Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1000-122.-7-3.1 u :t r~ llttJet-- ',",.\ ';"/,'.,.., , att: . m. .. I. t , .tmt"*~~';t~'~;;>:"Yh.,~,, \:~-'; ""4::::: ""-t, LobC1,sland 'traveler YOL. 124 NO. 18 Subscription $22 Per Year PUblished Weekl~ Iy at Southold, Long Island, N.Y. Thursday, February 9, 1995 ;;;'2;;:';\" <'Y"'.f(,,/ '. "cFMaititutk 'w.tcllrit~q E.fis14 The Officiol Newspoper of the Towns of SoutllOld, Ri, iverheod ond Sout/rompton * Tire Officiol Newspaper of t/re Incorporated Villages of Greenport ond Westhampton Beach 7. ,~ . . ~ .' , .,. , \ McDonald's ~:'1J=li:'~1? :1. ~ 'If.;" . !';J!~!il" "'r-' Burger King Drops. Out By Tim Kelly MA ITIruCK - Southold Town could be facing a second Big Mac attack. . I McDonald's, the fastfood giant which despite winnmg town approva several years ago to open a 3,000 square foot restaurant on Route 25 here later abandoned those plans, has reportedly reconsidered its decision and may Soon have a franchise here. Construction on what would be Ihe North Fork's first such hamburger outlet could begin in a matter of weeks. _ Burger King. which had picked up on the project after McDonald's backed out, is said to have Jost interest in the site. One source requesting anonymity said that McDonald's will lease the property and construct a restaurant fOllowing the exact de.sign approved, ostensibly tor B~cr King, by the Southold Town Planmng Board last '.:'A .1.. ;- - " . ~Othing is changing," the SOurce said. "They will do it exactly as what ' .,;.. :>1.:W8S planned, but it wi.ll be a completely different franchise." . flJ#'t'J.;" Riverl1ead attorney Charles Cuddy, who has represented Cofam Realty, . - ~ the owner of the three-acre parcel across the street from the Suffolk Ti~~s .;;,..........-~building;was not available for comment this week. Calls to McDonald's Long Island regional headquarters in Valley Stream were not returned by presstime. McDonald's original plans set off a storm of protests several years ago. It became, to some, a fight to halt the spread of suburbanization at the town J line. The restaurant site became the target of frequent protests that later moved indoors into the Town Board meeting room. . Supporters of the restaurant saw such actions as unwarranted, saying a moderately-priced restaurant would be a welcome addition to the town, offering employment for young people and a place where families could eat at a reasonable cost. Those fi~hting McDonald's, and later Burger King. said the restaurant would take much.needed CUstomers from existing businesses, and would forever change the low" 's character. SuPPOrters countered that the cedar. sided restaurant planned would likely be one of fhe most attractive ~ Mattituck's Main Road corridor. -'~~_~J~:I...~ McDonald's returning? The king of the burgers reportedly plans to follow its original plans to build hi Mattituck. \ Singlt -- /~ . t ~'l.\lfF~ ~IIA< ~ ~". ,~ ::. fo.. .... Q .... . en k -:. ~ ~\'.\ ~ ~Q -;o~~ (( rjl i: ~?0""fffJ]. ,. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (5 I 6) 765- I 823 September 17; 1992 ~harles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O.Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, N.Y. SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: This is in response to your letter of August 25, 1992, in which you ask if there is a basis for closing the file. If I am interpreting your question correctly, please allow me to clarify the purpose of the initial letter. This office routinely attempts to contact a site plan applicant where there has been a lack of activity over a period of six or more months to determine whether the applicant intends to proceed with the application. If the applicant indicates that he does not wish to continue, the file is closed to save further waste of staff time in keeping track of it. Since your client has not indicated a time frame, if there is no activity in the file within the next six months, another routine inquiry letter will be sent to determine whether your client wishes to proceed with the application. Sincerely, ~~;~/t1 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman . .\ Sub' ffi~ 'IS Rk: CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 Or.n CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE, 58) P. O. BOX 1347 RIvEHHEAD, NY 11901 ADJACENT TO XOTOR. VEHICLE DEPARTMENT August 25, 1992 TEL: Un6) 369-8200 PAX: (1516) 369-9080 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Planning Board Office 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, New York SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am not sure of the purpose of the letter sent by you certified mail dated August 18, 1992, with regard to the above application. You do not answer the questions that I framed in my letter of August 13, 1992, and I await a response. My client is discussing the use of the premises based upon the existing application and within the next few months I expect the application to be pursued. Again, I request you adivse as to the basis for your continuing concern as to the status of this application. CRC/ec m~~ Charles R. CUdd(J ~l ~: ~~r:1 f&.:tI~':lN~i · ... D \ . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards seOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 (~4.~ August 18, 1992 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, N.Y. SCTM * 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: Your letter dated August 13, 1992, states that your client intends to proceed with this application. The reason given for not submitting a revised site plan was "continuing discussions with the prospective user of this site." However, the letter gives no indication of the status of these discussions. That is, does your client intend to proceed with the current application and, if so, what is the time frame within which your client plans to move ahead with this particular application? Your cooperation in answering these questions is appreciated. Sincerely, ~~l . :C2_./v'S Bennett Or owsk~, Jr.;rr Chairman . . GHARLES R. GunDY SuMtf fb ~/ ATTORNEY AT LAW 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) P. O. BOX 11547 RrvERHEAD, NY 11901 ADJAOENT TO :NOTOH VEHICLE DEPARTMENT TEL: lete) 369-6aOO F~:(elelae~ August 13, 1992 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-1179 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I received your letter of August 11, 1992, on this date. It is my client's intention to proceed with this application. Because of continuing discussions with the prospective user of this site. he is not presently in a position to submit the site plan. Under any circumstances, you should not assume that my client does not wish to continue with the present application. While I can appreciate your concern for orderliness, I do not know of any basis for closing the file. Therefore, please note of record our continuing request that the file remain open. If you believe there is a basis for closing the file under the circumstances, I would be pleased to hear from you so that we may further discuss your position. Thank you for your continuing cooperation in this matter. CRC: jme Very truly yours, ~cr 01 . Charles R. CUddY~ I. cc Mr. Stanley Cohen w/enc. ~ ~ @ ~ " ~Lil,P.nl n r ::U\ l AUG I 1 1992 ;~ J SOUTHOLO TOWrl plJ.NNING BOARD ~ .' