the Planning Board is in agreement, the applicant should be directed to provide this information either during a hearing on the site plan or as a supplement prior to scheduling of the site plan hearing. I believe that if this information is addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Board, a Negative Declaration will be appropriate. We would be pleased to review additional information at your request. CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Paget ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Burger King @ Mattituck Long EAF Review If you have any questions or wish any further input with regard to this matter,please do not hesitate to call. yo s, Very is,CEP,AICP CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Burger King @ Mattituck Long EAF Review ATTACHMENT A TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY REVIEW CRAMER, V eA OCIATES ENVIRONMENG CONSULTANTS CRAMER, V RH SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS October 29, 1993 Mr. Richard G.Ward, Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Review of Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr.Ward: At your request,we have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study-for the above referenced project.A summary of the study is as follows: Study Approach The report was prepared using sound traffic engineering practices and followed the analytical methodology detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Selected calculations were checked using HCM software and the results were consistent with the report. Grades&Sight Distance The NYS Route 25 right-of-way in the vicinity of the proposed project is generally flat with gentle horizontal highway curves on Route 25. Thus,,no sight distance restrictions result,provided adequate turning lanes and radius'are provided at the site ingress/egress. Accident Records New York State Department of Transportation accidents records were researched for the most recent three year accident history that was available. Location and frequency of accidents did not reveal any high accident locations. Directional Distribution In determining the origins and destinations for site generated traffic,a directional distribution was performed utilizing census information from the publication"Population Survey"and from turning movement counts at key intersections nearby. It would be helpful to see the actual analysis and the components of the generated and pass-by trips in the distribution. The conclusion of 62%exiting traf 7c turning right and 38%turning left is not apparent and should be supported Generated Traffic A sound approach to determining trip generation was employed by conducting studies at existing Burger King's located in Rocky Point and Southampton. 'Empirical data was collected to calculate worst case generation rates using the larger of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area or the observed rate per restaurant seat. The Southampton Burger King generated higher traffic rates and since volumes on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Southampton site,this is a conservative approach. However, the trip volumes generated for the proposed Mattituck site using the Southampton rates appear to be based on 78 seats,not the 86 seats stated on the accompanying site plan: If 86 seats is the intended plan, 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study the generated trip volumes would increase by 10%. Pass-by Traffic The report cites studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a typical Burger King facility from the existing traffic stream. A 40%pass-by credit was selected as an average value from the range of values observed and is acceptable as a reasonable assumption. Ift Assignment Trips generated by the proposed facility were assigned to the local roadway network in accordance with the directional distribution previously determined. Net volumes were assigned after the pass-by credit was applied Please note that gross volumes were entered onto Figures 4&5 at a few tum locations but net volumes were ultimately used for the capacity analyses so no errors were introduced Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis The methodology employed to evaluate the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the accepted procedure for unsignalized intersections detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis determines the lengths of the gaps necessary to safely execute given turning movements and how many such gaps exist in the traffic stream during the analysis period. The turning movement demands are then compared to the availability of corresponding gaps. These analyses were performed for(1) 1993 existing conditions,(2)projected 1994 No-Build conditions,and(3)the 1994 Build scenario. The results indicate sufficient gaps in traffic to permit safe ingress and egress at the site driveways and nearby intersections. It is suggested that the gap sufficiency and level of service results of these analyses be arrayed for easier evaluation and corroboration of conclusions in the text that"... there will be a sufficient number of gaps in the traffic flow to allow for safe ingress and egress at the intersections and the site driveways." It should be noted that these analyses were based on traffic counts taken during the summer months of 1990. The time of year for data collection is appropriate for a conservative analysis,but the counts are three years old. Although not stated in the report,the counts were adjusted 3%per year for a total upward adjustment of 9%. More recent traffic counts are preferable,but this method of adjustment is acceptable. Access.Circulation and Parking Access is provided by separate ingress and egress driveways with separate left turn and right turn exit lanes for the exit driveway. Geometrics for access,circulation and parking are sufficient for good flow. Parking is provided in accordance with the Town of Southold code,including land-banked stalls,with acceptable layout and dimensions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. In summary, the traffic report examined potential impacts of the proposed project in sufficient detail utilizing sound traffic engineering principles. Based upon the analysis, it would appear that no adverse impacts would result from implementation of the project. The traffic impact study is found to be acceptable with the following recommendations: 1. Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on an 86 seat facility as depicted on the site plan(unless the applicant has revised the seating proposal to the 76 seats used in the trip generation analysis). CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Burger King @ Mattituck Traffic Impact Study 2. The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. 3. The capacity analysis should be recalculated if necessary based on any charges in trip generation/seating capacity and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. 4. The Town of Southold, in conjunction with the NYSDOT, may wish to require the construction of a westbound left turn lane on Route 25 for improved traffic safety and in anticipation of higher traffic volumes in the future. We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with this review. Please call if you have any questions. Very trul ur arles J. Voo 's,CEP,AICP CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Page ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS Burger Sing @ Mattituck Long EAF Review ATTACHMENT B LONG EAF PARTS I & H CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT / G CONSULTANTS PART 1—PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor. t �_z.aa -. NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may'fi'ave a si'grtificant effect . on the environment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to._(ftese d estionsrilih. b.e.cons.idered as part of the application for approval and may be subject-to further verification and public review. Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or investigation. If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and specify each instance. NAME OF ACTION COFAM REALTY , owner of Property for Proposed Fast-Food Restaurant LOCATION OF ACTION(Includa Straat Addrasa,Munlclpallly and County) Main Road ( State Route 25 ) Mattituck , Town of Southold , Suffolk County NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR BUSINESS TELEPHONE COFAM REALTY , Owner ( 516 _ 0 ADDRESS c/o Charles R . Cuddy CITYIPO STATE 19 DI 180 Old Coattry Road , Riverhead , NAME OF OWNER(II dllluiunt) BUSINESS TELEPHONE Same ( ) ADDRESS CITYIPO STATE ZIP CODE DESCRIPTION OF ACTION Site plan .for proposed fast-food restaurant in accordance with applicable zoning and other applicable laws and regulations . ( See site plans submitted ) ' Also see Conditioned Negative Declaration by Southold Town. Planning Board dated 2/5/91 for a restaurant at this site Please Complete Each Queslion—Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: []Urban Olndustrial ❑Commercial []Residential (suburban) ®Rural (non-farm) ❑Forest ❑Agriculture ❑Other 2. Total acreage of project area: 3 acres.. APPROXINtATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COh4PLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) 3 acres 0 acres Forested acres acres Agricultural (includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc.) acres acres Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acres Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acres Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 0 acres 1 • 1 acres Other (Indicate type) Landscaped area 0 acres 1 • 9 acre 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Loam and sand v 0 a. Soil drainage: NWell drained 100 of site QModerately well drained % of site ❑Poorly drained % of site b. If any agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil gro t rough 4 of the NYS Land Classification System? —0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? OYes ®No a. What is depth to bedrock? (in feet) d pprox;mate percentage of imposed project site with slopes: 7,0-.10':u _ 95� ?o ._lt)-.(�% 2-1/2 -15% or greater 2-1/2 % . q° 6. Is project substantially contiguous a or contain a building, site, or district, listed on the State or the National Registers of t-iistoric Places? ❑Yes 11S;No 7. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register of National Natural Landmarks? :,Yes )�X_No 8. What is the depth of the water table? (in feet) *�� 7f7'Pit�j( 9. Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? ®Yes L)No 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist In the project area? Dyes 11. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened oorN endangered? Oyes ®No According toi¢ Identify each species �n0 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations Oyes RINo Describe ) -1 3. Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an, open space or recreation area? Oyes ONO If yes, explain 14. Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? Dyes UNo 15. Streams within or contiguous to project area: none 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 none 17. Is the site served b existing b. Size (In acres) Y b public utilities? INYes ❑No a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? ®Yes ONO b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection? ®Yes ❑No 18. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Marke.fs Law, Article 25-AA, Section 303 and 304? Oyes ONO 19. Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 617? Oyes ERNo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? Dyes "10 B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled b b. Project acreage to be developed: —_a Y Project sponsor 0 acres. p acres initially; 3 ' C. Project acreage to remain undeveloped Q - -- acres ultimately. ----_ acres. d. Length of project, .in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed --- /°; f. Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed _ 55 ( &1 5 ). ° G. Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour 1---7 6—.(upon completion of project)? h. If residential: Number and type of housing units: One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially --- Ultimately --- i. Dimensions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 23' _ height; 42' 75' b width: length. j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy is? 371 ft. 3 2. How ►such natural mate rial'(i.t.. or k. earth, etc.) will be removed from the site?$,400 MKs/cubic yards 3. Will disturbed areas he reclaimed? Mes DNo ❑N/A a. If yes, for what intend.... purpose is the site being reclaimed/ landscaped, parking, restaurant b. Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? QYes DNo C. Will upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? OYes EINo 4. How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 1-112 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? Dyes ®No 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 4 months, (including demolition). 7. If multi-phased: a. Total number of phases anticipated (number). b: Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 -�_ month year, (including demolition). c. Approximate completion date of final phase month d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? Dyes DNo year. B. WIII blasting occur during construction? Dyes CINo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 35 --_; after project is complete 40 10. Number of jobs eliminated by tills project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Dyes ®No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? Dyes E]No a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount . b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Mes DNo Type ; Domestic sewage 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? Dyes Mo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain? Dyes ®No 16. Will the project generate solid waste? C9?e5 DNo a. If yes, what is the amount per month 1_ tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? Dyes Flo C. If yes, give name location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal'System or into a sanitary landfill? Wes DNo e. If Yes, explain not to be dis sed of in Southold Sanitary landfill 17. Will the project involve the disppsal of solid waste? Dyes IUNo a. If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? tons/month. b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ________ years. " 18. Will project use herbicides or pesticides? Dyes ®No 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? Dyes k7No 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? Oyes' MNo 21. WIII project result in an increase in energy use? ElYes ONO If yes , indicate type(s) ElecLrical 22. If water'supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 20 gallons/minute. 23. Total anticipated water usage per day __ 25Df1 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve local, State or Federal funding? Dyes ®No If Yes, explain 4 Approaats Requr•ed: Submittal Type Date City, Town: 1.'ill,.;e Board =::Yes 0No City, Town. Village Planning Board MYe, []No Site Plan (Amended) 3/ /93 City, Town Zoning Board ZYes t7No Special Exception Approved City, County Health Department [v-Yes ONo Commercial 8/ /93 Other Local Agencies MYes ONo - Zoning certification - Building3/ 93 Other Regional Agencies Dyes ®No Depar men State Agencies ®Yes ONo NYS Dept. of Transportation / /93 Federal Agencies OYes ®No C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? 61Yes ONo If Yes, indicate decision'required: ❑zoning amendment ❑zoning variance C9special use permit ❑subdivision ®site plan Onew/revision of master plan ❑resource management plan Oother 2. What is the zoning classification(s)of the site? B general business' 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the present zoning? _Lot coverage - 30% 4. What is the proposed zoning of the site? same 5. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? ®Yes ONo 7. What are the predominant land uses) and zoning classifications within a 1/4 mile radius of proposed action? _ B L 1.O R-80 A-C, P,-4 0 8. Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a '/4 mile? ®Yes ONo 9. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? --- a. What is the minimum lot size proposed? N/-A 10. Will proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer.or water districts? ❑Yes UNo 11 . Will the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation, education, police, fire protection)? ®Yes ❑No a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? Mes ONo 12. Will the proposed action result*in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? Dyes ®No a. If yes, is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ❑Yes ONo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or avoid them. RC-V/C-3VL-'0 Z Y: E. Verification o Irq- �nrs v�r�f->vr ,u y certify that the information provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant!Sponsor game COFAM REALTY Date 8/02o /93 Signature _ Title Owner If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a stale agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 5 r Part 2—. ..OJECT IMPACTS AND THEIF AGNITUDE r Responsibility of lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my responses and Atterminations been reasonable) The reviewer is note expected to be an expert environmental analyst. • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significam. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3.to determine significance. Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3. • The impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examples are:illustrative and have been offered as guidance.They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question. • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. • • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlative effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a. Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any impact b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. if impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1. d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s)in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible. This _.must be explained in Part 3. 