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: August 11, 1992 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O. Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, N.Y. SCTM * 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: On January 24, 1992, I informed you that the site plan file for this application would be kept open pending further direction from you. More than six months has transpired since your February 3rd aCknowledgement of that letter, and we have not received any further direction. I am writing to ask if your client intends to proceed with the application as it stands. If your client does wish to proceed, please send six copies of a site plan that have been revised to reflect the specific conditions of the Zoning Board of Appeals' Special Exception decision. If we do not receive the revised plans within ten business days of your receipt of this letter, we will assume that your client does not wish to continue with the present application at this time and we will close the file. Our closing the file will not preclude your client from making a new application in the future. If your client intends to proceed with an application, please understand that unless the McDonald's Corporation authorizes you to proceed with their drawings, a new fee may be required to cover our review of new drawings. . ~ If there are any questions, please speak with Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Sincerely, ~~~./6 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman .. ., ;fttf3hu;" Ib (5 tOWN J+11tJMliry CHARLES R. CUDDY ATTORNEY AT LAw 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. ~8) P. O. BOX 1~47 RrVERHEAD. NY 11901 ADJACENT TO MOTOR VEHXCLE DEP .AB.TMENT TEL: (1516) 369-82(x) FAX: Un6) 369-9080 February 3, 1992 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Dear Board Members: Thank you for your letter of January 24, 1992. It is my client's intention to proceed with the application, and he of course will make whatever arrangements are necessary with McDonald's. Very truly yours, :!!::.~::r CRC: jme \0) ~ @ ~ n ~J l ,;. un FEB 5 1992 J ~-' ~.: SOUTJ:IOlD TOWN ~".. PlANNING BOARD ~ -/.:.:;,<::;.> r.~P~\lHDl.tj-~ ij) ~~ t'<2~ ..~ ~\, ';~Io..;;: , ryJ. I"~ "::::a ~". ,'~ Q ;....:: ,', ~'; . lP ":~Ol ,.,. ~~l . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS Supervisor . ,-~ ':;:':'~"7.;-;,uJ /- Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York I 197 I Telephone (5 I 6) 765- I 938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 January 27, 1992 Gerald Newman, Principal Planner Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building 12-fl Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck SCTM#1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Newman: As requested of Mark McDonald, please find a copy of the traffic study and the State Environmental Quality Review Act determination. If you need additional information, don't hesitate to call Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, ~/>1/}{L#' ~U;/1v: /~ ~~~tt- Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. . . CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS To: Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Date: December 14, 1990 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study McDonald's, Route 25, Mattituck Traffic Impact ~ Review 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. A summary of the study follows. 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 traffic turning right and 38% turning left seems imbalanced and should be supported. Generated Traffic: A good approach was employed by conducting a study at an existing McDonald's in Riverhead, not far from the site. Empirical data was collected to calculate generation rates using the average of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area and the observed rate per restaurant seat. Since the volumes on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Riverhead McDonald's, this is a conservative approach. It is noted that the weekday counts in Riverhead could have been extended to include 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. since the peak period of the generator is not always coincidental with the peak period of the adjacent roadway. Pass-by Traffic: The report cites various studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a McDonald's facility from the existing traffic stream. Some studies were more than ten years old and some exceptional cases were noted. Citing the higher observed diversions, a 70% pass-by rate was deemed acceptable by the study. Given the volume of the adjacent roadway (AADT = 11,500) and the seasonal nature of the area, a more conservative pass-by credit consistent with a typical facility is appropriate. 50% is recommended. Drive-Thru-Window: Since the existing McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead has a drive-thru- window, the generation rates based on that operation have the effect of a drive-thru-window !llready f~ctor~d in. Studies have shown th~t drive-thru-windo,:"s generally result in a 4% Increase In ~aIly volu~es: .However, those l'.lcreases occur. durIng non-peak periods and thus are not consIdered a signIfIcant factor affectIng a peak perIod analysis. ~nsignal~ed ~ntersect.io.n .Capacity Analysis: Th~ !TIe!hodology employed to evaluate the mtersectlOns In the VICInIty of the proposed facIltty IS the accepted procedure for unsignalized 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 " .',' ~" 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) 1990 existing conditions, (2) projected 1991 No-Build conditions, and (3) the 1991 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 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 ingess and egress at the intersections and the site driveways. " 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. Geometries for access, circulation and parking are sufficient for good flow. Parkin~ is provided in accordance with the Town of Southold code, including land-banked stalls, WIth acceptable layout and dimensions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. Parking areas are properly separated from the drive-thru-window operation. The report cites 6 to 8 car queues at the drive-thru- window at the McDonald's in Riverhead, with a maximum of 8. Storage for a minimum queue of 8 is recommended. The proposed site satisfies that minimum. Recommendations and Conclusions: 1. Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated. 2. The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. 3. The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass-by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. 4. The Town of Southold, iIi 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. / "-- CRAMER, vo~7s /X~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT A~AI'iD~~~~G CONSULTANTS . .f~.::':: << << LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, II AND III Project: McDonald's Corporation Main Road, Mattituck, NY Prepared For: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Prepared By: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Date: January 29, 1991 . '>~''''-''::'''''''.~q'''~,-",'r''',-~_'"-,,,>,,~~ ~- LONG EAF PART III ~\~'I/h CRAMER. Vq<1fRHI~ . rf". SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~ANri:liI ~ .!NG CONSULTANTS ~ -WII/ ~\~ ft(. _~:,_.C';"~::' , . . LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT McDonald's Corporation Mattituck, New York LOCATION The site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Road, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet of frontage on Main Road and 317.14 feet of frontage on Old Main Road. APPLICANT McDonald's Corporation c/o Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 DATE January 29, 1991 INTRODUCTION The proposed project and the environmental character of the project site is described in detail within the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis fOl' the adoption of a determination of significance. ' The LEAF Part III is prepared if one or more impacts are considered as being potentially large as identified in the LEAF Part II. There were no impacts identified III the Part II LEAF as being potentially large; however, this narrative is provided as a means of discussing small impacts and IS offered in support of the determination of significance. CRAMER va~\ JA\SOCIATES ENVJRONM'ENTA~A~~ftN~l~G CONSULTANTS Page 1 -.--...;~..............."'-..............'" - ... ~, ~ McDonald's Corporation Long EAF In the case of the subject proposal, the Town of Southold Planning Board has received an application for a site plan to allow the construction of a McDonald's Restaurant, (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcel located on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York. This PartIII addresses in detail the environmental and planning issues relevant to the subject application. The site is predominantly cleared of deciduous vegetation and is presently dominated by herbaceous weed. Field inspection did not reveal any significant natural environmental resources at the time of site inspection. It is noted that there is a freshwater wetland on the north side of Main Road. This area would not be expected to be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, this discussion concentrates on the following impacts areas: Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on Aesthetic Resources and Impact on the Transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * * The proposed action will result in a physical change to the project site. Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. The frontage of the project site exhibits a rise in topography from the road (20 feet above mean sea level to the higher elevation of the majority of the property (29.t. feet above rnsl). Most slopes along this rise are in the range of 15 to 20%. There are several localized areas along the western frontage with slopes in the range of 25 to 30%. Slopes in the area of the western proposed access driveway are in the range of 15 to 18%, and slopes in the area of the eastern proposed access drive are less than 15% (12 to 15%). The project will cause disturbance of some limited areas with slopes slightly in excess of 15% in the area of the western site entrance, as a result of the installation of the driveway. The areas with steep slopes are not comprised of native vegetation. The rise along Main Road appear to be due to grading activities from when the road was constructed. The location of the driveways have been placed in order to minimize alteration of slopes in excess of 15%. The slopes in the area of the western driveway access are not considered excessive (15 to 18%), and are certainly in the range where compatible site improvements can occur. Some grading is anticipated along the driveway, in order to achieve a suitable access grade. Graded areas will be stabilized using topsoil, seed and planting of juniper adjacent the driveway. This impact is not considered significant due to: 1) the avoidance of steep slope areas; 2) the fact that slopes and vegetation do not appear to be natural or significant; 3) the ability to minimize erosion through limitation of grading; and, 4) the proposed re-establishment of disturbed areas with topsoil, seed and plantings. * * The proposed action may affect groundwater quality. The proposed action will require a discharge penn it. The site use involves a restaurant and therefore requires sanitary discharge of kitchen waste and sewa~e. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law (NYSECL) ArtIcle 17, requires that commercial sanitary discharges obtain a Class 2 ~A//) CRAMER, VQ' RH'S if!!!. . SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~AN~;P ~)NG CONSULTANTS ~ViJ i\\), Page 2 >> ...,......u,...'...,...-.._'"'.-"~--==..-;':~ . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for such discharge. The Class 2 permit program has been delegated to Suffolk County Department of Health ServIces (SCDHS), as an arm of the NYSDEC for implementation of such programs. In addition, SCDHS has established discharge limitations for Suffolk County based upon geographic areas and hydrogeologic importance, water quality and available water supply. These regulations are under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV; however, public water is not available. Therefore, the under Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, the daily flow would be restricted to 300 gallons per day per acre (897 gallons (>er day of sewage containing waste), for best sewage disposal practice to minirmze potential groundwater contamination. Under the sewage system design criteria, a total flow of 30 gallons per day per seat (gpd/seat) is applied to restaurants. Of this flow, 10 gpd/seat is sewage related (rutrogen containing) waste. Therefore, only 89 seats would be allowed in connection with a restaurant at the subject site. The Health Department has completed their review and at this time are awaiting approval of water quality from the on~site well, and a SEQR determination from the Town of Southold. The SCDHS File Number is C10-90-011. The applicant has furnished a copy of the well report to the Health De(>artment. The results are acceptable with the exception of iron and manganese whIch are naturally occurring metals which can be removed by filtration. Accordingly it is expected that SCDHS approval of the project is forthcoming after completion of review by Southold. This impact is not considered significant due to the project compliance with established discharge limitations, and the required obtainment of a Class 2 SPDES commercial sanitary discharge permit. * * The proposed action will affect aesthetic resow'(:es. The proposed action may impair historic and/or architectural/ aesthetic resources. The subject site is presently vacant land.. The current character of the site is that of a cleared site, which is recolonizing in herbaceous weed, and pioneer vegetation. West of the site is vacant land, residences and a gasoline station. East of the site is an office building which is presently under construction, beyond which are large commercial farm and shed buildings. North of the site is Main Road, beyond which is vacant land some of which is wooded and some of which is cleared. South of the site is Old Main Road, beyond which are residences and farm properties. The visual character of the area IS mixed including commercial, residential, farm related and vacant properties. The site and area are not particularly significant in terms of historic integrity; however, there is a tie to the historic past through extant dwellings and farm uses. The application calls for a McDonald's Restaurant which could impair the aesthetics and character of the site and area, through inappropriate architecture and/or incompatible site design. The applicant has endeavored to custom design the building for the site in order to maintain the existing aesthetics and provide a compatible use. As a result, a building has been designed which has historically appro(>riate character. The Planning Board has been supplied with architectural elevations in order to visualize the structure. The building has been setback from ~ ~/lf/A. CRAMER, VQORHlg 7i'l~~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA~ANri:'h1 ' NNlNG CONSULTANTS ~~ ~V//jp--W\~ Page 3 -___.