1 2 3 Small.to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By ac�t_ IMPACT ON LAND - ----- - - rmp Impact Project Change 1 . Will the proposed action result in a physical change to die ONO o� YES Examples that would apply to column 2 X ❑ Dyes ❑No • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No 3 feet- 9 Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction on land where-bedrock is exposed or generally within ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 3 feet of existing ground surface. ❑ Dyes ❑No •-Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more ❑ than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect v. _ay unique or unusual landgris found on the site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etcO OYES ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Specific land forms: ❑ r . 2 3 Si to Potential Can Impact Be • Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Protect Change • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage pattems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will allow development in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON #IR 7. Will proposed action affect air quality? ><NO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No hour. • Proposed Action will. result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed S lbs. per hour or. a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No heat source producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount of land committed ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS r' 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or ends ge ed species? ANNO . OYES Examples that viould apply to column 2 ' • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threat or non-endangered species? O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any residebt -or ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No migratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. • Proposed Action requires the removal of mor@ than 10 acres ❑ El ❑Yes ❑No of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action affect agricultural land reso roes? XNO OYES Examples that would ,apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 t 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be IMPACT ON WATER Moderate Large Mitigated By 3 Will proposed action affect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24,25 of the Environmental ConserV, NO .on LawOYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Developable area of site contains a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ' ONO • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of materiaFfrom channel of a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO protected stream. Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO .4. Will.proposed action affect any non-protected existi rr new body of water? YES Examples that would apply to column 2 e A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of .water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO' or more than a 10 acre.increase or decrease. • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO S. Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater NO DYES quality or quantity? Examples that would apply tq column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ - ❑ Dyes ONO have approval to.serve proposed.(project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater than 45 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO gallons per minute pumping dapacity. • Construction or operation causing any contamination of'a water ❑ ❑ [:]Yes ONO supply system. • Proposed-Action.will adversely affect groundwater. ❑ ❑ Oyes ONO • Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to facilities which presently ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO do not exist or have inadequate.capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ ❑ ❑Yes []No day. • Proposed Action will like/•• cau3e siltation or other discharge into an ❑ Dyes ONO ❑ isual existing body of water ., the-ement that there will be an obvious v � contrast to natural conditions. • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ ❑ Yes ❑No products greater than 1,100 gallons. • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas'without water ❑ ❑ Oyes. ❑No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑Nc require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. ❑ ❑ Dyes ON( • Other impacts: I Will proposed. action alter drainage flow or pattern� �s/,r or surface J water runoff? NO OYES Ex2:nples that would apply to column 2 ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N • Proposed Action would change flood water flows. 2 3 S, to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No agricultural land. • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No of agricultural land or, if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2.5 acres of agricultural land. • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ El ❑Yes ❑No land management systems(e.g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping); or create a need for such measures (e.g. cause & farm. field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts: ❑ ❑Yes ❑No ❑ IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCE 11 . Will proposed action affect aesthetic. resources? O OYES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617.21, Appendix B.) Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, .or project components visible to usm of ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the' aesthetic qualities of that resource. . Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts: _ ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ONO IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of bistoric, pre- historic or paleontological importance? NO DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially_within or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National.Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No archaeological sites_on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? _ Examples that would apply to column 2NO OYES ( ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No }The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Y A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ Oyes ❑No • 0 ❑ ❑Yes ❑No Other impacts: 1 Z 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14. Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? XYES Moderate Large Mitigated By ONO Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No IffY• Other impacts: �/ c 5iyoy P�&� ,n ` �2� ❑ X ❑No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15. Will proposed action affect the community's sou%cel of.fuel or energy supply? O OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of ❑ 0 Dyes ❑No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No transmission'or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve,a major commercial or industrial use. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibratI04>as a result O • DYES of the Proposed Action? Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No facility. • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day1 ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local ❑ .. ❑ Dyes ❑No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑No noise screen. CD Dyes ❑No • Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety? ENO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous El El ❑Yes ❑Nc substances(i.e. oil, pesticides,chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑N� form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc.) • Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑N, gas or other flammable liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance ❑ ❑ Dyes ❑N within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. ❑ Dyes ❑N • Other impacts: ❑ 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potential Can Impact Be OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By la. Will proposed action affect the character of the existing Comm ni t Impact Impact Project Change ONO ES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No project is located is likely to grow by more than S%. • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this project. • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use. 1K ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No or areas of historic importance to the community. • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ ❑Yes ❑No (e.g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. , .❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No • Other impacts: ❑ ❑Yes ❑No 19. is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? ONO XES If Any Action in Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead Agency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact(s) is considered to be potentially large, even if the impact(s) may be rnitizated. Instructions Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 . Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s). 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer the question of.importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The_ duration of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRIC, IPB P. O. Box 666, 1000 pike Street FI �Mattituck, New York 11952 ONice 298-8837 Fax 296-8841 October 19, 1993 Planning Board Office Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SCTM #1000-122-06-3,1 Str-rlsnal�aea Veo4urc-5 SCTM #1000-122-7-3 . 1 BWr5er Kin j Gentlemen: As to the above stated Site plans it is the reeommendation of this Board of Fire Commissioners that a Firewell be installed on the South side of Route 25 --approximately halfway between these two sites, provided that the Suffolk County Water Authority has no plans to install a water main and hydrants in this area. :Cordially, teor Woodhull, Chairman Fire Commissioners Fire District VIP MIT' ^/ Ig93 7 'rl's1J 1 2 L' 1I , ,S�FI�C 8xceeo4 STATE OF NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 JAMES A. KUZLOSKI JOHN C. EGAN REGIONAL DIRECTOR COMMISSIONER October 12 , 1993 R. G. Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold , N.Y. 11971 RE: BURGER KING SCTM 1000 122-7-3. 1 Dear Mr . Kassner : The State of New York Department of Transportation has no objection to you assuming lead agency status for the referenced proposal . Very truly yours , Z� o GEORG L. BEIERLING C. E. II OCT 1 41993 _ Y PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ,,v ' 't1 a �9s SCOTT L. HARRIS. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman , Supervisor r�� a George Ritchie Latham, Jr. lull tdr3� Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 ° ^ , 19 ,93 John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District Pike Street. Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Keogh: Enclosed please find (2) surveys for �a [9 0 SE,� -S J T,E 4y-1 c o Please notify this office as to whether any firewells are. needed. Please specify whether shallow -wells or electric wells Will be needed. Please reply by O -- cooperation. 1 1993•' Thank you for your r � t r Yo �'� r c y 2 D Ct4,,f2 r� Chairman enc. , 4xx r.t:, M 4} '� PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ',� r!� rr� SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Wain.Chairman s George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ' P.O.Box 1179 Mark S.McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE, Fax(51s)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD October 5, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Review of Traffic Study & Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) . SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) and Traffic Study, (previously sent) , for review. The Planning Board has received the $950. 00 review fee from the applicant The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. 'If you have any questions, please contact me at the planning office. Si r Y e G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer cc: Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney for Applicant Ilk . .. MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT P� P. O. Box 666, 1000 Pike Street 2AL Mattituck, New York 11952 Office 298-8837 Fax 298-8841 September 28 , 1993 Planning Board Office Town of Southold PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Burger King Site Plan Gentlemen: The site plan of the Burger King Restaurant, dated 26 Mar 93 is acceptable, AS PRESENTED, by the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District . Cordially, t J�o n e o 0it. �. oard of re Cattituck Fire t FQ SEP 3 01993 ;'x CHAR=S R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 Oim COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O.BOX 1547 P—TVM.RHF.A),NY 11901 ADJACENT TO TEL:(516)360-8200 MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT FAX:(516)369-9080 September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert Kassner Southold Planning -Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Cofam Realty &raw*- Dear Mr. Kassner: In accordance with your request, enclosed is a check in the amount of $950. 00 as payment of the fee for the environmental consultants, Cramer & Voorhis. Please advise us as soon as you receive their report. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/ec x 3 ` SEP 2 91M �LF1i'Eid�i�v 1201'.0 CRAMEP, V .:`;_ SUCIATES ENVIRONMENT 1_ �O CONSULTANTS i September 28, 1993 Mr. Robert Fassner Site Plan Reviewer Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Dunkin Donuts Traffic Impact Review Dear Bob: I amp in receipt of the information you sent regarding the traffic impacts of the Dunkin Donuts site as related to the Burger King Tidfic Inipact Study prepared by Dunn Engineering. I It is my understanding that.yyou require a cost estimate to review the adequacy of.the i traffic impact examination of the Dunkin Donuts project as referenced. above. Pleas;be advised that the fee for this service will not exceed $200.00. Please advise if you wish us to proceed with this review. If you have any further questions,please do not hesitate to call. Very :. ly y,4 s, �harles J. V rhi$,CEO',�;A�ICP ' �� ,N SEP 2 9 1993 �_ i THAOL TOWN . ;Yr 54 NI)RTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ; PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman George Ritchie Latham,Jr. �y ' � :-:. �j'✓ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. ff' P.O. Box 1179 Mark S.McDonald Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Fax(5161 765= 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 22, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Request for determination if traffic studies for Burger King and Bridgehampton Bank are adequate for Dunkin Donuts Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-6-11 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: As discussed on September 21, 1993 , enclosed are additional data from Dunn Engineering on traffic conditions at Dunkin Donuts. The applicant feels that the study made for The Bridgehampton Bank (Dunn Engineering September 1992) and the study for Burger King, together with the enclosed information, is sufficient for Dunkin Donuts and that a separate study for Dunkin Donuts is unnecessary. I would appreciate your review of this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at the planning office. Sincerely 7 o"I"lan G. Kassne to Reviewer Encls. cc: Charles R. Cuddy, Attorney for Applicant g Dunn En ine.- ;, Associates • Consulting Engineers k 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 August 25, 1993 Mr: Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1549 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Southold, New York Dear Mr. Cuddy: As discussed, we have investigated the impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity of the above project of the Dunkin' Dontits facility as you described it. As a result of this investigation, the following can be concluded: I. The Dunkin' Donut facility can be expected to attract 38 vehicles during its peak hour of operation, 7:00-8:00 A.M. This is based on the assumption that each vehicle arriving at the facility will carry an average of 1.2 persons, a nationally accepted rate; 2. Sorne, if not. most, of the traffic associated with the DUilkln' Donuts facility can be expected to be already on the road for another purpose, such as traveling to work or to a recreational activity. Analyses performed in connection'with this investigation have assumed that 50%.of the traffic destined for the Dunkin' Donuts facility will be pass-by trips; therefore only 19 new vehicles will be generated by this proposed facility during the A.M. peak hour; 3. The addition of this traffic to the roadway network results in barely perceivable impact, even if all 19 originated in and returned to the west, so as to have the greatest impact on the Burger King site. This is evidenced by the results of Un'signalized capacity analyses performed with these 19 vehicles added. Since it can be expected that some of the donut shop traffic would originate in the east, this analysis examines a worst case scengrio as it relates to the Burger King operation. A copy of these analysis is attached; As a result, it can be seen that the traffic generated by the proposed Burger King can be accommodated by the existing roadway network, even with the addition of traffic generated by the Dunkin' Donuts facility. jil�i i."� L :•i..Ji�,: sob-U o rca�M Pt,^.ijUI',!G SUM Mr. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. August 25, 1993 Page 2 We trust that the forgoing addresses any concern on the part of the Town of Southold with regard to this.project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, V VINCENT CORRADO Engineer VC/lam L930421 P93063 Attachment /ttr} .r f '^-7'► �>N� t �(7LT �'ZA' ,r�t1, ,a�f yr.�. 1�s Rw ri.� � ��l��s ,,f�ta� 1`, �y ,� �t�ijr!�_r. ,•y�7�•r' y�•tfy�.�-,• •.'.r r'/�}�r�,r k*sf�'1��y '1;��,.��"rr: t►..S�,fj�•M1.s{t�., r_• - s a% ., shy AYE'• S.•Y4'1}•!r/ ° �t��rl ' �i,K-+et.•a L_i7 r`I}}�17> g 1 ���e�.t� A7S � `� 'i - �., f.Jtr,a.� !V��i1'"•fro' � s�.�r s).'�a i�i �_ i�wak, cYs�i`'�`}}s'�>� �. )% �1^� ' ', l 5(,, ! Y. y,R .r�{'y• i,r •f}1 t`. . b r• - t. ��.' .��► � `{��, L 'Ltgf � P R Pv; 44 • •i. `� �; Y J7".