~.."'_".c.,'_~~. . .. McDonald's Corporation Long EAF Main Road a distance of 140 feet, and is oriented perpendicular to the road to minimize visual presence. It is noted that the project represents a low intensity use involving a 4,113 square foot building on a 2.99 acre site, with a coverage of only 3 percent. In addition, parking stalls which are not considered necessary will not be constructed, effectively "Iandbanking" these stalls in favor of open area. The site frontage as well as the sides and rear of the property will be landscaped in order to provide visual screening. Signage and intrusive structures will be ITIlnimized. It is noted that the site and area are zoned for business use, and there are a variety of business related uses including a future office building and a gas station. The proposed action is consistent with site zoning, and efforts have been made to minimize the impacts of the structure and site development to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, this impact is not considered significant, as a result of the use of setbacks, appropriate architecture, vegetative plantings, building orientation and limited signage and intrusive structures. * * Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The proposed project will increase the potential for trip generation. The project is located on Main Road, a New York State highway (NYS Route 25). There is concern that the nature of the proposed site use may increase the trip generation for the site and cause an undue burden on the transportation systems in the area, including existing intersections, and the site access. As a result, the Town of Southold required that the applicant prepare a Traffic Impact Study in order to define the existing transportation systems, determine the trir generation for the proposed use, outline the probable origin and destination 0 traffic entering and leaving the site, determine the impact on the surrounding roadways, and provide mitigation for traffic related impacts where necessary. This information IS contained in the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed McDonald's. prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates of Westhampton Beach, New York. In order to define the trip ~eneration, a table (Table 1) is excerpted from the report and included herein. ThIs Identifies the site-generated traffic which is expected to use the adjacent roadways at various times of the day including eeak A.M. and P.M. weekday periods, and peak Saturday traffic. The study distrIbuted these trips over the area roadways based upon logical assumptions. Table 4 (attached) also excerpted from the Traffic Impact Study, identifies the impact of thiS site-generated traffic on three local intersections in addition to both site driveways, identified as the Level of Service (LOS). The LOS is determined for present conditions, future conditions without the project (assuming area growth factors), and future conditions with the project. Comparison between the future No-Build, and the future Build conditions finds that the existing intersections will not be adversely affected as a result of the project. In terms of site driveways, the western driveway will operate at excellent LOS. The eastern site driveway will operate well for most movements; however, the left turn from the site onto westbound Main Road causes a lower level of service. This movement will not cause an impact on area roads, and at worst may cause a slight delay for patrons leaving the sIte during peak hours. It is noted that a ri~htturn lane is provided in order to allow for egress of vehicles proceeding east on Mam Road. The Traffic Impact Study concludes as follows: "Our traffic engineering study ~A~ CRAMER. VQORHIS ~~SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~AN """, ~NG CONSULTANTS '~ i~ i~ Page 4 "",. .~...--,,:._---.,~~ . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF and analysis have led use to conclude that: (a) the continuity of the traffic flow on the adjacent roadways will not be disrupted; (b) no adverse traffic impact will occur; and (c) undue traffic congestion will not be created by the addition of traffic from the proposed McDonald's restaurant." CONCLUSION The Long EAF Part III, is intended to consider the impact, then determine available mitigation as well as the importance of the impact, based upon certain criteria. Specific impacts considered above include Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on AesthetIc Resources and Impact on the Transportation. In consideration of these impacts, it is concluded that the identified impacts will not be significant, and any minor impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, it is recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued for this project. ~~ I!/;~, CRAMER, VOORHIS 0'.6SS0CIATES ENVIRONMENTAkbND:.lt~ "')NG CONSULTANTS "'=- "1/1/;- ~,~ Page 5 - ~..'.," ............."'-' . ....~~...:'::.~I ., . VEHICLES PER HOUR IIEEKDAY SATURDAY AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Projected Site Driveway Volumes 34 34 236 235 64 63 115 115 Driveway Volume That Will Be Pass-By Vehicles 17 17 118 118 32 31 57 57 Net New Traffic on Adjacent 17 17 lIB 117 32 32 5B 58 Streets TABLE 1 SITE-GENERATED TRAffiC SUMMARY PROPOSED McDONALD'S - MATTI TUCK SOX PASS-BY CREDIT .-....-...~:..'......,.............._-,.".-.....:-.,~ -- .- LOCATION TlHE 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO-BUILO BUILD . Route 25 at Factory A.H. A A B Avenue/Slgsbee Rood HID. B C C P.H. C C C SAT. E E E/ Route 25 at Bray A.H. B B B Avenue HID. C C C P.H. C C C SAT. Route 25 at Laurel A.H. A A A Lake Drive HID. 0 0 0 P.H. A A A SAT. 0 0 0 Route 25 at ~estern A.H. A Site Driveway (Enter HID. A only) P.H. N/A N/A A SAT. B Route 25 at Eastern A.H. 0 Site Driveway (Exit HID. E only) P.H. N/A N/A E SAT. E N/A = Not applicable. TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUHHARY PROPOSED HCDONALD'S HATTITUCK -".._.......~-;.-'~ . LONG EAF PART I ~\ J///A CRAMER, VqpRHI$, ~~$SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT A~M::t~~~~G CONSULTANTS .. McDonald's Corporation Long EAF .'_..,.,."'...."-,...-......._,....~.-:- '" ,DEe 14 '90 12:29 TOWli or SO;J~~~~ -PROJECT INFORMATIO~':;"~ , "'repared by Pro/eet sponsor -- NOTICE: This documenr Is des,s'ned to assist in determinine whether the action proposed r'$v have a significant elf~ct on tho en""onm'!nt. Please complete lhe entire form, ParIS A through E, Answers to the,".ltfestions will be considered ~s parr 01 the appliGalion for ~nprovaJ and may be 'ub,ec;t to lurther verification and public revi~w: Provide any additional information you believe will be needed to Gomplet. Parts 2 and 3, It is e.peeted that compl.tion ot the full EAF will be dependent on Information currently available and will not in,olve nltW studies, research or invesligatlon. If inform~tlon requiring such additional work is uMvailable. so indicate and sp"cify tlch instance. i'.J/b NAME OP ACTIOII McDonald ,s Co~poration,aita lan LOCATION 0' ACTION ('f'lCruCJ8 Srt...t ACldr..., Ml.ln'Clp,lny ."d Coun1'y) s/Q Main Road, Mattituckr New York tf&ME Of AP'UCANT/SPONSOA McDonald ,s Cor oration, c/o Henr AoonlSS 320 Love Lane ~ I Count nor, Jr. I STATE I Zl~ COOE I I J I I --, I C!1"Y/PO Mattituck NAMI Ofl OWNER (II dlfttt.nu I Cofam Real ty AOOAess !em,PO ~C.'PTION Q" ACTIOU ". I STATE I ZIP cooe NY 1195' eUSINESS TELEPHON& ( f . i I I l con$t~uction of restaurant Pluse Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description PhYSical settlnll of overall project. both developed and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: "DUrban Dlndusttlal DCommercial OResidential (suburban) OForest OAgrlculture DOttier 2. 'total acrease of projec~ area: 2.9986 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non-airlcultural) Forested Agricultural (IncJ.udes orchards. cropland. pasture. etc.) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 2S of ECL) Water Sulfaee Area Un'eqetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces' Other (Indicate type) 3. What is predominant soil type(s) on project sltel loam a. Soli drainaie: IiWeU drained '00 % of <lte 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 NY~ Land Classification Systeml 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock o\ltcropping, on project sitel DYes IONo a. What is depth to bedrock I _ - 700 (in leet) iJRural (non.lorm) PRESENTLY _? qq,q('; acres AfTER COMPLETION o acres acres acres ar.res .. acre, acre, acres :~~:: ::;::~ acres /. 0/ 'acre l acreS / . "I e acres ;-', ~ ,"'/~'" f n1 t.~. ..t-~t 'I S. :J:.'-' v.J and sand (/1-:';/ ,')-. /1v'-' "i Y !'-'1,}L'__'J-J '.-Ai'v~ DModerately well drained % of site 2 .. .... ........ ....-.-. tt 'cj Tt'LO C6. tQ ~11l;j , - - '\ DEe 14 '90 12: 30 Tq,WI OF 5.iJUIHULL}::te with slope,:-- l<iO-1U'" -'" ".:."U-IJ io" .:1..,' p,..................... ................-0:0-... ,,,.~,.......... l"....'.....r . '0 , .".. III , . .. . Oi5% or g'~at. __ % 6. Is projec! substantially contiauou. to. or contain a buildin~. Site. or distriCt listed on the Stat' or the i'lat,otlal R/lslste,s 01 liistorlc Places! OYI:S IONo 7. Is proj.c! subslPntially <:onlt~uous to a sltQ listed on the Re~i.ter of National Na'IJral L'ndm3rksl [:JYe. IJlNcl 8. What is the depth of the water tablel ;~ (in fp.<:,) Z'3 '7'0 Zf5 Fi. ~ 9. Is site located over" Ilrimory. principal. or sole source aquiferl )i!tes ltlNo' ~ 10. 00 huntins. fishine or shell flshinll opportunities presently exist in the project ,unl DYes ~No 11. Does projtct'site contain any specl"s of plant or animal lit. that is Identified as threatened or endangered! DYes ~No Accordlne to Identify each spllcles 12. Are thtre any unlqu~ or unusual lend lorms on the project site! (i.e.. clltfs. dunes. other geological formations} OYes filNo Describe 13. Is the project sIte presently used. by the community or neishborhood as an open space or recreation areal DYes I5(JNo It yts. explain 14. ooe.l thl! present site include sC",nit: views known to be important to the community? DYes ~No 15. Streams within or contiiuol!S to prolect area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it Is tributary NONE 16. lakes. ponds. wetland areas within or r.ontiguOus to project are.: , I. Name NONE: ~;.'4Mj iJ/V/.J..A.-l"-:O tVl-:"T>-IJ\/:'1 .A"(_j{">'."~"": b. Size /Z'T Z '> (In acres) 1" S"" /V"" 1i Is the site served by existing public utilities! gjYes ONo 3) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? I19Y~s ONo bl If Yes. will improvements be necessary to allow connection/ laYes . CiNo 1a. Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agrlculturp. and Markets law, Article 25-I'A. SectIon 303 and 3041 DYes iUN9 19. Is the site located In or substantially contiguouS to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Mtlcle 6 of the ECl. and 6 NYCRR 617! !;JYes l3d'/0 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or huardous wastes! OYes , I!JNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (till in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned, or controlled by proiect sponsor b. Project acreace to be developed: 2.99 A6 acres initially; c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped O. _ acres. d. length of prolr-ct. in miles: (It appropriate) e. If the project is an expansion. indicate percent at .xp3nsion proposed N' A %: f. Number of off..treet parking .paces 'xlstlnll ~. ; propo.ed . per codl! S. Maximum vehicular. trips gqnerated per hour , (upon completion 01 projectl1 (125 ingress h. If residential: Number and type of housing unit!: 47/ Nnx' 12 -I. c"~' "...., l25 egress) One family Two Family . Multiple family l' Condominium C o 2.9986 acres. acres Ultimately. Initially Ultimately I. oim~nsions (in feetl of largest proposed structure 18 height; 52 j. Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project wilt OCCUpy IsI 10~en8th. per CO~ n/s & 371 ft: s width; 171 ft. 3 aT 'ct at:lB 06. fe ~~_ -'.~....,- ~ L't.L 1.... '':IU 1.::.' ~J. 11_11'~fi 1.11'" '::,I)U I r1t.'LLI , ' .._ , ", ,2. ,'iOW mucn natural r.13telldJ (i.~..':- r'h. etc.J w,lI be removed from the.''': ~_ tons/cub,c yards, '. l. Will disturb..d ateas b. ,..,r.Iaime-' ~'YIlS ONo DNI^ ... If yes. for whit inUrho.~": purpo,. is the sit. being reclaimc::dl Y"Q" " i 1 nl. c 4 n,:.q., (. r..........t.. ~...n.q b. Will topso,l be stockpiled for rlclamation! I8IVe, DNa as needed c. will upper sub~o" be ",ockpilld fat reclamation! ~Ves DNo as needed 4. How many acres of vI.Otatlon (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed 'rom site! .--4 1 acres. S. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-Important ve&etation be removed by this prol"ct! OVes DlNo 6. If sinsle phllse project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: .. Total number of phases anticipated b. AntiCipated da ta of commencement phase 1 C. Approximate completion date of final phase d. 15 phase 1 functionally dependent on subseCluent phases I 8. Will bla'tin3 occur during constructlonl DYes l3No 9. Number of job, genetated: durins ~on.tructiOn 50 10, Numbet of jobs eliminated by thi, project 0 11, Will project reCluire relocation of any projects or facilities! <; month., (includin~ demolition). (number). month month DVes year, (includln8 demol,tion). yaar, 01'10 : after project is complete + 100 DVes GlNo If ye,. explain 12. Is surface liquid waste d!.po,allnvolved1 Dves [lINo a. If yes. indiCate type ot waste (sewa~e. indumlal. etc.) an~ amount b, Name: of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is Jubsurtace liquid waste disposallnvolvedl riVes LiNo Type dam.."",; C 9pvpr'''J'' 14. Will .urface aru of an exi'ting water body increase or decrease by proPosal? DVe. jJNo Explain 1S. 15 projtct or any portion of project lOcated in a 100 year flood plainl DYes nNo 16. Will the project generate solid wastel &JVes ONo. a. If yes. what is the amount per month 11-. tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be u.ad1 DYes XJNa . c. If yes. give name ; lo~atl(Jn _.._____ d. Will any wastes not 30 into a sewage disposal sy~tem or into a sanitary landfill! DVes 'fiJ,No e. It Ves, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste1 DVes IONo a. It yes, what is the anticipated rat. of disposal! __ tons/month. b. If yes. what is the anticipated ,lte Ii/e! years. 