[....Y�•}.. . �d6 ,� .L- ► 4 y �t/t ,tyl a t �tn/�S. �,�f.�.� �, yy ° +� >? '° .,.1YF. .•�,'{M� + �• f grc F`M L�+�th � "`�F'r �"(• i+%.A'�iL�.Lv4��r?3'�aL'F t (Y�I" i�, �`� '`{;! ���b 11r}1� �il�}, T•Fi • .wf I",'r��l �! l rK!r, t .:'� }Ytr t3. .r, f�' �v.J'{},£I'r�E!•K••.y`,• t. :�� � vs,'lr��>n"'r 1•.�1•i'�+ }`' �. '�j�•�►' !�. 7N•^ �f• r�.1.R�.�'.'Y rrl �':,� •�'�� ,9^i.iAry l4l: ..�L{S Tt3•,Y.��,'"`ir--f•v nw ,h�,t. 'S C,$'��.�,i� �_. t•t �'Ki'htC,-•f�>• .t.��), f�'K; �y� t tµr f�3r,��'� I"�r.• y�:; j:�'t•1��?k' 7 55 yyyy ��-"'ttt��� � it-•t-L) 3. � •�� t,1, ll►t4 � �� �. .� ' .4 .1• r �1tf1 l.�'>>5 �(�t!•,���t Jt ' la��.`K j,.��t 7��` ��J� >ypy,+,•.-A� �`•�',r��, /i�-� y. '+. n •� � E ' i •, A r 1 4�t Jy1� i d .+ r7 >r 4.�T Y15'.S.; 7.s,. �' .i � `7 :LI;�•?•'•'�p ;,•�,♦tt111, �fbt;„'�at �s�+!'� ��`•, •'fit,• wea ��- 'f•jTsrrJFT.�'�i�{,,i'r+l,�' �` • :�rl �•ly+. \rt x '. �"' 9 f;1 w " f 1•,y+'•* r} r'fy;•'�) as#>". jf I. i�lf f fir'„r�+L. n .r. .Ts r,'x ';' "'� ti• i�J Ih c r r r y r� h _,1 r t.r .r, .,�'+rrj+ �.•(1*.. (t:�tL` �;• �,>e ,1•�'r�'.� iy f'Ji ,►* 7.) �yr'� rr � n� 44 r� �'./F�t.... :• ^ � yj�l��r � 1 ,'"''. >!)>' t ^nY �'-`ut1f:�L��t Et-�•yS.., >F ',`>r':.'.e Y S . + �. � ''�, �.,tt• �, > _' f` .y v'Sr,! )�4 S rS �„•1 � e ark' ,��., Y t•i R N t sl r � t ri 'i..x I. �• i5k `. ,y a �► ! ,; 1 .i'xs`,g,t. 'aim �f•�' u�y(t'"Y _ ,/;"j c{ �'-•='�i'u4 `i) t.•� ��.ra�►r.,+i!�t•�i±n~• „�,• i�.;3 •re, .,� -sjr�a ,�t"/'fit 'sr �c` �A•��VJ �`'s„ �, ► �+ r _ 'r16���t�,��..��C*OJ�r T � .r••'E l�. �r.. C.t,. �,, .•tri.�_.�? ��r w:. ...ram"w: .As i$�v .�C��►ti� +$�r�(J�t.�,.w�ri• s..... ` ►^ I i. �.., .S ^� ^r-tr�•,�t '�4t'b F' +� .�' }ty}h'� f j } �' �B4 r ,��a�,� a .rt t��j�L�fr�>, � t - '�!e1t ..s,,,wr,r>c.�ir•a4«r1�yV;_ y �' y; i�i1nt4�ii;���'-I ► � tj1`Lar (�•}`,Iry-��`�i f¢t'y: tb `�niryG t 1: .�1�`}-s�'�yU�e�'�wi'+M.�-t��� •a '� li 1� iy;+, t4. i{t .. � � ,� .E��.irb r�!���Y.I PF;'rr{,. y�1',�`.�1, .� '.,. , ,' I��• �n !F � ,���r ;y-�r .} �E��3�.J�t t%w�S'}'(Eri�''�'• 's••nr•, •r ;l�r tyrl",Ll• `:..�•a• � ,, . • .��^r :r.Z 1.} Ra(. "*.w.:. •��' ,j� t - .:w{•, +i:K, iG s r �•FY �' tI1 1 , fryly er :� a 0,: la ► ri'a ol►' '»-+'•i $►k �s�Ynt tt1 � r'� y'.�yw? .. a •"� •h f.'�''rc;;'..,•' ' . � �`7i�ts- ,y4 t ::. 1�x ��° r+ � 't ar ~-•`1 � .� -.�. ,• , ., .j� r,r�(A't S rr� r11t't-�'.r''�r +�r�'�z'•'X: w' i I�„fy' /, :i'1Ai!? rr+lyj'fi.'rAyra'� � }r'1•, ,,} t �, r �Pj�=���•- Yl ia, .�ra33�f ::x�,t lr�t: l�S•�''iJ�'I:•.> 'vrt}Yn.✓Yr,y,' • �,•, ��t `.ivl✓�+1�i±}!�,/{�,yY'i.ry�}�.K,,t S'.''F;syy�' ,a,: ' ''t. 3•• ..�.i�i :• `� G t.. rPr: /yl� }y�,:l�! :;hAq:sIytriTrP>jIi � r '� �'.aijj•�h' :'J�ti... M �i,>x , ► r:y.1a{'t,%ty:i �;'!' ".Y'•ii•.1,[••tfpd:',�.�r;4 J :.t.r.��v' y .'+rt��' . •Ste.[T, v. ": 4+„> .:i-; +. •�.. ". `k'• Y+a.+ry•,tcfi"t`r thiJ?: ,�.t^ rtlx i'`'� f t.! Y� �:t y,;s. �ll,1�;u ,F 'F 'I •N"'� w,i 1t �' •�r if i.., � ,z�, i .. ..t+ -.. Z{�:it� ��i e?t „j'y�'tt j�.e:�?' f'�'i.. '.A.{ ,;���:, i 'K. �'d:., i,x'r F}fitri,f�♦ G ra3 �.t j��.LLjjrt•' r' ,•LNG!!°• '�''� ",;-ti."' -tom- .ttvZ'�. �►,e's�Ir-► iwY; �",. T}'•;,' ,k�' / '�• '.� €' +. t,f{ .�, ��, M ^'�a��; tat. 1r'"� .� •,..,r. �.,,� t`�zr'- �' ..t�':at`��t-:•+f Y.T:tt ►.71�..r- :�,; •.7-. `�W'a;i:.4r,'Ij, :r�%•(ty. � 'pr ( a3+, MI. :�I. ki'',%R�..t t;..,. ..:1Y�?'1�: st�(�a:���'+. ' ��. .►! -".t.. �.rr•!i�,!>��. �..��.iF1•ri)"-.jiirM:a!.+"T: }`''1' ..•'�.� 7"` :{^ iF. •.`- (, �ls' �.F i.4. `C,: Q A. .a ` ,r t:��,,rU •:tx.�`,`,j1K2'li'j- ,':,. xe. r^.�j!�:5�/. -,i .� ,r• Y p�>• y1s t jes. :-a+tr'• ;'!F !,�ryf +• �i'i. ljt;j '* +w ;•J') .si r.::' lf \ wi.» '.. S� t oi'."'�,,.r .t '�•'` ,N ,rV >-!�. � ..:�j'• ''1' ..C=c-� •a:'. ,.,f',?x;, .f^ ,<},r.4}i'�.�F, 1. •� ��+, .•..�.1 t�.,p.�, t -� '� A -:.a.•s.. t {�, ^,�,_�py r 'z •.a �r.�1� �. I� 4s. I i �, cr +!^� ► ♦t�• $"'e t , ..Y.1/"K! v'Y" ;4�• o-,1.• � i a1+I � � � f.. .i 5: -�u� > ra�' 1_.1 i •t�'„�r. � Y'G�:''r`"fr\.�:' 'h�'e ';r�7.'� it.v "(�•; ;.�lij,�,,, r a��. .�r . �' � •9, �• •y ��' 'rat. "�' � �at:;pdsxa•r�t,�`..ly a r� .�..j,.?',, '�-;:_?, I S :r_ 1st r;, r.r.,•rt. � 77�� K ''ty�-.• ti,'.,tRa,,�f...i�rt9•`,. +.:;�+.r. yY�;¢�• + v tY rt�,r• i 71r y.4•:�F'.! •�'��r' ;. ..,1%. ,,i� ,t., r. t`. ,.,'�;':r ! .!! rk,�!�,,,7lY♦ w '�r '4:'r;G•' r I•- .' .•r >S �3[s;,f� Li� f� M. a• !f{\ �'�, r 'll `•.�+�'..-�, � a-i �_ �,�y S •�_. �c�...:.:n>�T••�i,-,, rt '}{., �4k- :'I Y �" YYn--?1� ,JJr t$�y �rt�i�.�>t' �. :-ii .�.r=''Sj.�y .1�• v=,� p 'L �+?ISi�i .iib?�ft• y;'.. 1• ,; �•, d•'�►;�7r`: ».>;>,(:�' � t�?,.. ��j' {'f'� 1 5:}' ��r$t�ypy -rt. �,,,I ►.� .,F �is)r y r ch.. .[fir Lei :R'1, �?. :a,• �,'v��r, lrn r►S�r!1 't) w� �i �i, ki)r.f} 1�.�4t ,.fi° ,�l ► 1 •i'1, �t� •r • �`'y' t':S,"f�{.`..`.,-i'i� S s; .�.Z,;.;�j. '� L.��i.r•;-.t:'4•LCh r �✓'..+ ` r};' N .`•.'•1''+.-Y '�"�,• ,.. ,. >tT •. �. � � y. _ 'a o� }� ��y !'v�'t ♦ , 1'tE .Z....- ,�-',t! F.� F t?i:�f t: � N +Y:. 'r t `i�: `• '} '+'' e�i k:n * ,d y y. {i x�;�._a H �,•e.i •� 1[.rx •ti I' )) +•1 ra 4 � F ��. �.('t i � � 'kJ r • ��:rG'� N.�a7•:Sc.r_ �„�,:� r,•- .�..i.3ry•.�f''4 l�Sla!{f, L �`+�.. s X^ T S � � �+,,-��. � y i ? ► �� .�r:��' e•2�;�.���j .. M,`4. � ti:.+��?fir,t � r.�4ipTr t .,•*• �. � ar � a .Ril e2 '1 "��t,�,,�i°s� �YL� r>3�5"e,�-<e��:�y'$�;Y- .aT'•.,�' L r�t �P iY•. � �• 'f•, � � -�++�.i�+,�'-'r"-'; �:.� _.-_.. �.,,s,u+ 'x—�'�+- ..'!>f#_9, .^^� w.•.�5.�`Fa.,A�i�>�<S. f 1; r ,r -r t• Y l �� �/p.ny '•^+•�?��_tiJl} Sp•"•'+- " .. _ititn �.ti �Jf'} — _ �:1 L� �,��,�� '';A.t-�+1c� `faF.'yT r,' "''—=�">:xs7i---rc�t♦',..►�,,=�:�:�.."��""�:_ .3t..i�k.k�ai,;:.;, iY i' :f� •..r:x�ytawrarw,.u:.,,. •{n.� 9$rqri,�iffl+` tis �YYY i.i�yvl�• e r .Mi�� t y �;• 4a Y�„�i °�, '��h�}-.may; 2 T�h at ri." J �Ji�i ty �-7 k�•(� +�t ;`} r •, �} �• ih �r � �x, -• �.,•'c'.f>,� ]fit, s �, h ''`y.,,� ••i t F �4:1 .::fir• ��.��� �eC.,£s2 '',>\ .,a�..+'' �� r n`_* a �±,4 r� _-``ti..'��.+•..,:'R�.f Zv`s r .�-(r�'rw. �--t-•�.w i . n Row r t t t ,ty�rr• SG'�. !.+••',•+� Y KF !a 1�2.• -.1 i i i• c �tQ' i ,Y..A -y. r()p'.. .,. .:+�l •+�..wd� � . i]•c •� �:1 �`_0�..��;.�.�w. i t•�,T•-. s,y 'y t � ,. f,. kt ,r ,.�..,._?,:C ,S ".T.� Y'; t' '.��:. .}. t{';,` t `'c6s^.�`:. �( 1 l,�.w.0 ..•t:L\� �,•3.i�•• i'1'-•f:!:" � 1. 1 W j s.L (3,., is y, F. - r3 :� 7• j ti P,'r�+: ;Y�.''I: '.!!•`. 0,..,b•. �.1r. 1.\. ..h d� i.+.' f �F j .l- �'=r�3'1i i., C'°5'1•:.-..::'rb'�11'9., �. ! -f.� "i, �-�-" F:•'?- +tr•:e.^ ti' c.t.. ...• �•7�. .Yr � t, � e���,'.<Cxyt. _.S' �. 1. y+ _•+`,,yy �L-..�r }' l- }. 1- 'iI y-,•.ji. >y. •� .Y�tl f 1'.l .it' t t J. _i�!•' k ^T'�,F {.� •".•�•' L 1 f�..., -r�.. r r .� U =�• x 'yj-„ t:} '< ';,rr:�.. ..n s, gg fS a a }+:%'..,.. (� -�•j;:mot.,,•-•-n„ :'j•6t ', a:.L �•;i. :x:uui- x �. .1._:: K' L'� is S. 'r i. ,. .t..�di.y .1..,n ti.i < ,i r r I. .°Sri{? .JN?.t5i£ �..ht,_-,4 .�1... ,; A:Y' !- -x. •,x. M.;ti h .•„_p' .�ri 77 "+��, `r'[T =si•t 1•- s.,. :."1L .c Y:c2r �e r ,•A X `,,: , r , v i : r;jc 4•t n f,{'xy ;.• �; i' ,�,."�f^ > ri z - y t•,y' r rd,� ni t�9.z'Y•k'.,.i:�.o^' �+h•�`5:363'-S �tttim�r;• t.. �tr•1'�a;`�h` d n .h�!k '1 4Plt< _ _ -•ri '_ �-• kt may,... r~:.�!�ri�P,��: •�r',' 1 ec s> � � •Ai:^ r,a{�' �r• iriiclY L, �,P .}�4 ''rriti _ice' •r .,}ry'�1LrE �, a r z y > �t}J r�'r' 4.. ��c.�—._r •,• ::y ii�1S t.t.� -a�?yt'�tY; .4Yt1�•� ,w J.`'F,+��v s� vr•-�+�Y t; � .�. .tom k r ��'>t' ti;:r l� •7 ._..... .. ..- a`'cEI:rNJy'tevn[�dN .- a ., r.- z r e�e1{"r �;y• �.a�' ti 1r��k�l�. ,.-•v-• �'4 + r.�.'" "'•" Xf: r •s t .r. . f t, f -'S-: 'xx., '"nt t 4. t t �� •, •r'• 4l h,y,_:.-Nf�'i3.- _ .�-�--� .!.^ .:! ti... .h'g .i,,. �-Tt. 7;_�,..nF .[ J:.:s :n+{ -rt. �-'' r�'7 .tY' `'3,..._n:.A,,Y;. ..:5 u6 s�•jyi trr fc.r>>^• .n,xr�, ^'--i`_ 3� 1•' .•� 11y�}I� f3TiMerLnx' r v:Ja yr:r:: Sdi. .•a•.% , - 'e�'ti. ar R-,ry� fr =r•� ��„+,.. 4..�"1t3�' � '`�• 'Y '3Tx'.`.I 4 �a;�+t{�'�•:�#i t�� a i-•.'" �. ,.• :ac S`4irriG: r• cnr 1 erlkYi. P•it, „t4,. `r�Ra ^w�X..l t v ,�rk:.fi;;,}p �aS�:.: �;,.�aQke.,..._i4R ro.{:��,}a'J+-'.U',JKs�t-�+/e.. ,AHi�sa!I.i(^.y4k;tMi......,. yr i�'i �. - nn.ra•... 4�� r �i�,a 'r-tlJ[F' r�Y1J .F.sea z, v ,j,1.4 E%3kb�;.4..,N3•rt.F1��[,•..3::.A�tt+14 o-,;• t - a`+• �r � �. - - t.+d r.h.r..,r.:K.. r. cs^:.;•.....:•,.�- irrL%q:.pY«�i,�� P�..�K 7'�• � r'+'"'i� =�t'�. 4. :I-N:(�'fy.-+jT+ _ __— ..k,..•..Y•.,r: �..X J4-M3,. ,f: � '��`�'�•�.r�r.. >'. �r 1 ..fr< r ['/.� - +,.^.. _..r ay., ,i.. .W�. b�,r�Jy�,�r� �+at•s.:l. ,.,c ,x� rt. �� ^tr�: i, x ��,,, `�!. _ •.� _ _ ar�N,' c�r�y'4•a�ti�'�'c4� �f_t�{`•�''y.�'�it~t�.''�1. f���Cf't' -3h �:cfY 2` Av' "y v. ;; - �-'s`.,'' -�'�' s-C.. 'r 4 ri'�'a:Vj.�r''T•t''�jw"✓i�a:�r t% C, it. �d�1�¢,.?�.b+,,i •.. 4,4v« :•*4j.+{r :%:;�.:,;sr '•4. ^:t.ar:•e' ci• ..'.r "�$ •`$ .T Y >. s..w�,Mi-0t�;y+ �`�y'}�1v-..n:,J?;a7,�.+��'r.F�s.r:.+r•'..�'�* ,�� �-.y ;.y,^ l' �r9 � ^t. •�.�R.,.P• >,�. , ::t� i:�j�?.,i'i �Y�'J•"-,•'3-•*�''� �?I�Y�'hi�'T'L`j7ik-��?�-'#i�����' :f'�..pr.�:'�'4,i+t'ti...f..i ,i.. ..a�;,� .L.,yr w��i _ n �s as t�`f.• N �i f M�•, e i, Y.Y:•7 i'r{i:. a 1„-. �_.�,ei;5;' ..-•, /l.,,y tJr•i•F''� 4sf Y _M•� t. . i �ti ��i,, S.,a���r.��•'y,•aR>�,(ncN� fi ��t kY1ga . 7 ,+Y � p�t� ey�,,� aM•ib°i t � �^} •ra a 1'r�� ��x� tl.:-1w.c�.r•a r,��>'rrio rtcn{..•�/,,,•F9`F.,,'3h!ryU/ �t�,f�fx�,"'•y{tt-fr•sF''�r'S rrr,ry�ew".'ll;XSr��-N,�' i,�Nri��'�` }- �'+v1J•`rIrTyTi+7,✓.{,+sY.•"{o:6• rx,'. •a'S ?,' �f t .♦.a:.. {yrT;• i • .�...a��•, rrlll�1��!U�`L�tA-•ra,m'J1.,'�Aj{ . — ''-•err 3ff rr�x i> i �tr VY N �'r• t...r-' 42 >.Y ,�1�MIi. .h�:t.E ri"✓l�!?!'ct�jy%'�+r�t ��r��`G �+7+r',sMy.: �' yl�r!' � � ��•�,� ���, �t°r{r'iw. � '. j�r)!�.1r�4/f �Yi�),'�,�'f Yap t`�`r"Sr/�a(�",�T�'S.(� :� v.. �iC^r ••�r �� �i/'���i.:,'�.Y( rri"�"tJ'`�r•�,�'rtr-�s''��K����x�{�M y��i �'����p��.T�r ;�, ... ,k• �i`, �i `J � G .. ����'c.' �13 ,� Y .��T 1<��.l>h�•� (:l,.-Ul'7 /���((d� �/.i�'+'ian'.�J� k ,1''• •. y: ..t . ;�f y ice`JZ'�,i1, •'t : �~ `!�. rY,}•sr. • a' :'�r.'}•"'.Y VVV 'N, iE:.�r1'fy, :Ct 3'9• S: "�' :;,. ^` ;,,. i'- w "' A ')'0•` '� +5�"r,'�'-sr'b�y e llf{,�'•b rFt+,,�f1�p �•IF +' y� .w1f i1���5}•t yr'�?'�t '.7��..S��ii�r•�r,4 3yt�, = K't�w4J�•y� ..% ,w a7y`,.�/r r:r e♦ 1 � � '�► Y,� •c' •J':;'•w�/'•Y,r v+t.-'v�Vli'?�t j'f•�i:1!V��,'> f •lt�!•:'T' .{1'p••„',.. •i,':.t>'i+• .1• •r ,:r•'y� t v (i.. ��7.��\.��`I .1 •~`.� !t•�nr'�+��rJ ♦i. } p yrr f-;•��K�r.,�%A , �l �: Iiy �C< ryr..'e�� h C �• V r r .Fy��� •�' •�i;r/1+ .�.• � t' 'i.�t O`� r�,j.�t v . �Q, e 1 r�� �rl , a" x�. q�r�tlto l tarr�K�l�•f t}' LL i •�j6 • tM it�,�f r l�'� YySw a< r%Y� 1 i( t � ♦•�'t�.' �' , Ys,L��• i+j�j►Fx'•� y,;�/r Zfx�� •�ii' a i ", j c > ) r'"' � �I"r� �{ �� � �r•�•Yi�,rhS.r� rf,`ej 1' �}p,Y,-,�{�� '♦ �„�; F/_ 11 � f` �I��{,� r -(rt- �' � hrrx.., ;Arm ;,t3-.r;.(+'t•'•�'!t1r`•S•�.314:•:�I•'. .�• �+x;�'!?'�i.•��`'Hik41�t:C.T�i`�rii`r�.�i'3`�41�iT?X..t1,i(�hi� �� N�/'Y�l�l!� )t + x ����ri�•"l'. frif,i'ly •'4:•�., .4RP ..�i�`�:���.: ti+{� r. t '�y'� ��~ �i1�v'� .;�;a, AUG 26 '93 08:4.l DUNN ENG I NEE II rIG 51 G 288 2544 P.2/16 I 1985 I'>04.- UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 I IDENTjFYING INFORMA TON ------------------------------------------- -------------------- " I AVERAGE RUNNING SPE D, IWOR STREET. . 45 PEAKffIOUR FACTOR. . . . . . .. .. .. . .. . . . . .9 AREA rPULATION. . . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . .. .. 150000 NAMZ OF THE FEAST/WL T STREET. . . . .. . . . HYS ROUTE 2 I i NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . . . . BRAY AVENUE NAME 1F THE ANALYST . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. DUNN ENGINE"RING ASSOC. VJD DATE aF THE ANALYSI (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 TIME :RERIOD ANALYZE WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD 47/0.D. 1 BURGS KING MATTITUCK INTERSECTION TYPE ARD CONTROL ----- ------------- ------------------------------ ------------------- INTER ECTION TYPE: -INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHS UND: STOP SIGN TRAFFXC VOLUMES -------------------------------------------------------- EB w NB SB LEFT 0 24 28 -- THRU 411 4 2 0 -� RIGHT 7 0 . 53 NUMBEI OF LANES ----- --------------- ----------------------------- ----.._...------------ ! EB WB 'NB GB LANES j 1 1 -- - ---_� ; i:, 2 7 �t AUG 26 '93 08:43 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.:?/15 ADJUS MENT FACTORS Page-7. - -- --------._._ ----------..._---------------- ------------- -- i i PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE AiTGLE FOR RXGIIT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS i ---- ---------- ---- ------ ------- --------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBI'UND 0.00 90 20 N NORTH OUND 0.00 90 Zp N SOUTH$OUND ----- --- --_ _ VET�IC COMPOSITION -- _------_-___�__-------- -- ------------------- �k SU LICKS COMBINATION AND V'B VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ' -_ - EASTBgUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHiOUND 0 0 SOUTH F UND -- --- CRITICAL GAPS ----- ------------- ------------------------------------------------- TABU R VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT j IST. FATAL ST (Ta le 10-2) VALUE ADJU4ENT CRITICAL GAP --------- -------- ------ ---- ---- ----- MINUR (RIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJORILEFTS WB 5:30 5.30 0.0 5.30 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMA ION ----- --- --------------__ ----------- ----- --_—__--------- NAME cF THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 2°S NA14E OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . BRAY AVENUE DATE 4ND TIME OF TH . ANALYSIS. . . . . .8-23-9.3 ; WEE AY 8-9 AM OT}IER !INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGE KING HATTITUCK i i AUG 26 '93 09:44 DUNN ENG If LEER I I`IG 511E 288 2544 P.4116 ' I • CAPAC�TY AND LEVEL- F--SERVICE ------ Page-3 POTEI TIALN- ACTUAL FLOW- MOVEMENT SHARED SERVE RAPE CAPACITY CAPACI`f'Y C'APACI Y CAPACITY MOVEH�NT v(pcph c (pcph) c P H(Pcph) c (pcp ) 0 - c - v Los - H R SH --------- MINOR STREET - T .. NB DEFT 34 . a' 170 1.56 ;, 1 ,6 } , 13 Z 7 j7 T 65 566308 > 209 >C MA�70RlsTT;RHEr T 501 > A_ WB DEFT 29 689 689 II 6 9 659 A IDENT FYINGNAME IP7FORMA YpN f1F THE EAST�WE T STREET -- .NYS ROUTE 25 ---------- NAME ------- QF THE NORTH/S UTH'STREET. . . . BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEK AY 8-9 AM OTHER llyrORHATION, . , . 1994 BUILD W/O,D, 1 BURGER KING• HATTITUCK i 1 i i Q , AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNrI ENGIHEEFII•IG 516 288 2544 P.5/16 1985 CM: UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 kkk7kk kk�k*kYtNrsNYttirit9r Yt9lrYtit4tir9rk�UfAriririeitir�r•tilrirtfir�t�rt*iili ilrt+ltiri•k9r#'ilit�r'N4lIttltfl�tlit•lr IDENTJFYING INFOFRMCIDN ------•-------..----- ----------------------------- -------------------- J,VERAgE RUNNING SPE D, MANOR STREET. . 45 PEAKTOUR FACTOR. . . . . .. . .. . . . .. . . . . .9 AREA XOPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME fF THE EAST/WE T STREET. ... . . . . . . NYS RTE 25 NAME F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . . . . FACTORY AVEISIGSBEE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . ... ... . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOC. VJD i -- DATE F THE ANALYST ' (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 = TIME ERIOD ANALYZE . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.. . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KINC MATTITUCK INTER ECTION TYPE AZ CONTROL ----- ------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- INTEROEC:TION TYPE: -LEG MAJOR (STREET DIRECT CAN: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHH UND: STOP SIGN CQNTR L TYPE SOUTHB UND: STOP SIGN TRAFF C VOLUMES ---- ------------ ---------------------------- ------------------ EH W3 NB SD LEFT 57 al 4 37 THRU 430 5 5 •2 7 RIGHT 5 39 23 84 I • NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------- ED WB NB SB ------ ------- ------- ------ L2�2:BS i 1 1 2 2 AUG 26 '93 019:45 DUNN Et,lGIHEEFIHG 516 288 2344 P_6/16 i ADJUS ENT FACTORS ------I------------- ----------------------------- ------- -----page 2- - PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RICHT TURNS FOR .RIGH'1 'TURNS . ----- ---------- -----0 EASTBOUND ------ �-------N-..--....__- 0.00 WESTBgUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHlOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHIC7+E-COMPOSITION _----..__..---------- -- ��4 ---- ---- -------- ----------- I SU T UCKS 4 COMBINATION AND VIS VEHICLES------ - MOT'0 CYCLES EASTBQUND .__----0----- ------ ----- WESTB IUND 0 O NORTH OUND 0 O SOUTH OUND 0 i 0 CR,LWX' AL GAYS TABU VALUES ADJUSTED SIGIIT-LST . FINAI, -(Ta le-lo-2)- -..VALUE ADJUST ENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS ------ ------ ---- -------, ' ---- NB 6.14 6.10 0-0 6.10 MAJOR (LEFTS6.10 Ell6.10 0.0 6.10 , L�Ei 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 MINOR ITHROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 0_0 6.90 I SIR6.90 6.90 0.0 6.90 MINOR (LEFTS I NB 7_40 7.40 0.0 7.40 3S 7.40 7.40 0.06 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFOrU4A ION EAST/WE T- --- NY- RTE 25 - - ---- ------- ____-_ NAME OF TIIE STREET. NAME 9F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. ._ _ FACTORY AVE/SI SBEE ROAD DATE EK AY 8-9 AM O'I''Hl R iINFORMA'1ION.Ii:. 19945BUILD W/O.D. la' BURGER KYNG MATTITUCK i AUG 26 '93 08:45 DLINH EHGINEEPhHG 51E 283 2544 P.7/16 CAPAC' TY AND LEVEL- F-SEf VICE Pag6-3 PATEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY HOVEl+I NT V(Pcph G P M(pcph) 0 (poph) o (pop ) v - a SH- v LOS• � SH------ -------- --------- -------- -- --R--------- --- MINOR (STREET NB 4EFT 5 103 76 6 71 E OUGH 2 148 133 > 1 3 > 130 > D IGHT 28 552 552 > 441 552 > 410 524 >A A MINOR (STREET u^B LEFT 45 120 103 1 3 58 $ THROUGH 9 I52 137 > 137 > 129 > D RIGHT 103 466 466 > 394 466 > 282 363 >C B MA70R (STREET EB DEFT 70 568 568 568 490 A WB FFT 26 674 674 6 4 649 A IDENTIFYING XNFOP14A ION ------------------- -------------- --------------- -------------------- NAME qF THE EAST/WE "1' STFt.ERIX. . . . . . NYS RTE 25 NAME F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . FACTORY AVE/SI SBEE ROAD DATE D TIME OF 111H, ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEK AY 8--9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MAITITUCK I ' I i i I i i AUG 26 '93 03:45 DUNK EI IG I PJEER I r lG 516 283 2544 P.g/16 1985 HP1.- UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page�1 *+k***�Fdr�F.YMwYr�ttk*x�r�r�r ,rxee:x*tf�e**•k,�ve*xxrxxxxxxxx�tic *******ic*****k*k:t** IDENTIFYING INFORMA ION ------------ ------------------------------ ------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45 PEAK HAUR FACTOR. . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . .9 .AREA i . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME TPULATION THE EXIST/WE T STREET. . .. . . . .. NYS ROUTE 2 i NAME �� THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . . . . LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OIIF THE ANALYST . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEF.RZONG ASSOC. VJD DATE IF THE ANALYS1 (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 TIME rERIOD ANALYZE ). .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM i OTHER INFORMATION. _ . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING riATTITUCK INTER�ECTION TYPE IU------- ------ - -------------------- ----.---------------- INTERSECTION 'TYPE: -INTERSECTION MWMI STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE.SOUTH UND- STOP SIGIT TRAFFIC VOWIMS ..........�------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- i EB W3 NA SB LEFT I 0 0 -- 1 THRU i 445 4,33 -- 0 RIGHT 0 1 -- 3 NUMBE4 OF LANES ------r---------- ----------------- - ------------------- ED WB NB SB ------ -- ---- ------- - --- ' �c�rrFe s 1 •-� �. AUG 26 '93 0,9:46 DI INN E: .__NEERING, 515 288 25744 . P.91/16 ADJUS ENT FACTORS ----- ------ _-- ------ Page-2 ---------- -------- ---- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS 0 •EASTBOUND 0.00 gp - ------ WESTE'UND 0.00 90 20 N NORTH OUND -- -__ SOUTH OUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHIC E COMPOSTTION ----- --- --------- ------------------------------- ------------------- SU TUCKS I COMBINATION AND V'S VEHICLES $ MOTORCYCLES ------- ------ EASTB 'UND 0 'W'ES`1'B UND p 0 NORTHBOLDID -- _-- SOUTH�OUND 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS ------------ ----------------------------- ------------------- i TABU R VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT' ---------------- FINAL _(Ta 1C- S"1'i<'i.E: 10_2) VALUE ADJUNT CRITICAL GAP IIINORIRICHTS - ------ --- ------------ SB 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS i EB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 MINOR (LEFTS SB 7.40 7.40 0.0' 7.40 IDENT]FYINC INFORMA ION NAME 9F- - - TRE EAST/WE T STREET. . . . NYS ROUTE25 - -----' NAME 9F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . LAUREL LAKE DR VE DATE AND TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 9-23-93 ; WEEK .AY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER RING MATTITUCK 'i _NN E _VEERING 516 2B@ 2544 P. 1Gli 16 CAFACI iTY AND---------LEVEL_ F-SERVICE ----_-I _-__-------- .._�_-Fage_3 POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SILWED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY MOVEMEjNT v(pCph C (pcph) c (pcph) c (pcph) c v IAS P M SH R SH ._� .-- -------- --- ---- --------- -- -------- ---- --- MINOR (STREET "I PT 1 159 159 > 1 >B 9 > 157 > D > 329 > . 324 TGHT 4 513 513 > 5 3 > 509 > A MAJOR ISTREET EB I FT 0 633 633 6 3 i633 g IDENTIFYING INFORMA ION HARE QP THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . ROUTE . NYS ------ -- ---- _-__-- NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . LAUREL LANE5 DRIVE _ DATE AND TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHERIINFORMATION. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTZTUCK 1 I I • i i ri AUG 25 '93 09:47 DUNH EI•iGIHEERI[lG 515 288 '25,44 P.11:15 1985 CM: UNSICITAL ZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 **�***;****�*****�** *�******xxxxxzxxxxxxzxxxxzxxx xxxxxxxzxxxxxzxxxx,t IDENTIFYING INFORMA ION AVERAGE RUNNING-SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . q5 - -- ------- ------------------- PEAKI UR FACTOR. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . .9 AREA PdPULATION. . .. . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . 150000 NAME O'F' 'THE EAST/WEST STREET. . ... .. . . HYS ROUTE 21 NAME Jr THE NORTH/S UTH STREET... . . . . EASTERN (EX T) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME O'iF THE ANALYST . . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . OUNIT ENGINEIRING ASSOCIF.TE3, VJD i DATE OAF THE ANALYST (mm/dd/yy) . . .. . . 8-23-93 TIME PIFRIOD ANALYZE - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION_. . 1994 BUILD 'W/ O.D. 1 , BURG R KING MATTITUCK INTERS CTION TYPE D CONTROL ----------------- ----------------------------- ----------___------ INTERSECTION TYPE: -INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION'. EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFZ�C VOLL711ES ------------------- ------------------------------ ------------------- EB wil NB SB LEFT 0 1 8 -- THRU I 485 5 5 0 -- RIGHT 4 1 0 13 -- II, NUMBEF OF LANES ----- ------------ -------------_-------------- ------------------ EB WE NB SB LANES 1 1 2 -- Q AUG 26 193 03:4E) DUN`I E ___-LEERING 516 268, 2544 F. 1c'16 i ADJUSTnNT FACTORS ------ ge-2 ---------- Pa PERCENT RYCHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --- ---------- __ EASTBOPIND 0.00 90 ------ 20 WESTBOUND 0.00 90 ZO N NORTKUPUND 0.00 90 ZO N SOUTHBiUND - --- --- .. VEHIC P COMPOSITION ------------ ----------------------------- -------- ---------- i i SU UCKS 4; C014BIIIATI0N 1 AND V'S VEHICLES MOTO CYCLES i -- ----- ------------- ------ 0----- i WESTBOI ID 0 0 NORTHBPUND 0 0 SOUTHBOUND CRITIC�L CAPS ...._--I------------ ----------------------------- ------------------- I TABU R VALUtS ADJUSTED SIGHT IST. FINAL (Ta le 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTI NT CRITICAL GAP ---- -•- -- ----- ------ ------------ MINOR �IGIITS --__ rib 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJOR FTS WB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 MINOR CLEFTS NB 7_40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENTIFYIPIG INFORMA loN. ------�-- ----- ------------- _ NAME F THE EAST/WE T STREET. .. . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NA14E F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . -EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TInE OP' TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEK-AY 8-9 AM OTHER !1NrOR14AT:rOH. . 1994' BUILD W/ O.D. 1 BURG R KING MATTXTUCIC . A.. �. AUG 26 '93 0 R S�4_ DU(•Jf•I 51E 268 2544 F.13/16 CAPACIl1'Y AND LEVEL-OF-SERVICE pd a-3 I I POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- `rIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE i RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY MOVEME�T V(pcph c (paph) c (pcph) c (pcp ) C = c - v LOS p M SH R SH ------ -------- --------- --------- -- ------ --- MINOR FTREET NB I4EFT 10 139 137 3.17 128 D R[ GHT 16 511 511 51 495 A I� MAJOR PTREET WB FT 1 631 631 6 1 630 A T i IDENTIFYING INFORMA 'ION - ------ ------ ------ ------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE, T STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE At4D TIME OF TH ANALYSIS_'_ 8-23-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORHATION. . . 1994 BUILD W/ O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK i i I I I • AiJG 26 '93 08:49 DUNN Et' ;EEF'ING 516 233 2544 P.14/16 1985 H ICM: UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS Page•-1 *�.��kk9F�kk*kdkJtk,t*aYdr#* IeaYa4*k*�r�e�h4�Y+4914,ki.�,wkt.ar�f.•ka4�r+kik*�C ilrk+Fak*9FF•1F�Y�e�ir�4r#*ie,k*ir i IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------j'--------------11-----------------.----------- ------------------- AVERACE RUNNING SPE 40, MWOR STREET. , 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR.. . .9 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME O1F THE EA6T/WE W SMEET. . . . .. . . . NYS ROUTE 2 i NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . T17ESTERN SIT DRIVEWAY (ENTER) I NAM OF THE ANALYST DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOCIA`1'ES, VJD DATE aF THE ANALYSY (zm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 .I TIME VERIOD ANALYZE . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. WEEKDAY 8- 0 AM . I � ' OTHER ;INFORMATION. . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK INTERJECTION TYPE AID CONTROL INTERSECTION TYPE: YNT9RSEC'1'IOlI MAJOR (STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST ] �f COP TR IL TYPE NORTHB UND: STOP SIGN j TRAFFIC VOUIMES -------------------- ------ ----------------------- -------------------- ED W3 11B SB LEFT ..__o O ---� �_-- i THRU I 485 5 3 0 - I RIGHT I 11 0 1 --- i NUMDB� OF IJUIES - ----------- -------------------- -------- ----------------_-- ED WD NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- LAMES ; 1 1 2 -._ . AUG' 26 '93 08:49 DUNN ENG. RING516 ^cSS �544 F'. 15%16 AWUSTqENT FACTORS Paga-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (Pt) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS_ FOR RIGHT TURNS ------ ----^ --- -----_-_ - ---------- EASTBOU 90 20 ND 0.00 _ WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 H SOUTHTUND ------ - I VEHICIf COMPOSITION ------I------------- ---------------------- ------ -------------------- SU `Y' UCxs I COMBINATION -YAND RVIS VEHICLES $ MOTO CYCLES ---- ------- ----- ------ ------ 0 EASTBOUND 0 WESTBC= 0 0 NORTH+TJND 0 0 i SOUTH�OUND -- _-- - _ CRITItL GAPS. - ------------------------------IIST. ------------------- I 'TABU VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT FINAL ATa le 10-2) VALUE ADJUS ENT CRITICAL GAP I ---- --------- -------- M:INOR IRIGHTS LID 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS Y WB 5.30 0.0 5.30 IiINOR (LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENT VYING INFORMA ION -------------- ---------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . .. . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME �F THE NORTH/8 UTH STREET. . . . WESTERN SITE, D IVEWAY (ENTER) DATE ND TIME Off' TH . ANALYSTS. . . . . A-23-93 ; WEE 'DAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . . 1994 BUILD 47/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK I ' _ - .. ,. ..-...;...._. -- -: ..�..•.•ate Stt�'(C.E�av CxA mEs R. CTTDDY P5 — ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD GouNTBY ROAD (RTE. 58) P.O.BOX JL547 RIvE$H:EAD,NY i1fl01 ADJACENT TO TEL:(516)369-8200 MOTOR VEHICLE DEPARTMENT FAX:(518)369-9080 August, 25, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Mr. Kassner Gentlemen: Supplementing the traffic report delivered to the Planning Board, enclosed is a letter to me dated August 25, 1993, from Dunn Engineering Associates. This letter addresses the inquiry made at the Planning Board work session concerning consideration of the Dunkin' Donuts facility which. is proposed for the location near the intersection of Factory Avenue and the Main Road. Please include this response with your file. Very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy/f. CRC:jme Enclosure Southold Town Planning Board 24 September 13, 1993 Mr. Cuddy: And again, we encourage you to come to us and to let us know what your concerns are. We'd be happy to address those concerns. Ken Abruzzo is available, Howard Young is available, Mr. Baxter's here, I'm here. We have other people that can provide answers if we don't have an answer, so thank you for the hearing. Mr. Ward: Is there anybody else this evening that would have any questions or would like to address the Board? Linda Levy: I'm Linda Levy, the Southold coordinator for the North Fork Emvir-- onmental Council and I wanted to just speak with the Board briefly tonight about the Burger King-.and the Dunkin Donuts applications. I note that you took lead agency tonight on both of those. We would like to take this opportunity to re- quest once again that a full SEQRA review be initiated on the Burger King application. While we are aware that this is an unlisted action, and therefore doesn't require that you do a full SEQRA review, we believe that the potential impact to our community of a fast food restaurant demands an environmental im- pact study. As we stated in our memo to you of August 5, we believe that there are many sections of the law that apply to the determination of significance of this action. These include substantial changes in noise and traffic levels, an increase in solid waste production, impairment of neighborhood character and change in intensity of use. In addition, the consequential significance of this action needs to be assessed. We are fully aware that the ZBA has ruled this is the same application as that of the 1990 application for a McDonald's restaurant on the same site. However, that application was withdrawn before many of the issues raised were addressed by the Planning Board. We do not believe that these applications are the same and in any case, we believe that a hard look must be taken before any determin-- ation on the current application is made. The New Yore: State legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to the fullest extent possible. Given the overwhelming community response to the 1990 McDonald's application, a full SEQRA review must be applied to the new proposal so that the impact to our community may be completely understood. We are concerned about the DunkinDonuts application before you as well. We believe that many of the same issues, traffic impact, storm runoff, etc. apply to this proposal. Most important, however, is the change in intensity in use of the site. The burden of such increased intensity must be assessed. Regardless of rulings by other agencies, and here I'm referring to the ruling by the Build- ing Dept. that permits the second use on this site, we believe that the Planning Board must require that impacts on our community and environment be mitigated. Recently we've been made aware that a building is being constructed without a site plan approval at the Mattituc'; Airport. We all know that a used car lot has been allowed to operate despite the fact that it's not permitted under our zoning code and now we have these two applications, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts, to be situated on the already dangerously.congested Main Rd. in Mattituck. These are the types of actions that led to the destruction of the rural character of all the towns west of Southold. Tonight we request that the Southold Planning Board use its legal authority to fully review these two applications. The law states the lead agency shall make every reasonable effort to -involve applicants, other agencies and the public in the SEQRA process. Only through 'a full review can this charge be met. Thank you. Southold. Town Planning Board 25 September 13, 1993 Mr. Ward: Anybody else like to address the Board this evening? Ann Lowry: Good evening. I'm Ann .Lowry, president of the North Fork Environ- mental Council. I would like to really reiterate a couple of the things Linda spoke about, particularly in aslring for the environmental review for both Burger King and Dunkin Donuts. We have nothing against these businesses and we do partake of both of them from time to time but we believe that the two, as proposed, do not fit into the rural character of the town, the rural character that we're trying to protect. At least they will not fit in as proposed at present. We're especially concerned about the proposed. Burger King. This is deja vu all over again. When McDonalds proposed its fast food business and then backed out after the window was not permitted by the ZBA, there was a promise to the people of Southold that the code would be changed so that this kind of fight would not be necessary again. That was two years ago and it has not happened. We are, to put it mildly, very disappointed. There are many other ways we would use our energies if we did not have to fight the same fight over again. Also at that time, again as Linda mentioned., there were questions posed by the ?BA about the project which were never answered and so the Planning Board is left to make decisions with no closure on some issues. This is inefficient at hest and we hope that this process will get closure and settle this matter once and for all. Thank you. Mr. Ward.: Anyone else like to address the Board? Debbie Sidlauskas: ' Hi, my name is. Debbie Sidlauskus. I'm from Mattituck and I would also like to speak about th.e proposed Burger King and the Dunkin Donuts and please beg someone to do something about this. I !mo,,r Mr. Arnoff has said tilat it is illegal to ban them. I don't really know that that's a fact because to my understanding there are some towms in which they have disallowed fast food franchise establishments. If it's true that you can't ban them then there are ways I'm sure that you can make it so difficult and costly for them to come in that they won't want to. I _think it's unfortunate that nothing's been done. 