18. Wi)1 p.oject US<l herbicide,' or pesticides? DYes IilNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more thon one hour per day)! DVes l1JNo 20. Will project produce Opera tin II noise exceadini: the local ambient noise level.? DVes UlNo 21. Will project result in an incruse in energy use! tiYes DNo If yes, indicate tyPe<sl elec;tricity 22. If water ,upply is from wells, 'ndicate 'pumping capacity gallons/minute. pec SCDOIlS code 23. TQtal anticipated water u,age per day 2120 gallons/day. ;24. Coe. project Involve 'Local. Stile or Fe.derat tundin~! aVes ~No If Ves: explain 4 ..... _._4 G'd 0t.Ll3~, to ~ . ......._~.-* a 41 I 'm y` III � i °N. ecE ep, 0 —�❑N ZEGT4W ❑ ❑ � $o, IN3�Y ❑ s° T 71 �I QN� E M I�Lluuu Y --ml 'r°";.,,. (`fSl ygja I OP71 NAL UTIJ go I Ni AREA SQUARE FEET 80 SERIES IRALDIMG ANALYSIS KITXHm V/D-T low BASE VOLUME-PLUS - UP TO $__ D�mffa n s 230 s 8 — ANVN. TRANSAOTI(N G➢A[Itt 352,DD0 ��� � gg7 ,�, s w FA § WALY iRANSADTIQI PATE 211 WDIFA E 1 oho MT&r Y ST= WKITY . M% PAD I I.Do =R Ixm� scAisrtA3Lss 1104% M' IDI oN 1%Wool D o c CIEIOEA PWING 35 DFFIIF 71 G'RY PAINING 9 Y6muIE W 1A 01 APP]I PAINING 2 TOTAL IEi 3m Fk �TDTAL PAIMRLPAIMRL 46 m fDi11 IA65 alld P gRA� P_ LL GENERAL NOTES LU 1. McDONW_D'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. H CONDUIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. MID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER m SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL COYTRRCTER. R 70-SA "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/4' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- INS FIXTURES, BASES. POLES. CONDUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. r . 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR z • / BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. 0 ` G_ N• UH 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFEMATIC ONLY. EXACT E `` LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE. MOST U N+p Awn ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. LU i N S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL. UTILITY COMPANIES W p TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING "M cDONALD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. RAPER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IIT DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. RNID 4 / M (- ®� CIRCUITING. Cih K cT" o 0 "McDONALD'S" GROUND SIGN h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND HANDICAP RAMP ' \ 6'X18" CONCRETE GRO "T BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT N- a GRDurmBREAIc. w CURB (TYP. ) ¢n PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / \ PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL 6. FINISH WALK AM CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH PAINTED PAVEMENT. HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / U V. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW 70-SA "WELCOME" SIGNFp'p 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CURBS. FINISH GRADING, LANDSCAPING. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. x 10. LOT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS •p•` REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 3 o u �p Mp ti yo �#,• p'602CP PAVING SPECIFICATION,D�IF}y,DG • 6„ m, (MINIMUM 3' TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) t 5� p• 0„ p' 1 t/2" N.Y.S. TYPE t-A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE / (}T' 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE �.O„ �l• „ D 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE 6" CONCRETE FILLED 10 - a GUARD POST (TYP. OF 8) ,- „ T 6 o„ 0 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK REINF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. 1 Ude C • d ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED C ' 0 6 „ PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NDE: Mrm+a_D•S E NEER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REd.EST A COMPACTION 0 a L) 4 2LN AND" A CORE p n PROVE CORRECT. FER ABOVE SPECIFICA IM, TEST�LL BE ATTHHE EXPENSE OF H p.o'S. o o w MENU BOARD Gr�Irvxs6. G.m uxu, BE cHrwnm. �O J LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION o W m \ 11UN -T 1991 - O } CD 70-5 EXIT SIGN a�O _ ¢ B 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER i a w AO i� o z PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) C4 MOTE: FIECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. y 50'0" 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. PARKING INFORMATION Q E W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . w LANDBRNKED PARKING NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) v °' TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL S2 SPACES 9' X 20' B 7S a o OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACES 'A z 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 6"X18" CONCRETE — 0" CURB (TYP. ) R SO '0" 28 R \ VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 N O O 1l LRNDBANKED SPACES 9' X 20' 0 40 � BUS PARKING ZONE 200• \ - SPACES - X - 0 it UTILITY INFORMATION w Nn R 4 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION UL W LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER - p r p p � 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER 6 STORM SEWER x x x O 0 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. - ELECTRIC - Q o F- W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. GAS - PRINTED DIRECTIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION w ARROW (WHITE) TYP. a °• '',,, ,� •', p \• PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT, LANZISERA. 8 FRANK =o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) m; p. 125 CHURCH STREET ¢ w. r MALVERNE. NY 11565 N (516) 599-3663 O P DATE: 06APR90 CD 1 W p LEGEND N ¢ H z 2g.a$,Lo a SANITARY SEWER GAS CE Z 6"X18" CONCRETE 5 56 6 WATER LOT LIGHT lea LP:30 0 N O CURB (TYP. ) 28 STORM SEWER EXISTING ELEVATION (76.5) _ ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) — S 84* 42 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20 ' , STREET ADDRESS OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX_-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. IKDOGS (OSMAYEI) GENERAL NOTES Ij Lu m 1. MCDOJALD'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N CONIDUIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, ti } 2 2. BASES, ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. AID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER DO le G , 70-SA "THANK YOU" SIGN SIGNS ARE BY THE OENERRL CONTRRCTER. \'`V R 3'O•Q, O 3. 3/4' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERA_ CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- LANDSCAPED ISLAND ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES, CODUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE C, • / OWNER/OPERATOR. 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR z �• BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. O J� \N F- (v(✓ I- N 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT ty o ^ ' LOCATIONS SHAUN BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST 04 �• I V ECQYOMICgL INSTA_LgTION. y O p W� 6. THE CONTRACTOR "ALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES Z "McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN43 TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICECONNECTION AT IXISTIIJ.^ �,�N• G UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICEENTRAWCE LOCgTI0N5. SIZES. AND V CIRCUITING. "McDONRLD'S" GROUND SIGN f aNDICAP RAMP 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK h \ - 6'X18" CONCRETE AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT CURB (TYP. ) GROLNDBREAx. w a PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / \ a HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL e. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH PAVEMENT. p 70-SA "WELCOME" SIGN ro 24 0•• > 0 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF, V. ALL w c AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW x W/ 6X6 #I0/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CLIMBS. FINISH GRADING. LANIDSCApINO, A AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. 10. LETT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS ` l?2 / REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. pC. d 0 (MINIMUM 3" TOTALG COMPATEDICATIOR ASPHALT THICKNESS) PAVINV p6" CONCRETE FILLED l0 4 1 1/2" N. Y S. TYPE t-R ASPHALT HERRING COURSE T6" HV. 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE GUARD POST (TYP. OF 8) ! •fid♦ _ 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK REINF. W/ 6X6 1:110/10 W. W. M. 0 ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED = C o' 6•• pp N £ � PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) mre: N-DONAX'S ENGINEER REmaes_THE RIGHT To RmuEST A COMPAcTOW w I o U `Os 1 ,4 \ / TEST I�CgTIgJ. TESTS WILL BE AT TIEn M,, C a . P R Z U_ " MENU BOARD % / - /� OTHERWISEZNOMT1: 6-MTRIC�AL 0CWILL BE CAVG,D, f M LL IGHTING RECOMMENDATION O M ¢ S � N 70-5 EXIT SIGN �" m• -'1 \ _ Gam. 5 Lu m 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER $ .11��1 �9�� _ O PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N } R S' CONCRETE SLAB REINF. ONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS HOTEL. o � wRNDBANKED PARKING W/ 6X6 #10/10W. W. M. zNO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) RKING INFORMATIONTO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0"6"X18" CONCRETE OF VEHICLE DETECTOR2SPACES 9' x 20' m 75CURB (TYP. ) R 50 '0" 8 " R VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR DICAP PACES 9' X 20' m 90 n BUS PARKING ZONE 0.0'• 0'0" \ 6 5J \ J it LRNDBRNKED SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 ' \ - SPACES - x _ m I 4 UTILITY INFORMATION s' 0 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION L) 13 Q, LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) p M SANITARY SEWER _ F LL D 6 c 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER p STORM SEWER ¢ X o f 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINA. ELEciRIC i x x x x PRINTED DIRECTIONAL '' W/ 6X6 YS10/l0 W. W. M. i 1 I I ARROW (WHITE) TYP, o• o GA5 3 a \NI I I I PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) u1 SURVEY INFORMATION a \'o LU m UPN PBY: TEAS. BARRETT, LANZISERA. & FRANK 0 � REPAARED ' 125 CHURCH STREET N W UJ o MALVERNE. NY 11565 ¢ z DATE: OSAPR90 (516) 599-3663 p N Z a 6"X18" CONCRETE LEGEND CURB (TYP. ) 6 S SANITARY SEWER GAS z¢ z z _ _ 55 J —� 28 WATER LOT LIGHT aME LP:30 ti ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) STORM SEWER W U S 84- W EXISTING ELEVATION (76.5) ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77.0 F ©LD MAIN ROAD PLAN SCALE: 1" = zD STREET ADDRESS N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROADw 1 9q CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU RS-BUILT --XXX-- --- REGIO - _REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. MmaoS KoAGYe7) — i GENERAL NOTES uWl w N I. M.DGNALD'S ROAD SIGN MID BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N H CONDUIT PID WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. AND WIRING FOR ALL OTHER m Z' SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACT". , \ R 70-5A "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/4" EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- f v� 30 'Da METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES. CODUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE �1p LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. • ` / 4. DAMS FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR Z BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. OH `N S. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFEMATIC ONLY. EXACT F /UNP- H LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST V O A I ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. LU r- I V S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES LQ O Y Dy TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING Z "McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING R / M O DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. AND OR '* CIRCUITING. "McDONRLD'S' GROUND SION h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK 11' AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT HANDICAP RAMP 6'X18" CONCRETE EIROUNDBREAK. w CURB (TYP. ) ¢ L" n S. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6• ABOVE FINISH PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PAVEMENT. HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / w 0 70-SR "WELCOME" SIGN T. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO S' BELOW Li 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF.°a 2S W/ 6X6 410/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CURBS. FINISH GRRDINO, RPINO. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. X 10. LAT LIOHITNG CgJCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS " •L\ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. " p• 6" ro PAVING SPECIFICATION �. (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) O" °9 " 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE 1-A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE ° G" CRUSHED STONE BASE 6" N`. 6" CONCRETE FILLED _ GUARD POST (TYP. OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK r o � ' • „ ° REINF. W/ 6X6 410/30 W. W. M. ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED _ $ Ld 6 ¢ a PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NOTE' M00NALD'S ENGINEER RESERVES TIE RIGHT TO PFA EST A COMPACTION 0 p�p Z LL) E TEST AND)/OR A CORE SgPLE. IF TESTS PROVE CORRECT. PER ABOVE R W H wmxFICATIm. TESTS WILL BE AT TIE FOO'ENSE OF HCDONALO'3. >: U- "' 'J\ MENU BOARD OTHmWISE a.C. WILL BE CWYNFD. U' P- � ,�s �" � � � � o � J P- LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION ¢ �s\ / - 4 o CD G ' m 7 1991 - fyY 70-5 EXIT SIGN a ', 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER _ 8 } O CD O 3 PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N MOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. Z 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. S � W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION LL m NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) LANDBANKED PARKING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' X 20' 0 75 d o OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACES rn z 6"X18" CONCRETE „ 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' ® 90 q � CURB (TYP. ) R SO'0' 28' D R 0.0„ , VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 LRNDBANKED SPACES 9' x 20' 0 90 BUS PARKING ZONE 2° - SPACES - X - 0 - w UTILITY INFORMATION w ` y w 1 0" 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATIONr Nom+ L LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER - 0 oWATER X60 " 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL STORM SEWER - ¢ x 5< x ° ELECTRIC A W/ 6X6CRETE##10 /10LWBWRMINF. GAS PAINTED DIRECTIONAL o N SURVEY INFORMATION LU ARROW (WHITE) TYP. 3 W PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT, LANZISERA. & FRANK C3 N PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) \ °� n oLu 125 CHURCHS1 w m MALVERNE. NY 11565 ¢ F N (S16) 599-3663 O ,N_, Z '01 DATE: OSAPR90 H AL n z g0, u LEGEND Z z ,L6. 