'I have had a Board member tell me, well bring me something. I don't have the time nor is it my job to research other town's codes. T t'i.in'k you 'zave more resour- ces here and more know how, I don't have the 'mow how to do that but I wish that someone would initiate something and see what we can do so that we again don't have to go through this. I don't th.in'c any of us wants to see Rt 25 turn into a Rt. 58 in Riverhead. I don't 3mow hots to stop it except to ask for your help in changing the zoning in this town. Mr. Ward: Anybody else like to address the Board this evening? Mr. Cuddy? Charles Cuddy: Since I represent those two applicants, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts and I'm Mere I certainly wouldn't want to let this go by without saying a couple of things. One, I don't think that-this is the appropriate forum for lobbying for a change in zoning, :ohich is apparently what these people are doing. Two, I haven't heard a single factual allegation that changes anything from what has been presented to the Board either through McDonalds, the Burger King application or Dun'dn Donuts. T thin'z. the factual concerns are 'being addressed environmentally, I thin'r you're being addressed through your consul- tants, I think that's the right process. If there is going to be a time when further should be Heard about the environmental determination then I'll address Southold Town Planning Board 26 September 13, 1993 Mrs. Levy's concerns, I'll address the president's concerns of the North For'; Environmental Council, but I really don't thin': that this continuing, and it goes on at worlcsessions and it goes on here, I guess this is a worksession at this point, but that it serves any purpose except to let everybody know that virtually these people do not like those applications. But these are site plans and I don't know how to get through to the people who are opposing them, but this is not a cb.ange of zone, it'-s simply a site plan. These people are entitled to use their property that way. And I would ask that you continue the process that you're going through, just as you have. Thane you. Mr. Ward: Anybody else this evening that would like to address the Board.? Mr. McDonald: I'd like to ma'-ce a comment. Someone said that the Town Attorney told you that it was illegal, I never heard that, but I do remember that the Supervisor promised that he would change the code on this. Have you spoken to the Supervisor? Ms. Sid.lauskus: Yes, well. . . Mr. McDonald: I would suggest that Mr. Cuddy's comment is to the point. The Supervisor, I remember he made a promise. Ms. Sidlauskcus: Yes, Supervisor Harris did make that comment that he would change it. He went to Mr. Arnoff and Mr. Arnoff said it's illegal, it's im- possible, you can't do that. Now, I think with a little initiative there is a way around it. I mean we're not the first town in the country to do this, or the state. Mr. McDonald: - Then I would say that the place where that's going to 'lave to happen, must happen, is with the Town Board. Ms. Sidlauskcus: Well, I don't have to tell you Mar';, we've been to them time and time and time again and the one of the Board members kaho told me, 'bring me proof, bring me. . .and I told him, that's not my job, it's your job to pro- tect the character of this town, not my job. I mean, I do what I can as a citizen, and I help anyway I can but I have my limitations and quite frankly I have a life and I'm not getting paid for this. . I thin; it's about time the Town starts doing their job. And I don't :now where else to go. We have been to the Town Board. numerous times. We've been everywhere, and nothing has been done, everything is stonewalled. And I think if the Town Attorneys can't find a way, or do what the citizens want in this town and the Town Board can't then. . .I just read about a town who fired tl^eir whole Town. They hired a con- sultant and the consultant fired everybody. . .gone. 'They started from scratch. (everyone talking) . Mr. Ward: Wel.l, . for those who are for it, those that are opposed to it there's always a frustration level but rest assured t'n.at the Planning Board in terms of the reviews and the loo'cing at the environmental reviews and that, -we'll do a thorough job in our best opinion and certainly to mitigate any concerns that are there in the community, at least to address them. So, we are moving ahead with the applications. "_'hey will be reviewed and carefully looked at by the Planning Board and we march on. Sout'_nold Tom Planning Board 2.? September 1.3, 1993 Mr. McDonald: How long does i.t usually take for our transcripts to get done? We're looking at probably a couple of months, aren't we? Is there some -way we could synopsize what's been said and send the comments:-:to the Town Board? I mean, these people want to be heard. The best we can do is let the Town Board '-avow that they're talking. Ms. Sidlauskus: Then you've got to get them to stead Mr. Orlowski: I've been here for I; years and 14cDonalds was number 2; Friendly's was here first and we went through. that whole round. And you're right, during this whole thing a comment was made by the Supervisor that we are going to eliminate it, but the Town Attorney has since said .be 'doesn't know how it can be done. I think Mr. Cuddy's right, this is not tfie place to do it but you're going to have to take your group and go to the Town Board and ask them as a citizen, you want something done. It has to be done in code committee and that's where you have to get it to. And once you get it there and they work on it,. they've done many things there, many different:things, many highly unusual things. I thin': this would be very simple forthem. But this Board cannot do it. We have to .look at what's in front of us and act on it and the way it's written in the code, in a fair way. But you have a good case and I th.in'.c you should go to the Town Board and mal-e the noise and get it on the code committee agenda and go there and work on it. I've sat in many of those, and we've done like I said, many different things. Mr. McDonald: You never thought they could be done. Mr. Orlows':i: Never thought they could be done. And one of them that was hashed out over there was site plan. Who makes the determination? It used to be the Planning Board. 'That's exactly probably why we went through some of these things and have some of these problems because that decision was taken out of our hands. We don't go along with it but we don't have that control anymore. I feel for you, I appreciate it. I've been here for a long time, 15 years and what's going on now is amazing to me sometimes, but you've got to go to the other Board now because they want to take over the Planning process on some of these issues and some of these things so go see them and let them listen to you. You're a taxpayer. Ms. Sid.laus'rus: Thank you. Mr. Ward: No further comments? Do we make a motion to adjourn? Mr. Orlows'.ci.: So moved. Mr. Edwards: Second. Mr. Ward: All in favor? Ayes: Mr. McDonald, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. Latham, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Ward. Mr. Ward: Opposed? Motion carried. f• :'t iJ y�fi r,' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS l ak SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. y' � �� r P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 14, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Rd. (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed site plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Rd. , Mattituck SCTM* 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The following resolution was duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, September 13, 1993 : BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act; start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. --- S' er , Richard G. Ward Chairman PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Benhett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Supervisor r George Ritchie Latham, Jr. '•�'-�!;� 1 -., -� - Richard G. Ward , Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Hark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L.'Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 / 19 RE: Lead Agency Coordination Request Dear Reviewer: The purpose of this request is to determine under Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act-SEQRA) of the Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617 the following: 1. Your jurisdiction in the action described below; 2. Your interest in assuming the responsibilities of lead agency; and f 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please. find a copy of the proposal and a completed Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) to assist you in your response. Project Name: ,,,•�� �,� ��� � � ,��� Requested Action: . SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I ).Unlisted Contact Person: —_ SS��/� ( 516) -765-1938 The lead agency will determine the need for an environmental impact statement (EIS) on this project. Within thirty ( 30) days of the date of this letter, please respond in writing whether. or not you have an interest in being lead agency. - Planning Board Position: ( )) This agency wishes to assume lead agency status for this action. ( ) This agency has no objection to your agency assuming lead agency status for this action. ( ) Other. ( See comments below) . Comments: Please feel free to contact this office for further information. Sinc4el •, R.P 61 , Wf Cc: Board of Appeals .BGa-r"d-of-Tru-st-ee's' -�,k Building' Department - Southold Town Board Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services 4IYSZW— 5"t��k- NYSDEC - Albany S- C--D.cpt-.--o-f—Pubric-Wo-rks -U:S—Army-Corp--af—Znq-1neer-s- 4-' N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation * Maps are enclosed for your review Coordinating agencies OA42.1.F t L15 JrJTD f MORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL `. Route 25 at Love Lane, P® Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 R: . September 13 , 1993. W i a s� Richard Ward, Chairman R `�—Tj ate, Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Hall J SEP 1 41993 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chairman Ward and Members of the PlanningBoard ���`;�"�� d�Jl�i� ►� PLANNING BOARD On behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC) I would like to take this opportunity to request once again that a full SEQRA review be initiated on the Burger King application. While we are aware that this is an unlisted action and therefore does not. require such a review, we believe that the potential impact to our community of a fast food restaurant demands an environmental impact study. As stated in our memo to you dated August 5, 1993 , we believe that NYCRR Part 617 . 11 (a) (1) , (5) , (8) , and (9) all apply to the determination of significance of this action. These criteria . include substantial changes in noise and traffic levels, increase in solid waste production, impairment of neighborhood character, and change in intensity of use of land. In addition, the consequential significance of this action needs to be assessed. We are fully aware that the Zoning Board of Appeals has ruled that this is the same application as that of the 1990 application for a McDonald' s restaurant on the same site. However, that application was withdrawn before many of the issues raised were addressed by the Planning Board. We do not believe that these applications are the same; in any case, a "hard look" must be taken before any determination on the current application is made. The New York State Legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to the fullest extent possible. Given the overwhelming community response to the 1990 McDonald' s application, a full SEQRA review must be applied to this new proposal, so that the impact to, our community may be completely understood. We are concerned about the Dunkin Donuts application which is before you as well. We believe that many of the same issues -- e.g. ,traffic impact, storm run-off, etc. -- apply to this proposal. Most important however is the change in intensity of use at this site. The burden of such increased intensity must be a non-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper assessed. Regardless of rulings by other agencies within our Town, we believe that the Planning Board must require that impacts on our community and environment be mitigated. Recently we have been made aware that a building is being constructed without site plan approval at the Mattituck Airport. We all know that a used car lot has been allowed to operate, despite the fact that it is not permitted under our Zoning Code. Now we have these two applications, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts, to be situated on the already dangerously congested Main Road in Mattituck. These are the types of actions that led to the destruction of the rural character of all of the towns west of Southold. We request that the Southold Planning Board use its legal authority to fully review these two applications. The law (NYCRR Part 617. 3 (g) ) states, "The lead agency shall make every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies, and the public in the SEQR process" . Only through a full review can this charge be met. Sincerely, Linda Levy Southold Coordinator North Fork Environmental Council a Cold r i 33.'.-Y; PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Yr� . SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman oa�9 �, Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. d Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District ' Pike Street Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Keogh: E closed Pl - se find ( 2) surveys for Please n©tify th� Off *v Irewe needed. Please specify whether shallowto h wells ether oryelectriclwear will be needed. Please reply by cooperation. 199-3- Thank you for your V Y t ly Yours, enc. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ; ,� � r`�i7 1 SCOTr L. HARRIS ` _ ' '`•,. .. ; �' ,� Supervisor Richard G. Ward,Chairman George Ritchie Latham,Jr. r� '`; J ✓ Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. "�_f P.O. Box 1179 Mark S. McDonald Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13 , 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Request for site plans for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 .1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: As requested in your fax transmittal of September 10, 1993, enclosed are copies of the Burger King site plan. If there are any questions, please contact me at the planning office. IinPel Kass/er Site Plan Reviewer Encls. CRAMER, VC RHI \ / OCIATES. ENVIRONMENT. JO CONSULTANTS FAA TTA� Fax Numbcr (s16) 331.8046 Date: . To: ,fors �ifssNze From: 71 Re: Number of Pages (including cover ). .� if tlxa total transmittal is not received call number below. Comments: (Z4,/ or 7)7'� Y/- y ! �>04' 'C'O-�rZ SEP 1 31993 h SOUTWI 9 T6�+�9 fd it,QOI~RYD .� nnnrn Wl 1 �P DI prG NV 117Ad l.F116i 331-1455,1 a . J rrJ � PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS '?� a SCOTr L. HARRIS n •: j ,•A��: Supervisor Richard O.Ward.Chairman George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Bennett Orlowski,Jr. P.O.Box 1179 Mark S.McDonald Southold,New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 13, 1993 Charles R. Cuddy Attorney at Law 180 Old Country Road (Rte. 58) P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, NY 11901 . RE: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of. $950..00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) , and for a review of the Traffic Impact Study. A copy of the estimate is enclosed. The sum of $950.00 must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check should be made out to the Town of Southold. When the. consultants complete their review, the Planning Board will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant. environmental impact. in er i and G. Ward Chairman Encl. / cc: Thomas Fisher, Building Inspector In Charge Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Board of Appeals CRAMER, V ,. i� A,� uVIATES ENVIRONMENT 9�1 G CONSULTANTS September 10, 1993 Mr.Robert:Kassner Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11.19 f' Southold, NY 11971 •eJ f _ Re: Burgf,r King, Mattituck Traffic Im act Study Review FuII ]:,AF art I Review Dear Bob: As per your request, this letter provides a proposal for services in connection with the above pproject. We propose to complete a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Burger Kh-Ag at I�iattituck prepared by Dunn Engineering. Review will include details concerning the-adequacy of the study;with reasons for conclusions or requests for additional information if necessary, in addition,we.propose to review and edit as necessary the Part I Full LEAF, and prepare a Part Ia EAF to assist in determining the significance of impacts. A summary letter will be provided in order to outline overall conclusions of the review. The fee for services is $950,00. We have reviewed prior traffic impact study and EA,F reviews, and find this fee to be consistent and commensurate with the scope of proposed services. If you have any questions regarding this letter/proposal, please do not hesitate to call. Very trul . ours, Charles 70orhis,CL P,AICP 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 CRAMER, V ^� A, - QCIATES ENVIRONMENTG CONSULTANTS �p September 10, 1993 Mr. Robert lKassner i� Southold PlanningBoard .� Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11,79 SEP 1 01993 � Southold, NY 11971 c Re: Burger, Kin g, Mattitucicra�NIG GOAR D € Traffic Impact Study Review Full 1,AF Part I Review Dear Bob: As per your request, this letter provides a proposal for services in connection with the above project. We propose to complete a review of the Traffic Impact Study for the Burger Ding at attituck prepared by Dunn Engineering. Review will include details concerning the adequacy of the study with reasons for conclusions or requests for additional information if necessary. Ian addition,we propose to review and edit as necessary the Part I Pull EAF, and prepare a Part II EAp' to assist in determining the significance of impacts. A summary letter will be provided in order to outline overall conclusions of the review. The fee for services is $950.00. We have reviewed prior traffic impact study and FAF reviews, and, find this fee to be consistent and commensurate with the scope of proposed services. If you have any questions regarding this letter/proposal,please do not hesitate to call. Very trul . ours, f Charles. . 6orhis,CFP,,AICP 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD,-SUITE 2, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 AMR" .-i .- - _ _ _ - - ... -� • •• . r. .. . 3 ... ri _J I=. Ch J T ?1 -1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Richard G.Ward,Chairman Viz, _:. . .ti ? George Ritchie Latham,Jr. Town Hall, 53095 Main Road J Bennett Orlowski,Jr. - sY ^S P.O. Box 1179 MarkS.McDonald Y {r<c ' Southold, New York 11971 Kenneth L. Edwards Telephone(516)765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE rax(516)765- 1823 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD September 7, 1993 Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Environmental Review and Traffic Study for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM# 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning' Board hereby refers the Long Environmental Form (LEAF) and Traffic Study prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates for Burger King to your office for a cost estimate. When the applicant forwards the required review fee a purchase order will be sent to you. If there are any questions, please contact me at the planning office. incur 1 Ila be t G. Kassner Site Plan Reviewer Encls. CHAnmES B. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 18o Oij3 CouwTBY ROAD (RTE. 58) P O.BOX 1547 RrVFJZHE Ate,NY U901 ADJACENT TO TEL:(616)369-8200 MOTOR VESICLE DEPARTMENT FAX:(816)369-0080 August 26, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Application of Cofam Realty Co. Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a long form .Environmental Assessment Form submitted on behalf of Cofam Realty. As previously indicated this is submitted over objection. There is no basis that I am aware of for requiring this particular environmental assessment. Nevertheless, in order to- permit the continued review and determination for this project, the EAF is being delivered. I take issue with both the letter - memorandum from Cramer Voorhis & Associates as well as the memorandum delivered by the North Fork .Environmental Council. However, based on submission of the EAF - making further argument at this time. is now a moot point. I respectfully request that you proceed expeditiously.. with your review of_ this matter. very truly yours, Charles R. Cuddy CRC/ec enc. Fnni a AUG 3 l 19M ' x SOUT OLD'IOVIIN PLANNING BOA10 Dunn Engineer�� 4ssociates ( Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 August 25, 1993 Mr.- Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1549 Riverhead, NY 11901 Re: Proposed Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Southold, New York Dear Mr. Cuddy: As discussed, we have investigated the impact on traffic conditions in the vicinity of the above project of the Dunkin' Donuts facility as you described it. As a result of this investigation, the .following can be concluded: 1. The Dunkin' Donut facility can be expected to attract 38 vehicles during its peak hour of .operation, 7:00-8:00 A.M. This is based on the assumption that each vehicle arriving at the facility will carry an average of 1.2 persons, a nationally accepted rate; 2. Some, if not. most, of the traffic associated with the Dunkin' Donuts facility can be expected to be already on the road for another purpose, such as traveling to work or to a recreational activity. Analyses performed in connection with this investigation have assumed that 50% of the traffic destined for the Dunkin' Donuts facility will be pass-by trips; therefore only 19 new vehicles will be generated by this proposed facility during the A.M. peak hour; 3. The addition of this traffic_ to the roadway network results in barely perceivable impact, even if all 19 originated in and returned to the west, so as to have the greatest impact on the Burger King site. This is evidenced by the results of unsignalized capacity analyses performed with these 19 vehicles added. Since it can be expected that some of the donut shop traffic would originate in the east, this analysis examines a worst case scenorio as it relates to the Burger King operation. A copy of these analysis is attached; As a result, it can be seen that the traffic generated by the proposed Burger King can be accommodated by the existing roadway network, even with the addition of traffic generated by the Dunkin' Donuts facility. .i !! - I. : ;ice n F'i,ANNING BOARD Mr. Charles R. Cuddy, Esq. August 25, 1993 Page 2 We trust that the forgoing addresses any concern on the part of the Town of Southold with regard to this .project. if you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, V / VINCENT CORRADO Engineer VC/lam L930421 P93063 Attachment � � � .r� r•!4`�r;��Y't'`. i Y���r '��'�n,���1'E"� } z .Y ?• � �"��7'p�,f�,,,M,+,,� ,y 1t .1• .�'•'♦ .� t�N...� .� •.�'! #-. ' .r 'f � � r r i r\�fr:r�;ER'_.xJ,�+�'� }� �N i` 'A�:� ,� a(,.i �. '➢A�r�1,5��/• a t• y. I {. r. 'r � ,f 4 =t rtj lvr� •aR� VS, "'F: .9}� �r�_�1! ,a�" � � -^ • •1 � -r7t�f (� � :j�•r r�l r4�,'r•5 tf,�trtl. + S r +'� v'f.'��Y'. �+•�.•i..•��"�56 •1X}�}.rP qr t rrt •�`�^'•'f"��� Y.r !,''-'t� ': �� � /.�1.� ' Y..a t' , J t ` F ;.L�'i�.��t` 1 �`y �y.�i,},i�ti,•., ,,�,�;'r.�fr✓ i _.'Vr-'♦ "1,� �.f�F,.. l r7n" .�f Y•i J ', � •• � � ' , ',•r. v. v� r '� •3� r`3� �'. 1t�r a�,A•�'��, -a'." Z' ��� f� r' , I F ry r f r '__E� .*�.f"�S�r�a �j�,� y!-V �w .� IY{' ;��?-xi+ r.•a � i�► F1+ t �..,•� �1t}.r z t •L`�s•• { ,k �a.��= oaf .., ,.�r �Y,�:.�!'S:_ �: r TZ,:� f f� ► 4_E ' }i. M,t r 1".,• f"` c 1i' Tr�' � R,4 ` .. .• E "(. ,r ti_ ,'r a'�r�rygy h'.'rN .* {� `�, n. �r.,�R.,.n� � •' ,�,,.� .f> r'+7�r ,r�S�« _u•t�r a'i.'. 4k"Fr_- i � ,,��1'� • ,N "J,•YJ.. ^ i C' ,n. �Ljf"'4 ��.r r -`t"^r lA^�' ts' ;h � -,�::p• s,�,EP r .�.1",^Yn. . t 4.~�ti t s�a.� � t ..�. ..� �`-t :r. �.. ' '�" +,�yyr;•'�it i`•� '.: ��.��' '�y.•raj. � �y.,,F u•' �.� ��. r o.:• .11,: }L.'•`'t...;.�'S,�?^.�xr�'•1, t�.• '",[1���'�tF�r�?,'�J � � • l{'ai.r• �mr.•�:. r_ AP!tx• `.t+•• �1' • xc-• 9 t 7 ,_,�. ���y. .4sH`,.' 'h'S"""r '•r ,-.� �,/. 1 th�,*,r r1f}'A"'>. •`''YAli, t�-•yam{, �`r.2.,-'y4 '�•'•+w F S+ .3#f i"=,k. �w7f r 4'.✓, ;;.` "� '�+ k�4i :•r..4<+11Fd 3e'�}r1P�r n3if'rv•' •°rfittttk ,' 'n'yfi >'f'fY' :3°xk" :w;. .:cif_..,�r'7'� (` jf.a`'4- -. � "_vr.�y'.. , } 2-- Th 1• i 1 1 p F+Li"AN�In +��r�k � r t ,•1�r.V 'S: '}Jf "uf.'",.� as Jit.A r.'�Ar r{T 7 �t r c'rorl'I y ♦"�rer ,`.«, • '�r :� `F '�:: � 12 e,1k't•G� -t�� .. 1 ,: �^'a t t..• %krtYl� iPkF ;a ?1.f"t ry�M1 'Y,�� iLZr yY�• i #�'z. ••'} h 1i�': �.•• • 4 s•F (� fy'}r { 9,s.1 to tr 1. a S S c �•yy,i ii:t,� �,: r r r � � � .�� • ♦ N..�- a. .:. • - '. r':a 1 -4 R� .,e !d f;� o. .tVM.�' ,� r y- ✓ il'.Y''d! '�'���- (• S � g 'F. ,S x N. �1 F 1 t ♦ �,.,*emu ff��'' '�• •4 t �.•�," .R � t ��"t .♦. .X`,;r �'.><'.j, itr' i,t1� °\; u e y� r *�` f$;.'•'+i. s�,t ��P 2' ..br•�.'� ..Y., '�� .1»�1'rr ,��- rY.. .� � nt E. � � � }i .r- f '�� ,!I ;:" • ♦ i. <„p �'y 'ti'�1,r'yy� S►- ) }4 I" a k •S c � ;. e yKj J3 �y�x, pf i q t •y ri s5..a w _7 'f' +i � .r �+ �• ,!'':`' it r� ..� �, L d .�..� r• 1 I ,w 7Yj.� ',Y�,tru4�n�. *'i.. � . =t..:--.sa'' �,: .'�yts,.�.. ."f 'L 1� ; .I, '�. e� ';�,"d S 11r!fJ �ifS i .A i :G •t': :t ?.�11ky :•ail triy'�•, + r 1,15 r`t f+ �; k. x k+r_!r: Ge>:}�r. t !y•:.r'iapf(.`.f ,�,. ^�' ..+ « `� 'rP.€ •�. �f .� x..v` j'l�' r ��.t'f.'�� •�'�' 'M1 �. _i+µ '.�•F '�� }f. �,?• .`�.`fL'�: CS`S � +'.Y��Is•jj 7 ��~ !�•.„� .e."� �rd`•• •a r t(r ris <i •tk.. ��'� i':�i"�C rS�e�:ii r }� f s'" 7 ',t. tt '�.wF` r ii.F .•� A "5'' • 1: _ •:Y�.--�..,-' t ,.r " ���,II ';t:e '�^7 e .t'{ !, f�' +?. >rt i}1 i�t,�. ;;-. .�': .�9 .t` �.6,.,,i �• ..x¢F .y r t ,�`. ,.�^.�,k ; i' v �, 94 :`�, 'r'•, 'f`}u.t' }F- -'k;'�S �1':,`,�r•��.ty V1-+�{'a 4 1g��: -��{.. A �'�.. �� �s. ,, }�i�j/��1,� }.. .QF aAW y�rt' �• 3 r �7 �x4 �.`x�..�(`,f�Yy�*f{/(�r• ��. .�. t�. t� ,i !�'H 1�{�X�� tt+. h��.�' U�T'.' I .}��w3���r^�4 e.i Jf 5! •'S �' ��,. ^7p n�i' �'����!f"Oi• ..�� i �".�'� 1��••at�'� �IY�YM`��l " f�Y '1 V t >3'2W �n..- ri•f ;�111 wE �'�:i. ti,.:)•��'.�y i�i�t�"..7{f,]i •.!'.I�wY.kt' '.t"'�?'�'.� �;tti �''•�t. ,f.r'rt � 1 ifs' 1 � �,. s '+t.t.• r' l I � 6iy'rrt�� ,;.Sr?,;7�t� a�"'�:!,y�Tll. ..r.�, ,r�"t-. � � �� .SG:,t •:t: '. r 4., >'_�ti,.• - °r+a�,'��•f� 5 ti t 11 - i! � •A } I r • a• ��'4`.•{..i,�..x`,dfi �5�. � zlil�r^:.45`4f.� :).ri`�.�"'a e �j'� r� �g".�} ds�;'� �...` \ �♦ j rt ST\ ir. -r>t =.rs..•r.±'' 3 .r ':� t`sw, tp t�:� � .i-k<,;%✓�`��" r�r •1��:�h'• r s��5� •..,�� ��' ��=: t i � :��� ;.�+ ' : „"t�'Yt c .�f'� b: .f�t'{�� +'�,i:,�' .',�; ?: ? kly-,.ja��'-ta..j:.�r.•.�..`;�f e,Ji �d ��Y ,�}Y' Jy4,Pry �+�•aeljx�'�i!n� -� f`� tT»,'' _S""7y"";;r< s.r, �� �••`tl•c '��� .e,,.r.yl.•*�.•Ss`t,�•• 'rl..r"�1�.'di• /.� '.! �• ,, ,_7:y_, �' ,y .Q �,-^- .'-.-1 L.��Yrt _ 7�. ^;i�fTT;''r•-.:i _ .yi.A ,�'f ' ':,j, !� r,.i.� �.tJct •rC a y4,'.r •rs.�'__ - ~q�i ,, •a.r ��1•+�Y?:1 + P•r;��'• � .ram ._:r _ r.�� ��e� .as.. '�-, �.� �" °':". t ; - - - .:+1+»a.••Y•� -tom;. r-,,�,.. ,n K .k •'�N _ .,t� r � ( i.rrc`� ), i... t:s • )�>`�r y t.{ ,d _ ff w7r �_ _. ,• �n`i r. 1t• m .+ toP "rr �1r+t i:t>r';a �: �7.�r .; ..y. {'� r�� t x �r �'-kr -.11a- Si r�1� t'F�3-.tit: `�. '?f hC}-.'1i;1: :IYIt a E.aat.•s"- r,,: 'EY . e• _ �w -.` a. "" _ ',-rs;;•tl!:`�, t `.rt.; ��`."�,3%' 8 {'�htt•C,-�. �t11. CS' f ' _ pX tt { 7 Rill J .. Rib .^�. _ p4a.0 a._E c 3 =,ry�-' <"} •r,'ri•vY:s a-,�-�' -�. �`Q"� a _ _ ,::�' :.,:. ,; _t •. 4 ► . '" = �.,s.� .fis+i�r li'.^Tf^.-^9��'SSRN,aI'F>n•a�a.. a^..�s.�.to,: -v,��e-�-w,.r-� i„a'rN Y. ,� �-,.. °"',mod' �-� >: .��� d'• i -r�'x a '•k,-"'z �t,ry. _.�rXr z F,.Y.. +. �•,��-..'� - 3�,-aS��. A ,r`"'��•r„•-+�Y,+t�7•"S',rec,,.�w'+'^�c,riT^. t�'#�'F rip �/� •Tom,/ i x.,rp ,� ? C'c+�"`t<f+'�L y,._;�•,� -4•'a-� r i S„v y, -r. a. F.t1: N b^.• g �;� : u ,,{,.N yt�t' � � .}� ,tip r.+•,�.� : �.•� t &�^+� . tit. '�' � ��,`� >..,•t,'"` i5'w1}.;b ,Z 6y.✓�r.w, 4t' �,s'p.rJ.10 -ems ?.:7"xvS:=. -- - ,a vi: - - f ? _�." R. r ,b, C.'� Sgjz :•��*`i C' - 4.4* �. r r fr. �:�:{ ,* �J'r"' � �j{r to •1!,Y,f.rti; M}.,•,r,r. �y.r�-�3,�iirr�r?'., u ''^� � s` wf r�R�Y�sy�r},ix�r 5 e "r'�.-•"'C3s�7 v+r i�� f�'� ,. M✓.e �,•,�'}�' t..,. )�<q It� .. ,} k {u"r x'u€, ;s,��� 'M t rrh..,w,;3trrr r :`:� ;• `.' t... :�„ •... j`, tI� i�i•„ iLf ''�',4y-.�..�,�, r,,. .-.s l ,.ia ,�••TMv'' f ,sr r n� 'r .t.+1 xSX; i,, H`,:% Y� !+�tf,. `'.r !C�. ,t} p t�....1„ ��'+ te JF .O '4 - '�' f�Nn i s +a. ..�+.fK''"!.J,r,t L gyG..f�•.�'"f•}f��!-�y. *'' .�+.. f ►Ar" �L ��?i�'�V� .1��'' /.� v�',�°�',',�,a ✓ Via- �Yn't"�.,/f'� r�l•l'' rti•2 wb }c'fyY;c,��,,�� �'S�}•��h5��r t �/�, 9t•Yk a � c. +;�.�{' Ilk �� �: �.-r rs�i$'Tv�r�'~�y{•f'; ,,.. x4�trltlar" 1+?,f� '�Ir r'Y:��`.?rU•aryi�l`^,fl Y�vf.A�tsx;.;�.k�.�,���'c\. `t~c" i �,4s of � t �r �, � y'�: +, a.: � At+ M� `�Ce. $� ,c� ,"'-•3Pr►..!' ' , `p'�fii:,� +L¢ a`'fji;`^, .r`x'f��``:j'���+`.°'✓:.��. �'t` 4�d•'1fi, _�; �� ,;�1{'r_�•��vr,�,y'1J:'F• •s.�`�"t•...- . Y'ti�.4 ir••,k'��»:�}>' �"„ ? ' ` ^ }S , S S° +f t r! r .ee F•, �. e ga ?rr t �tff I i tNtVik'}^r ¢ r 4� ? t sE R ir ��Zyl'� sr r.,•f (w� �• 4r hr , r�- � ^d � X� a rA �•� r,ar f�� ZM"' '{� T"'tlr,t'�i's..,� � + r,.,� � l<�� �h•r, f !s < r */4na!.ac r i'r: r(i;• •,�; r ! �My�t �' r'•1?:i:�IuFyFttw ld�1 i4'taS1�f f Y< n; ,t.; ,t - ?b. .Yf. +•u �r "a 'iid'�:r'• `A.'^.r� 6r.,:•.l�'� •.�':•ri,•.a 2:y 'Cry .1 c:-p �,•. ,. ,.t "�. ::['? `'i •=i%'! °'l'`..'rrYci,t.�7.•.�. 'F �N:/y�':ii�+ H� L• ...�. „�.,: .! ="•e.r rr!;/•,.�' f'..'Sa �` �+..�5,'^t''•.•E �� r• •=•� -. ..� •I, d 5 .?ry:'•f tn, >wC t,+' �: i- :+fk-•• S't,...,. !.+ �K ;a ��_•.+. :': �t x ��«:..! ,.. •a „r::r.:� .t• 1. r Y• ✓,f�"-fr- -/::+f.d- 't '6:3't;rrir ir;i+.y,..<.^ •.�q�*'9. . �` -, s.a •`.. 4:'-. ;•'�j..r_..3•lAa. �' .,_�jtfYr r.� 1...•:;,� �- 'i.l�:'rt;�. .}*'rY � 15. :'J -2 :.�i..+ti p4: J.. .rw�£•.. r;r ,may <rc'�? '•Z•/vf +/,• t'f o-i., .r r�., '7 > ti�r.f ��.. t, •�'!�.e. + „�'��::,,, s �,1;. _ �it, �.� o i.f •�/-fT eL`., A. -,p 1• } �+ ! M... t1••t ♦��s�! /���j:.� r,. •,�, 1.,,�.:; •r<. .,1;•: ,�:^'�';.�, f,�. r i.•, •s�: �".. g•' r :�'':. •,. .]:;:3 •,�-k •+1 +� r a, S-E? ��t.•,�•,c �,�( lt,••+�• i. .. '•,�f•, .r• .,.. �'i.r.':,1,`�t mr�{_.ii. .a•. ;," r 6.=}•:•,'' �-.,y•r r. ;4 aJ,cdc }✓ t�" :.._��:. �: `�.; '•lSti• .;.' } '' pp•1�� t•: 1�sy;. , + .l; r,;r .r t. •�r> h• .0 t:.3?� r,�tR,•�.•,r.Y. .;:rN, �`�'>r.•�, ..C��ru-,Y..•;+� r�'+)`.�`dEr tf;,�"'�i, •'�•�13!••-'atir7'y,`.,. rJwj,�.;r.1Rt+i•.ti:i: �%.+.•;�t,•.,�'•.. �'•r r.rrt, .�•.� ..t.� `s)A��'S`•�',.r�•�l";�'°s.•,.j•:4;,�.�r>.'s,' AUG 26 '93 08:41 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.2/16 I 1985 I04! UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 I . IDENTjFYING INFORMA TON ------------- ----------------------------- --------- --- -- " I ' AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45 PEAK oUR FACTOR. . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .9 AREA 7PULATION. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 150000 OF F' TIE EAST/WLr T STREET. . . . .. . . . NYS ROUTE 2 I NAME qF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . . . . BRAY AVENUE NAME qV THE ANALYST . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOC. VJD DATE CF THE ANALYST (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 TIME RERIOD ANALYZE . . . . .. . . . . . .. . .. . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHERITNFOIiMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGEZ KING MATTITUCR INTERJECTION TYPE AID CONTROL �------------- ------------------------------ -----------------.__ INTER ECTION TYPE: -INTERSECTTOII MAJOR STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE NORTHB •UND: STOP SIGN TRAFVI q VOLMIES ,.-^ ----------- - --------------------------- -------------..----- EB WB NB SB ---- -- - ---- ---- LEFT 0 24 ZB -- THRU 1 411 452 0 -� RIGHT 7 0 53 NUMBBI OF LANES ------------------- ----------------------------- ----..-------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES : n;'..! I"rl e.. 27 Jf';,_J ifd AUG 26 '93 08:43 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.3/16 ADJUS MENT FACTORS Page-2 ----- ----- ---���- ------ ------------------ -------------- --- ! P.ERCENT 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 NORTH OUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTRIOUND _---_ ---- --- - MPOSITION VET�IC4--C---------- ------------. ---------------- ------------------ SU CKS COMBINATION AND RVIS VEHICLES MOTO CYCLES FASTBgUND 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHiOUND 0 0 SOUTH UND -- ^-- - - CRITICAL GAPS _------- ------------- ----------------------------- ---------------..--- TABU VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT IS.T. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTRENT CRITICAL GAP MINOR RIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJORILEFTS W6 5:30 5.30 olou 5.30. MINOR LEFTS NS 7_40 7.40 0-03 7.40 IDENT FYING INFORMA ION --- ------------ -----------==-__---- -- --------- -----_.,..----------- NAME F THE EAST/WE T STREET. NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . BRAY AVENUE DATE 4ND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. . . . . .8-23-93 WEE AY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURCEI KINC MATTITUCK I i AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNN ENGINEEPING 516 288 2544 i P.4/16 i' CAPAC TY AND LEVEL- F--SERVICE -----�------------- _--- ------------- PagP,-3 -------- ------------------ POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHAREDRESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACII-y C:APACI Y CAPACITY MOVE NT V(Pcph c (Pcph) c Los '""� (Pcph� c (PcF J C � C - v H SH SH p --- ------ ---- MINORISTRFET -- -----T-T __y NB 4FT 34 170 166 > 1 6 > > 308 > 209 >C IGHT 65 558 566 i 5 6 > > A MAJORsrx�ET _ WB �0,u 29 689 689 IDENT]�FYING INFORMA YOU NAME �F THE EAST/WE T STREET. NYS ROUTE 25- ------------------- NAME QF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . BRAY AVENUE DATE D TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEET{ AY 8-9 AM OTTER IMORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGE KING• HATTITUCK i i i AUG 26 '93 08:44 DUNK ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.5/16 1985 CM: UNSIGNAZ ZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 91t 7l 9t 7k 7k 1k lY YC 9t Yt 7R 1k 9C 7k 9t yt 9t tk Yt 9r Yt it 4t 9rf fffkfff itf fkfffffftfffi ffffff 9rfff�tf f4ef fair it tt IDENTiF'YING INFOPMA TOM ----------------- ----------------------------- -----------,-------- AVERAgR RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET. . 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR. . . . . .. ... . . . . . ... . .9 AREA POPULATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME F THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . . . . . . . NYS RTE 25 NAME F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . . . . (FACTORY AVE SIGSBEE ROAD NAME F THE ANALYST. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINE 'RING ASSOC. VJD i DATE F THE JUTALYSI (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 8-23-93 .-TIME IERIOD ANALYZE WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.. . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER ICING HATTITUCK INTERJECTION TYPE D CONTROL .... ------------------- ------------ ----- ----- ------------- ---------- I INTEROECTION TYPE: -.LEG MAJOR (STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTRQL TYPE NORTHB UND: STOP SIGN CONTR L TYPE SOUTHB UND: STOP SIGN TRAFF C VOLUMES ------------------------------------------------------------------- --- EH W3 NB SB LEFT 57 21 4 37 THRU 410 5 5 2 7 RIGHT 5 39 23 84 NUMBED OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- ED WB NB GB ------ ------- ------- ------ LA2:ES i 1 1 2 2 AUG 26 '93 08:45 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.6/16 i ADJUS ENT FACTORS Pages-2 -------------------- ---------------- T PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURES RADIUS '(ft) ACCELERATION LANE j GRADE ANGLE FOR RICHT TURNS FOR RIGHT If ------ ----- --- -------- -� ------ ------- - ------- EASTBTND 0.00 9- 20 N WESTB1UNO 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTH�OUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICYE COMPOSITION --- ------- .- -- ------ ------------------- I SU T UCKS COMBINATION AND V'S VEHICLES MOTO CYCLES EASTBOUND ------ --- -------------- ------ --- 4 WESTB UND 0 0 NORTH GUND 0 0 SOUTH OUND 0 0 i CR:L'L'lgAh GAPS -------------- ------------------ -------------------------------- TABU VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT IST, FINAL (Ta Ie 10-2) VALUE ADJUST ENT CRITICAL GAP ---- --------- -------- ------ ---- -------- MINOR RIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 SB 6.10 6.10 0.0 6.10 MAJOR (LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.0 5.30 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 O_U 6.90 i SE 6.90 6.90 0.0 6.90 MINOR (LEFTS i NH 7.40 7.40 O.0 7.40 SB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMA rioN - r --- ------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . . 27YS RTE25- NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . _. FACTORY AVE/SI SBEE ROAD DATE 4ND TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 i WEEK AV $-9. AM OTHER i INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O_D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK : ... .:. ... ..-. ... ._�... _. .-....-:.._..- _�.... .....;:. ._:=,,tea•, AUG 26 '93 08:45 DUHN EPIGIHEER"ING 516 288 2544 F.7i16 CAPAC- TY AND LEVEL- F-SERVICE PggB_3 -----7------------- ------------------------------- ------------------ POTEN- ACTUAL FLAW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY IKOV*NT V(pcph) a (pOph) 0 (pOph) 0 (pop la) 0 - a - v LOS• ------- -------- ---M------ -------- -- --R--------- MINOR (STREET NB I`IEFT 5 103 76 6 71 E OUGII 2 148 133 > 1 3 > 130 > D IGHT 28 552 552 > 441 552 > . 410 S24 >A A MINOR (STREET I S13 I,EFT 45 120 103 1 3 58 E '.HRUUGR 9 152 137 s 137 > 129 > D FIGHT 103 466 466 > 394 436 > 282 363 >C B MAJOR (STREET EB IfEFT 70 568 568 558 498 A WB FFT 26 674 674 674 649 A I IDENTilFYYNG YNvopmA riou -----7-----------------------_--_-_------------- -----------.,.__--- NAME QF' THE 1:AST/W2 T S'1REE1. . . . . . NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . FACTORY AVE/6132SBEE ROAD DATE AND T11IR OP ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 i WEEKDAY 8-9 AM -OTHER INFORMATION. . . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MA7TITUCK i I i AUG 26 '93 08:46 DUNN ENGINEERING 516 288 2544 P.8/16 i 1985 HP UNSIGNAL ZE0 INTERSECTIONS Page-1 hik�e##iF�iFANdr*ilt�b�t�Ytie•Jr +t�ee:r*ttiii�kitlt�lt�t�lt7t9t�ltkx�tltltltfE* irir*ir**�Vik*##�+#k*k#k�k IDEHTI,FYING INFORMA ION ..rrw--;------------ --------------------- ------ ------------------- i AUERAG�E RUNNING SPE D. MAJOR STREET. . 45 PEAR HIDUR FACTOR. . .9 AREA PULATION. . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 150000 NAME F THE EAST/WET STREET. . .. . . . .. NYS ROUTE 2 i NAME OjF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME dF THE ANALYST DUNN ENGINE .RIONG ASSOC. VJD DATE OF THE ANALYST (•mm/flC/YY) . _ . . . . 8-23-91 TIME: �ERIOD ANALYZE . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM i OTHER INFORMATION_ - 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER [LING 1ATTITUCK INTER ECTION TYPE AJ40 CONTROL TNTEROECTION 'TYPE: -INTERSECTION i MAaOR STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE.SOVTHB3 UND: STOP SIGN TRIIFF�C VOLUMES - -----------------_- i EB wa NB SB LEFT 0 0 -- 1 THRU i 445 4 3 -- 0 RIGHT I 0 1 -- 3 NUMSE4 OF LANES W - ----- ----- EB WS NB SB ------- ------- ------- ------- I,A}iE8 AUG 25 '93 03:45 D_�Ifl I I ,E�I�,G If•IEERING 283 2544 F.9/15 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 -------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RAL31US (fC) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS ------- -- -------- ------- ----------------- EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTEdUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTH OUND --•- _ SOUTH OUND 0.00 90 20 11 VEHYC E COMPOSITION ----- ------------- -------------------------------- ----------------_---- SU VIUCKS I COMBINATION i AND IVIS VEHICLES MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- --•-•---- ------ FASTE UND 0 0 _ WESTBOUND 0 0 NORTHI}OUND -- --- SOUTHPOUND 0 0 i CRITICAL GAPS ------- ------- - ----- - ,.----------------LST. --------------�_--- i TABU R VALUES ADJUSTED SIGF1T FINAL (Ta lC 10-2) VALUE ADJUST 4ENT CRITICAL GAP MINORIRICHTS ---- --------- -------- ------ --- ------------ ii SA 6.10 5.10 0.03 6.10 MAJOR (LEFTS EB 5.30 3.30 0.0 ' 5.30 MINOR 'LEFTS SB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENT]FYINC INFORMA ION ----...�------------- -------------..- -------------__- NAME QF THE EAST,/WE T STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME 9F THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . _ LAUREL LAKE DR EVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALYSIS. .. . . 8-33-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER !INFORMATION. . . . 1994 ©[UYY,7J W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK AUG 26 '93 08:47 DUNN E�IGINEERING 516 233 2544 P. 10/16 CAPACITY AND LEVEL- F-SERVICE Page-3 ----w a Ia--waverwa--w ---wa-rara----r----- .------- ------------------- POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TYAL MOVEMENT SEED fiESF,ItVE I RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACI Y CAPACITY MOVM4*T v(pcph G (pcph) c (pcph) a (pcp ) c - C - v LOS P M SH ---- SH MINOR JSTREET SD FT 1 159 159 > 1 9 > .157 > D } 329 > . 324 >B • IGFiT 4 5]3 513 > 5 3 > 509 > A MWOR STREET ED I FT 4 633 633 6 3 - 633 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------- NAM OF THE EAST/WET STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 ----T---- NAME qF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . LAUREL LAXE DR •V'E DATE AND TIME OF TH A?IALYSIS. . . . . 8-23--93 ; WEER AY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.. 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 PURGER KING MA:CTITUCP. I i AUG 26 '93 06:47 DUNN ENGINEERING 51G 288 2544 P.11/16 15$5 M: UNSIGNAL ZED .INTERSECTIOl7S Page-� IDENT#YING INFORMA ION ' -----� RUNNING-SI'E D, - -- T-___-_ __________________ MAJOR STREET. . 45 AVERA PEAKtuR FACTOR.. . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .9 AREA pdpUT,ATTON. . . . 150000 NAME JF 'THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . .. . . . . HYS ROUTE 2 IIAME O THE NORTH/S UTH STREET.. . . . . . EASTERN' (EX T) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME �F THE ANALYST . . . ... DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOCIATES, VLTD DATE THE ANALYSx (mm/dd/yy) . . .. . . 8-23-93 TIME tR.IOD ANALYZE . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER FORMATION -. 1994 BUILD W/ O.D. 1 BURG R KING MATTITUCX INTERS CTION TYPE AlID CONTROL -_------------------------------------------------ ------- �_-�_W------ - INTERSECTION TYPE: -IQd RSECTYON MAJOR STREET DYRECT ON: EASTMST CONTROL TYKE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -_-..--------------- ----------------------------- ------------------- WE NB SB LEFT 0 1 8 -- THRU 485 5 5 0 -- RIGHT I 1 0 13 -- NUMBE� OF LANES ----- ------ --------------------......----- ------------------- EB WE NB SB LANES --- 1 2 -� AUG 26 '93 88:48 DUNN ENGINEERING 1F,III Sl_ 288. 2544 P. 12/16 i - ADJUST"NT FACTORS Page-2 ------ ---------- -------------- ----- ----------- ------------------- PERCENT RXCHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --------- --------- ---------------- ----------------- EASTBO�ND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NQYTHBpUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUTHBpUND --- --- --_ .. VEHIC' I COMPOSITION ----- ------------ ---------------------------- ------------------- SU UCKS COMBINATION AND RVIS VEHIC:LES MOTORCYCLES i ------------ ------------- ----- ----- 2AS'!,aQpblU 0 0 WESTBOi D q 0 NORTH HI ND 0 0 SOUTHBPUND CRITIC L CAPS --�_-_�------------ ---------------------------- -------------------- TABU R+VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT IST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUST NT CRiTXCAL GAP - - --- --- - MINOR IGHTS NS 6.10 6.10 0.0 8.10 MAJOR FTS WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR EFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.041 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMA loll ----- -------.._...--- I----------------------- ----- ------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WET STREET. .. . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/3 UTH STREET. . . . 'EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE ?'ND TIME; OF Tli ' ANAY,YS15. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER ;I;INFORMATION. . 1994 BUILD W/ O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTXTUCK AUG 2G '93 08:48. DUNN ENGINEERIPIG 516 238 2544 F. 13i15 CAPAjFY AND LEVEL_ F-SERVICE Page-3 ---- ------ --------------------------- ------------------ i POTEN- ACTUAL FLOWS-- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPACITY MOVEMENT V(pCph p M STi C (poph) c (pcph) c (pcp ) C R= C&H- v LOS • -------- --------- -------- - ------------ _-- MINOR FTREET NB I{EFT 10 139 137 137 128 D R� GHT 16 511 511 53.1 �495 A I� MAJOR PTREET WB ' FT 1 631 631 6 1 630 A i IDENTIFYING INFOM4A ION -..-----I------------- ------......,.------------- ------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WET STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF NORTH/SOUTH UTH STREET. . . . . EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE A�40 TIME OF THEA14ALYSIS. . . . . B-23-93 WEEK AY 8_9 ISM OTHER INFORMATION. . . 1994 BUILD W/ O.D. 1 BUR c R KING MATTITUcIi i . i I I j AUG 26 '93 06:49 DUNN ENG VEERING 516 288 2544 P.14/16 i 1985 HICI IF UNSIGNAL ZED INTERSEUMONS Page-1 7M9t�N�rk� **k**k*ik*ir#* tk,M�etk�lt�ft*t4+l��Yt4+�Y�114�iJo��Y��r�irY{r�ah'hdetb*�4 9M**Te**driF�Y��Irt4�A**i*fir II IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------i------- ---- ----------------------- ----- ----- --- AVERAC� RUNNING SPEED, FWOR STREET. . 45 • i PEAKFPUR FACTOR. . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . .9 AREA �OPULATZOH. .. . 150000 NAME O1F THE EAST/WEST STREET. . . . .. . . . NYS ROUTE 2 NAME 'OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET. . . . . . . WESTERN SIT DRIVEWAY (ENTER) I NAI4E dF THE ANALYST . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINE RING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE qF THE ANALYSY (M/dd/yy►) . . . . . . 8-23-93 TIME PERIOD ANALYZE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM • I ' OTHER {INFORMATION. . . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCYK INTER ECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -- ---��-----.,.. ---------------------------- --------------- INTER�ECTION TYPE: INT'RPSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECT ON: EAST/WEST CONTR L TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN I TRAFFIC VoulmES �------------- ----------- --- ...... ..—..-- BB W3 NB GB LEFT I 0 LO -- THRU I 485 5 3 0 -- ' I RIGHT I 11 0 1 -- NUN BRi OF LANES - --- ------ ------------------------------ -------- ---------- EB W8 NB SB ; 1 1 2 r- --- LANES -- ... . , ,,.• .; ..nog AUG 26 '93 88:49 DUNN ENGI : ING 516 289 2544 � P.15i16 ADJUST ENT FACTORS Page-2 ----- ---------------..... ----------- ------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS FOR RIGHT TURNS --- ---------- ---..------------ ----------------- EASTBOPHD 0.00 -90 20 N WESTBOPND 0.00 90 20 N 'NORTHH`OUND 0.00 90 20 N SOUT90UND --- --- --- I VEHICLE COMPOSITION ------I------------- ---------------------- - ---- ------------- SU T,ZUCXS COMBINATION AND RVIS VEHICLES $ MOTO CYCLES ------ -- ----- ------ ----- EASTBObND 0 0 i WESTBOIUND 0 0 NORTH+TJND 0 0 SOUTH OUND -- CRITI L GAPS -------------- --------------------- -- -------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE AWUSIIIENT CRITICAL GAP ---- --------- -------- ------ ---- ------------ M INOR FRIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS WE 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR (LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.0 7.40 IDENT FY'I= INFORMA ION ------------------------ --------------------- NAME CIF THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . .. . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME CIF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. . . . WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) DATE ND TIME OF TH . ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEE 'DAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION. . 1994 BUILD W/O.D. 1 BURGER ICING MATTITUCK i I • i • AUG 26 '93 08:50 DUNK ENCIEEPING 516 228 2544 . P. 16i16 I CAPACYI Y AND LEVEL- F-SERVICE Page-3 _--_ - ------------ -------------------------------- ----_--------- -- • i POTEN- ACTUAL FLOW- TIAL MOVEMENT SHARED RESERVE ! RATE CAPACITY CAPACITY CAPAC1 Y CAPACITY MOVFM]3 PT V(PcPh c (pcph) c (poph) a (pcp ) c = 0 - v LOS I R M SH R SFl ------ -------- w-------- -----r r+.r - ------ww-w-.. - --MINOR IS TREET Ni3 11EXT 1 134 133 1 3 132 D �IGHT 1 507 507 5 7 506 A I MAJOR ISTREET WE LEFT 12 622 622 6 ,2 610 A . I. I IDENTIFYING INFORMA ION ----.. ------------------- NAME dF THE EAST/WE T STREET. . . . . . NYS ROUTE 25 NAME dF THE NORTH/S UTH STREET. :. . WESTERN SITE DRIVEWAY (ENTER) DATE �D TIME OF TH ANALYSIS. . . . . 8-23-93 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHERIINFORMATION. . . 1994 BUILD W/O-D. 1 BURGER KING MATTITUCK i I i - I • I • • j I I j CnART.ES R. CTJDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD(RTE. 58) P.O.BOX 1547 RINMRHF.AD,NY 11901 ADJACENT TO TEL:(516)369-8200 MOTOR VE�-IICLE DEPARTMENT FAX:(516)369-9080 August 18, 1993 Mr. Robert Kassner Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Dear Mr. Kassner: Re: Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Burger King Attached hereto is the traffic impact study for the proposed Burger King at Route 25 in Mattituck. Would you please review this with the Board Members and advise if it satisfies your requirements. / Very truly yours, C-54 -41 ., ' Charles R. Cuddy CRC:jme Enclosure p� AUG 2 01993 j 5. P !i_r<<J k!v 13Dt�t i1 - " � .� . �* i~v` � U `!� 'RK NORTH FORK ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL To : The Southold Town Planning Board From: The North Fork Environmental Council Date : August 5, 1993 ' Re : 8urger King Corporation Application The North Fork Environmental Council insists that a full SEQRA review be performed for this application. This review should be independent of the information contained in the application dated August 10, 1990 submitted by the McDonald' s Ccrpcv^ation. Pursuant to NYCRR 617. 2 ( b) (i ) (iii ) this application qualifies as an action under Environmental Conservation Law. Further review of Part 617 of NYCRR indicates that this oroposed action would be classified as an unlisted action. NYCRR 617. 2 (kk) . A draft EIS may be required by the lead � agency for an unlisted action. NYCRR 617. 3 (f> (2) . Furthermore NYCRR Part 617. 3 (g) states: " The lead agency every reasonable effort to involve applicants, other agencies, and Early consultations initiated by agencies can serve to narrow issues of sin-nificance and toof gg-Critroypi-sy relating to envi- Case law also supports the above cited part. 11atte-r of 157 A. D. 2d 273, 276 (1990) . Pursuant to the above quoted section the NFEC urgently requests this involvement guaranteed by State law and supported by case law. In determining the significance of an unlisted action NYCRR Part 617. 11 (a) (1 } , (5), (8) , and (9) apply. These criteria indicate a significant effect on the environment. " (1 ) a substantial adverse change in. . . existing traffic or noise levels; a substantial increase in solid waste production. . . (5) the impairment of the character or quality of existing community or neighborhood character; ` amon-profit organization for the preservation of land, sea, air and quality of life printed on zmm% recycled paper _ ' = - (8) a substantial change in the uie, or intensity of use, of land. . . (9) the creation of a material demand for other actions which would result in one of the above consequences; - Subsection (5) is relevant to the present aoplication because, if approved, this would be the first major chain fast food restaurant in the Town of Southold. Given the overwhelming opposition to a restaurant of the same type McDonalds) because it would impair the character and quality of our existing community` the present application of Burger King, Inc. presents the identical situation. Subsection (9) applies because, as is well documented by Exhibit 1, and well known, no town hasJ��t_��� major chain fast food restaurant. The more restaurants of this type that are present the more likely the other above cited criteria ( i . e. , NYCRR Part 617. 11 (a) ( 1 ) (5) and 48> would result . � Of equal if not more importance is sub-section (b) of NYCRR Part 617. 11. " (b) For the purpose of determining whether an action will cause one of the foregoing consequences, the lead agency must considen / � Qq1� of! (Emphasis added) . Sub-section (c) of the above Part states: The significance of a likely conse- quence (. i. e. whether it is material, substantial, large or important ) should be assessed in connection with : (1 ) ' (2> (3) � (4) Ly (5) ' (6) / (7) (Emphasis added) . See Exhibit 1. Under ECL8-0109 (2) an EIS must be prepared for any action that "may have a significant effect on the environment. " There exists a relatively low threshold for this requirement. The Court of Appeals held i 8 ' . ` ` - � N. Y. 2d 359 ( 1986) that environmental review can be considered arbitrary and capricious for failure of lead agencies to consider whether the character of a community would be altered by the proposed action. This same court also ruled that land development impacts not only on the actual party involved but on the community in general. _Id� at 367 citing 38 N. Y. 2d 102, 110 (1975) . In two other cases the court has ruled that if an agency does not take a "hard look"' then its action and determination can be described as arbitrary and ` capricious or an abuse of discretion. Such a determination will not be supported 88 A. D. 2d 777452 N. Y. S. 2d 639 (1982) ; , 79 A. D. 2d 769, 468 N. Y. S. 2d 402 (1983) . The present applicant would prefer to use a prior application as his own. The prior application was that of a different applicant ; the McDonalds Corporation. In 55 N. Y. 2d 41 , (ISSM , Mgd _fg /9 *. U. 2d 3.5/, (1981 ) , the court ruled that the use of a prior decision for the same applicant would clearly frustrate the objectives of SEQRA. The Legislature has directed that SEQRA be administered to the fullest extent possible. In this instance the situation is more extreme given that the applicants are not the same. The same application should not be used three years later for a different applicant. In conclusion, for the foregoirlg reasons based upon both statuatory and decisional law, The North Fork Environmental Council, comprising 1, 100 members, calls for your Board to determine that this application meets the criteria for the closest environmental scrutiny under SEQRA. ' ` Y.rk�K� M'+ ,�, r� ��I ��•a 1" *ryr Z• ,y 1 .�` !^ .nr �Q�i✓}' 1a r71 t. �!�' -j .tea +p•r'�,r. t , rG 4-r. r ry.��•{� '}�; ;¢�� P , t�•. �Mr I.,,,h,�ai,Yj♦••►f _,ycl"i k yr f'r5' 1'�'9.+ .-���'f � ,, K�n `?t. .` ;yal,,..M•�. �a 'y. �Y'•�`ti, ,l at ;: Yf Y,. �.L 7'�.tt± ' •i r`'',rr '`Gr'`� � r`r' ra .`'7�lit' •✓ #.,�,i 1 `ar �, .•ala. .� l R ) t { •::try s`3-AR4 •a,a1.! ti# r�.• ''�•' ' � "`s T�'t'� ' a" y ,�4'r• � •'' Rom'' ,��, :f- +•'{' a`!Aak• ry {� Ar�r-,` ) � .� is r•!C f 1 3 &��,:n a �� E i{�)"i�; ��a'"r. - i• ', � <.Y•r". fa.~I.,; .�� W';JJ F;�' r .,.:'r :t_,�+^`� �1pt ,a ... rj, „ "•r v�Y`1�', '',.c. t ��f �•,�,rR•.�;;,,.5'r'-' r r,t A. '. ,� ,� � ., �'✓` �j` .;� i k'' �" �C .-r •n �'�.a�. 'i`15,tit_i ■•..) r '` fu ;•s,:± .� °''' +.. t-�'-'.''.v�,e -a+ t�`IY ir'! � .T,. ' ,7� �. r '•ear` - - 7,. �t r I '� t 7i• ` i'i.--sort r _-�.,a; Olt "a •i, � �; � rn K i V. r ' tit s•� ': Y�. *i� V1I � �}^,r�r �� Y r ,� a.. • ,t y +y` ' r�.' ��.'�' •� }°X r '`7 I+ .r r- E ,} � +. ,a tY1.111y r L,' .s'�6+,�g�y �-Yr�i� i• �',�' •, N , y��L • '� •'f _ „ .d•.r .�F,F tr i# + .N { rt +j, � �! ►� �, a— "S,..�,f �''R' �~•y.�v •t' `! r�•.G �� l�-,f �� ''L'S... - 'R µ� ;► ' P T'a _r2 •I ` � q .71 f 44' i w^-7 ` cF. IAL J � ' •L+jJ��a`. _� "»r ` t1�, t � `�y'Ra }' ,• `' � Jr�"�- t '}�� ,{{.''.t4 � �'+_� � — ! i--.-� +� 'r�� I':,+ _r -. rF, ,p F r ♦ 'AA. F it r y , .•,nA![. •f f ne{,L.., , YErI y )3@z T S. ti - A �`v r t •2 .jy •��� �`•+ t�! •; <� ��n„Yk k �iy"+,�•.!: a '<tiS �'S �►• �,rytrY'� Jt �t'^.� I #.r y �.�.`••. ..r, '�'�' -. .�•.-J � .1C `�j , ,1 �� L` 1''��].�:4,a t t1,.'. ° ��':�� Sri'v� (j-• Isr a �t`' �r �,:�� »tu j � �•I .. _ - .. .� ti. •'� - 4�. +�=�1•+.S ��� -`;�S -,c.• � „r • o ''i: �'64�,. tK S �. i {�L3':��„ _ —�.,.-• _. _ •a� r} �� • 3'j a k, Ad •� �. .. �" .t a. �,ri1• �� �. -t'trn,-��r i i��? t�'c1111�en� -. :,. f� �. rr 7 .� Sv ,i g, r .ar.,.. k$pnf+ti''+. •.. �1 fs yta ti.'•{TfFI.. ..hL. w3 •" a ', e All ♦ 1.t� Y.)i ..a ,� 'tY SrVs., ��,-3+••%'ot'i��a£� �� t w fi'#s>i � '� .If'7 �„`'\i�'.�"z"'�S'#3�"�t7"• � I'�j f�.t �. l u r -". ^°'.r e v `k _rSi,.,n, are :f:,r„ 4 -!ci.nS ft•� 1�`.k- '� ',z ai:• t �:p i laq.8, � �llti'� T�...t;�$iM�rre7Tr s'�.2.ti.�fie F. s", X. �. s.°* �:..'r _ 's 'J `c .a.. f� 'rS�Y.. s:. a hr}.���"�;•d3•'•,...*.t^•. �}�. S�:+.. r f,. LJ , ,�r ..�1. t;,f. tr." 3 v ya,[J .,,' , " - ♦ a ,n.-r.: ieas4..:.tv,J.o<a rrs-..v-2''Y:`s�:�-,�''t�. "4Y'. r •:27'}• z. -M�..�. ?l. ,. '• r :•`; r +.;:���• eS �• r/'., .;ya._ t ;1ixy:. Atr ,<+•. .^i. ,;,:-\t+^(;`"• ty.r� >u :s t .:,.+ Y.$ '}- ✓�♦ :•7 v t_l,_ [�: Ti-?i •s' - �.vt• .f - x y 5'!, ♦' -n.. ;•x -�.' c '. _.. r -..- .gyp.. �"o �Rj!jiy�Y� Yi �...;. :r.•� +tr �a„r,:.`...� .s J� �•i-:.?•'S •s• J �^tiLtr� � a i_ -D. r 3'. _ „ L Y,. ,...tsd; ,.t=>.9 �. ,•Y• ,.J°" _ �'j_'^...,�� ��+r .z,5 '.r S ;•+ S• tii. 9t- ,.:■�'�h'�t.a>j.�G'•at '1,'."Y "Ji _ >�. 'T�"^" •.M :+I. 'Y' ir'A .,�t at`:t�r.. r'i'. � f 'j -.>. w..��q•Sn •d s.r,. `z'i��-^�.•-•3F,.t•=,'`� T '�'h`is'• f;} � ,�'. ? .r,-. � o -� Y.rt""y�',, ;h>a�" - r rr s .'J'S. .L -:y+' •Mv`e..pr i•...:4W'41' `- .:n /- "n .-...TA 'T•.. �. 7 1 r rc,a t,.`. a d •y -rst _ . r r < ; '^�,P'`-.' ri•. .>q-.f Y r�i i- -f .y i,. +,� a ...4 •*S = 'S a s-„-^.; ""�— _ :r;t-�a ly y. �- .+a�.�S• 1j r.i�-t: ��i.i;'= �.,� ��, �,r t� f. a rY`• t S`r r r 'r:� a '•,�'��` t✓.7'a-1.:Y.YC:Se. .:.f. $�1 I }•`ti- 4i J_.'.�'�-T:r,�.� -:k�.,> ..r is�{{„F, -fit, �. �..y;.` i _ „, ._, ;�`r( ..sh''.4r_fix. v_t '�T. a :+ • .rr r.s s s. .3 k; r.:.•+r-1b. n ..:?x"Sa2•S:a.`"� SY Fist •:J - x ,•l.a 1�, _. - �..>... 1. -- 54 �., 4.•�'-b.L�.F' _.rx�d:t�`1?�'t"'rr'•' n. .>v i�: � "�..: t.. ash a4:• t"a"Y�� -�` j i,Pf'�{� •Ca_.4?. ...aS c-}`� _ :••t'>- �" a .. �S1�j, to .tc + '�r = -,.��,y1ry... f/� '�' � -° ..,•.r Y; k. "vt 1+.,i:kJ._^m...:.rh.•t�.1�+.:,Tk r tiL�'"4�1,f .l.V.tt: A,+.,1.�fF_y...' •r.�'r a .tR r-r"A`r '�u' r�r1•W .:>£.:. S�y,� ^. > � u J t' -. „ w�N.7t Ar! Po7� i'S•+ Y �'- �t`r��t" r q Fh$ �r+-,�SY.L�>y.l."r--u•�, •t` ...z...t' �"�•'� �r- Via' - 7n r .•ur _ ,d ,fr Y.i.�'�•`�� ba.,,Y �"� J� •.y'd s r`F~1n%'R .mac .e�•ri s> ..X++r- r?' r>•i-- 4f°i ..� ,' :5• �:`A 5# r"� ivt jr.Cl t,,.. ?.�> ,Y-r'rr+sFy/�,..,. .u"i..'a: ✓krJ. h-,;^�^.r,� {�:�•fi. ;w• ...T.�y±r�. 'd'ra, .,.��5.+.>-,0;.�"1'trS n..:i.`.c!'•�; :l�t✓r, .4=„��'. �`�..,gyp.�#,..ii _ .n 'P:... /,.. :,tr a�.,. L `4 �1��. �.in y.�,.. r•'Y. ''.iw�:'. eS. 4fl* l��r'ly->�°.��r fi�ii�£�:��jn'r��t'�'+ri�" a;Tvi,.�W'jinx .. .. ,:ra..r... s.....A Pli;> - '.a;.:. r i't��a F d',,..�ty,•�.: �1 •"it' s: �t'a•,i ��:;x ��� ---H.r { r F. y,{.-F i +c. ctr•�^'�F.TN� �rlt.Y�r�� +{,,�� `, l.�. - -'- .- .sa :;r+ sy'ti• `E'J�..,J '.+r"' ' 3, r "sF'"'" l •_ xv '' DY>` yxt•� 4 it k-:-e s•y��Y�t�y'*f �t��{�•�"'3�ir ��v�"yE'. ..,,�: •'Ja'4i# -.5.�•�i�� AL1 7..n + {.t� y ^� ,�,�'. llp J��y, a�s'�vs �f•'+l,:r�sa��S',�y.�j, r�C.. .0 r•���f?•'S��v+� •".��:% . '' �,:•. i.+ .'� �.�� �'c�P,�.,�"tet�y'�ry£ r}p C.�.,.i: 'k �,�..^:'��„�n� .�,r�.�.�-,,{ � >�yiS:�y,,,��`r�•���{ 3s �J€`!�'y��n�y '�� r:. s :;�:.,r� '�.�... U�' Lwa��r�"�'ifi';.•r'�:"ich;:5: 4' *�r�:��X fIP'ty t�•y 7`?'�1�J �',rt'�}a�"x ,,�5 F r F � y � k � � $-`z�•f "`'?„• ;,s j•"yi.c�.f'''i� ,r£�it„iTf3.ht�,N"y'a��,'rl'%,r-��..Ct��� �� YR.:.��3:1i �2:•i�` �ti�t�����r�. �,tj%`- F�>"i�',�� �.r�.�>'� Pru1.t: .8O. i t `i�v'�'� �ii `�'S'r.J'S,►r`i�SA �51f.'�4 4;_ �.�.tZ•i > . ` .Lnr?•fiiv. l�"Y !�'>!•`r_F' E' .t.' .- ..•r,.. '. f .:4+1i .�y. _+x . y�P' r. 1C1�,�,.•4.!• 'v'Y;!si:l J f_ri. + '�y t.nr. ti'*tiiyl, 4�.rlY+ .. f•'.'f.' ..wt.' s s 4 'u J+ .'7 + t rr 5 rfi" { Z fJ dif uo ►.� c C{ 4 r�'S •'!t-rS�.+:,.:yam nt.:,' Zx, a•.-f%+=�. ..rf -.. ,� `>�£' 3F J � .,> •'L� � n, r '� ,r(F t�''��'�'F� +♦.•�T�4}i,`°�J;'"7� �•F�tr�.. rt� �;?)�`' JT��° ins 7 4� r..�if;.r �7 S s'e'�`rt`r�4 •f a: �j 1�r. 7' R��j'�Z24,,,,�n x�y�t'• �i yT •;t ,r r t �•Aa v.xY'�i� }br'n t r�9-x ,,t�,ly�r�tF/'1Y �x�+�i�- /r� '1 t� .••.� �`i'#.'!�-?:ui,l,.�'�S"' jti�. d'$F>�,s P1^,art '-'.'r�•��'�,{.•.L�.c if,3� .r rJl� »Yy arC•! _ ,�•�4'f. �b f�.r:�'�'tlF±l��� �+�'':c:4 �r+,+�, -7�""' •i,:i!r..''+.. ;! sc ♦3 ,.<.. F: S'J• :�, �.>. .ri ?',:. .•s>.�.. �a .'7r � � y .�°• 'i .a�. ' •+.t ;3• ?G. �. «3t '£' '-n%t• Di' f 'il:'"-c•' ':':d�;r.•••�q�+:.= .ip!•' �� , ..Y"i b'.r�.. Gc' ,z^ ':.�..'.r-? ^.'+t'V- ':k:'�. „{ �� � ,.{ .v""� '{Y•'tV�-jr':."'.' Yv ; :N.a�" � I' ;}f �.� g .♦ ir.� �` ..,.,;ti' ti�7 N� ( .•�{F• c><% ..1., .,n. rl:.w •{�. r r f_,I� L'� :l,:t ti+•, ,r r�'a ri,`<r .� 9 } ty., ♦ t•.✓�i ..�P..•� r..�t�• : �. �s• - .,•,•T.3' . rx. :y, _,. � ,��t +a ., d+ -,+#`r• �. t•,tr.... /.•`>(, 4' .��• � 1'- _'�a -.f ��..�. �;., +i �r�ra a�� '.i.�;,�:4<. ,d'f. 'ri''• .%ilrc J �f;�b ,rn7t..y. .r' r1 iw ��: ,a.::t ,�'?�: _ t*� �•i•.1.- � �,,.r,� I.. •.J�•.k i .,' i, ..�. r:�v+ �7.�.. ,r.}��3:. N�^ •... S•� '.!. S 1.;r r 3a C_. .:;'•,'{rT� � yy , e.�., �F �J ice.� ,,�:ti� • �►r of ��'�. a.� . t , '�. .P.y .�r x{„�',b., tr:.f •-cr .�ti.•' a: 41 •C.r y .��.. ,Iw'J,} :!1• 0 {�:!r.t .�.•••r✓ r '+�ti.,r .-.3.G.-• .} 'i��,'. � A.'!•p;. .�'•�. t'.`,' r,s, i r 'a "4 7� .e� � .'\�t}' �rlil ;`?,kr,.- t� ti.✓ :; ?"r''t.}S',�:`�• ���; v: P .>,r•e �?-i.'i � ,�. .fy. � y"t�;''•.*� �:•.r� .¢` (V R'�()1ic � ,i�(�}.�'vs' R7•. -.l�•, �'�;C;; t.{,g�;r� ./A�Q�� :��P�r4r;f •4'• .�} ''+r' ..-�r..3.ib-.1,.;. .�3.:.-.'�''�'>•`'.r��Y .L n .tt.•..1. .9S'�Y.'Si h,75.�<�.f ..r t'�. .'JJ,t.'�, .D:l�C�4a1F1 �t.•rti, 3.'11��'�N`4�4 'd.1 .d�;7�J':�.r: IY�..r.-7..7Y�,"Jw�� al � ax �' `07'� r 3 K� ,.._. �•V..-. � rc�.?.'l.•�1 T¢ CRAMER, V � BOCIATES R� .ENVIRONMENT �1� G CONSULTANTS August 4, 1993 Mr, Richard `yard, Chairman . Southold Planning Board Town Fall, 53,095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 s Re: Preliminary Environmental Review 4 Burger King Restaurant AUG --413 Main Road, Mattituck SCTM No. 1000.122-7-3.1 r. PLi�fJNhfl1,'.J - Dear Mr.Ward: The Planning Board has requested Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc, (CVA,) to review the environmental review status of the above referenced application. The applicant has submitted. a document in lieu of an Environmental Assessment Form, entitled, "Environmental Report for Proposed Burger King" prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz, environmental consultants, As a result of detailed review of this document, the pending application, and SEQRA procedures contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617, CVA feels this document to be inadequate for application processing, SEQRA clearly requires submission of an EAF for an action, and only waives this requirement in the event that an a y q Environmental Impact Statement is submitted. 'The-Environmental Report is not an Environmental Impact Statement, therefore, we recommend that the Board require such information as may be necessary in order to proceed with the processing of this application. The basis-for our recommendations are discussed in more detail below. = The definition of an '"Environmental Assessment Form" contained in SEQRA Part _ y 4 . . . �, (rn), tel to."a�'orin used by an agency to assist it an dctermtntn tlse environmental - >:., srgnrfrcance�: P7 r. feninhasis ad(ledJ of actions':. The SE R Handbook (NYSDEC, 102) states that, 'A.properly completed EAF shall contain enou&h information describe the proposed action, the environmental setting, arid the potential-impacts on the envkronment . The application before the Board attempts to utilize the full EAF prepared on behalf of the McDo:nald's Corporation for a fast food restaurant. There is ' question that the pending Burger King application and the former McDonald's application are similar; however, it is recommended that the EAF be used to identify these similarities. Such review will likely only support a conclusion that there is an insignificant difference between projects, and therefore, would lend support to a Negative Declaration, if indeed the projects are not significantly different. The subject ap lication has been categorized as an Unlisted Action, SEOR Part 617.5 (e) states the folplowing with regard to unlisted actions: "For Unlisted actioizs, the short EAF(see sectiori 6JZ21,Appendix C, of this Part)must be used to determine the Significance of such actions thlrt are fiu,&4 approved or directly undertaken by ari abpeney. However, ail agetncy»nay iii tead use the full EAF for UttlWed acdot:s if the slcon EAF'would trot provide Paige 1 of 3 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, SUITE 2, MILLSA PLACE,-NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 preliminary Environmental Rcview Burger king Restaurant. the lead agency Willi sufficient information on which to base its determination of signuficance. The lead agency may require other information necessary to delonnine signtificaylce The proposed Burger King restaurant is therefore an action which requires the preparation of-an EAF. SEQRA Part 617.3 (e) indicates that, "An agency may waive the requirement for an EAF if a draft EIS is prepared or submitted". There has been no draft EIS submitted in connection with the action. The agencyy may require a full or short EAF', and may require further information as necessary. The SEQR Handbook (NY5DEC, 1992) indicates the following with regard to a full EAF: "It is e.y ected that applicants or project sponsors will conrplele Part J since they are most familiar Willi the orniation provided in Part 1 will serve as a basis for Ilse completion proposed action or project site. The inj _ of Parts 2 and 3 by the lead agetsey. For this tensor: it Is Important that the lead agency carefully check the 1' `` ' irrfor»iation subniiticd in Part 1. The Icad agcn:cy play require tl:c applicant to clarify or e. and upon infonnadon provided in part l and ask for additional it ornsation (»zaps for exmnsple)needed for review of I the project." This phase indicates that the applicant or project sponsor will complete the LEAF Part 1; however, the EAF now pending before the Board was not completed by the:applicant or project sponsor. At present, the Planning Board does.not have a required EAF, completed The tthe applicant, pproperly identifying the proposed action or the environmental setting. McDonald's LEAF was re ared for a different r590: 'ect with different site design quantities, pp p Th and was submitted to & Planning Board in Ju y over three years ago. e , environmental setting partially includes: site flora, land use issues, demography, community services and transportation, all components.of the environmental setting that are constantly in flux. 'It is reasonable for the Planning Board to seek an EAF specific to the current Burger Ding application, with updated information pertinent to the pending review. The Planning Board maythen utilize this information in order to conduct a coordinated review with agencies involved in approving the action, in order to establish lead agency status and issue a Determination of Significance specific to the pending application, and with consideratiort of current conditions and agency requirements. This is clearly a more suitable method of applications processing than relying on an outdated form for a prior application. Re The Environmental _port prepared on behalf of the applicant is a useful document in assessing the significance of theproposed action. Such a report mad►be'submitted in connection with apro�perty completed full EAF in order to assist the.Planning Board in determining the significance of the pra ect- however, it is not sufficient in lieu of a full E,AF. In addition, review of the report finds t�e hollowing points which should be noted: 1• The site was previously choaraccerixed,as being devoid of significant vegetation, and was being colonind by herbaceous weeds. The current vegetative condition of the site should be characterized,particularly . the presence of woody pioneer species which may now occupy the site. 2. The Environmental Report does not address the issue of solid waste disposal. A condition of the 1991 . Board of Appeals decision on the McDonald's application involved a covenant not to deposit solid waste in the landfill of the Town of Southold. This issue should be updated in the current review, and clarified on Part 1 of the full EAF in response to Section B. question 16. 3. The Environmental Report indicates a maximum of 250 vehicular trips per hour;however,the prior Dunn i3nginccring report specifics a maximum of 471 trips/hour from 12:00-1:00 pm on a'Weekday. CRAMER, V R SOCIATES Pube 2 of 3 ENVIRONMENT G CONSULTANTS ...-��_.. __�: _.__.., ,... _. .. __ �.�. �. .r • .�'... r-. � +-. o-.=^ o . ..,- r-c � rw- -..r+ r �_ - r. .-. v�st%:w'' Preliminary Environmental Review Burger King Restaurant This should be clarified in the revised full EAF Section B.l.g. In addition,Section C.12. of the full EAF asks the question, "Will the proposed actin»resailt in the generation of traffe significantly above present levels?, and "If yes, U the eeisting road nenvork adequate to handle the additional traffic?". The Dunn Engines:ring report was based on turning movement counts collected in 1990, and the intersection capacity analyses were performed for 1991 "build"and"no-build"conditions. The pending application is two (2) years beyond the projected year for capacity analysis for the McDonald's restaurant. Therefore, the Environmental Report has not accurately portrayed the traffic impacts,and information has not been presented which would satisfactorily address question C.12. of the full EAF, In addition,the Conditioned Negative Declaration required certain roadway improvements to NYS Route 25;however, the status of these approvals has not been addressed. The Environmental Report provides some useful information to the Planning hoard in review of the project; however, there is insufficient basis for the conclusions of that report. Specifically, the Burger King,plan has not demonstrated conformance with the conditions or reasons Sipp��rting the Conditioned Negative Declaration,for the reasons noted above, and the fact that ether agencies have not had the opportunity to review the proposed action. Submission and coordination of a full EAF would facilitate this review, Finally, the conclusion that, ".-the environmental review has been completed in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act andno farther environmental study is necessary, is unfounded for the reasons noted herein, Thank you for the opportunity to review the information submitted to date, and please do not: hesitate to call if you have any questions. Very truly yours, arles J. rhis CEP AICP. . ' J CRAMER, V R SOCIATS . ENVIRONMENT 0 00NSULTANTS page 3 of I, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �, ':` --' Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 July 20, 1993 ' Cramer & Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Environmental and Planning Consultants 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: Environmental Review for proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM* 1000-122-7-3 . 1 Dear Mr. Cramer & Voorhis: The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the Environmental Report prepared by Freudenthal & Elkowitz for the above mentioned Site Plan to your office for review. The Planning Board has received the $150. 00 review fee from the applicant. The purchase order will be sent to you under separate cover. If there are any questions, please contact Robert Kassner of the planning staff. Pb4l�t 1 , G. Ka sner Site Plan Reviewer Encl. Fl R� CH A RT.ES R. CiUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD COUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. 0.BOX 1547 RiymHBmAII,NY 11J01 . ADJACENT TO TEL:(516)36978200 MOTOR,VEMOIX DEPARTMENT FAX:(516)369-9080 ` July 15, 1993 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road, Post Office Box 1179 check �n dradver Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Restaurant Gentlemen: In accordance with your letter of July 12, 1993, enclosed is a check for $150. 00 made payable to the Town of Southold. Very truly yours, (344 Charles R. Cuddy CRC:jme Enclosure ,, ij JUL 16 1993 s r SOUTHOLD TOIh'N f PLANNING BUNRD „Yy11 d o RlC oCOD �O G$1 PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L. HARRIS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman �41- Supervisor George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Q( •�`a Richard G. Ward Town Hall, 53095 Main Road Mark S. McDonald P.O. Box 1179 Kenneth L. Edwards Southold, New York 11971 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE Telephone (516) 765-1938 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 TO: Curtis Horton, Senior Building Inspector FROM: Richard G. Ward, Chairman SUBJECT: Proposed Site Plan for Burger King Route 25, Mattituck Zoning District: General Business (B) SCTM#1000-122-7-3. 1 DATE: June 29, 1993 The site plan for the above referenced property, (attached) , shows three signs on the restaurant building. The Board would like your review as to the number of signs allowed by cede on the building. Encls. A0v77.2!:-- �,j AW 3 01993 i:Ev ,f _ f `�91O01UfV `�:r:. • [l L5 l�J L5 � ,���I�®•y4, JUL 1 41993 sours]r}La Tev��l� PLANNMG 80ARD �,