20 SANITARYSEWER OAS ¢ Z H 65 C T �® N 6"X18" CONCRETE _ — e� WATER LOT LIGHLP:30 O CURB (TYP. ) 28 STORM SEWER EXISTING ELEVATION (76. 5) �- ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 g ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' a o STREET ADDRESS g OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MA COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --xxx-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. - SP - 1 MC9005 IDSTNY,T) I GENERAL NOTES w w 1. McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN MID BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N E CONWIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } m Q 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS, CONDUIT. ANDWIRINGFOR PLL OTHER r SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTER. 70-5A "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 314" EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- \ ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES. CONDUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE �O LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR ZO BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. A N S. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST L) n ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. w O ' V Q 1n 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES W O TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING n "McDONgLD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL MD PLUMBING � n O V(V DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. AND _ q M r CIRCUITING. 5h 0! A '0 0� "McDONRLD'S" GROUND SIGN ~ SJR •� 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT LU HANDICAP RAMP — ' \ 6'X18" CONCRETE oRoUNmeREa . ¢ k \ CURB (TYP. ) IWa e. FINISH WALK PLAID CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PAVEMENT' HANDICAP STALLS ONLY � w •• 9. ALL LAM)SCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6" BELOW 70-SR "WELCOME" SIGN 24 ° 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. TOP OF ALL WALKS Aum CURBS. FINISH GRADING, LANDSCAPING. O W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. x 10. LOT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FODTINOS TO CONFORM KITH THE SOILS .. /� REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PPRTICULM SITE. u. . 0 5 PAVING SPECIFICATION •6,. GI" (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) 5� N•0"„ ' 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE I-R ASPHALT HERRING COURSE � „ p 5 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE p"" K 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE e 6" CONCRETE FILLED W GUARD POST (TVP. OF 8) „ 6 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK _ p od'6 �, • 0• ONI1F1/ 2/ MORTER BED W. W. M. _ o .• �1 � o_ w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NICE: McDG*$ ENGDAHEI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REaLEsr A aWWgw $ z� u �1 p TEST PND/OR A f SAMPLE. IF TESTS PROVE CORP , PER ABOVE U_ SPECIFICATION. TESTS WILL AT TIE DwBNBE IP McDONA.S'S. V V £ N LL OTiQI1I5E G.C WILL BE CWAGE9. w O / MENU BOARD O LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATIONco z w LX CE / 1 \ w M 70-5 EXIT SIGN V )HN _7 1991 - OQ B Q ao ' 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER i U'n w Nr / NOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. Z N PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) 50'0" 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. no z W/ 6X6 4I0/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION „ w NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) u m N LRNDBANKED PARKING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' X 20' 0 75 y` OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACESu, Z CONCRETE SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 6"Xl8" CONi J R 50 '0" 2a°„ R VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 qi CURB (TYP. ) 0 '0" \ - SPACES - X - m - G 2D °• a BUS PARKING ZONE \ R UTILITY INFORMATION 4y . w r 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATIONE- o LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER „ _ ° 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER Lli 6° STORM SEWER - ¢ x X x Q ♦ Q ° '1 ELECTRIC - Q Q, 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. o z W/ 6X6 #10/10 W.W.M. GAS - I I I I I o SURVEY INFORMATIONa PRINTED DIRECTIONAL o � \� SUR � ARROW (WHITE) TYP. s "T PREPARED BY: TEAS, BRRRETT. LRNZISERR. b FRANK 7o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) o �� \ OG 125 CHURCH STREET ¢ Ui MALVERNE. NY 11565 N (516) 599-3663 O Z DATE: 06APR90 H 1 LEGEND ¢ z Z 2a a�2o a SANITARY SEWER ORS Cc Z N 56 6 WATER LOT LIGHTo_ 6"X16" CONCRETE 9 STORM SEWER ~� LP:30 N U CURB (TYP. ) 2g EXISTING ELEVATION (76. 5) �"�� ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 q ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) SS8q PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20 ' w� P �, � STREET ADDRESS OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 2S & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19PPR91 MR COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX-- -- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. SP - 1 M0000G KOSM9Ye,7 I GENERAL NOTES w N 1. MCDONRLD'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. Nn H CONIDUIT RNID MIRING ARE BY THE GENFJtPL CCHRRACTOR. 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CIXmUIT. MID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER 0] SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTER. V R 70—SA "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/{' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT 30PERI- METER ERI- METEFF �ST LIGHTINSOIS BYC�UIGENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE LIGHT— ING I `O LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. ' 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR Z BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. O H H D_ \N 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFkTIATIC ONLY. EXACT H LOCATIONS SMALL BE TION.DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST U O' ECQVOMICRL INSTALLATION. w INN FQ NS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CoORUINfiTE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES / O Oy TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING + M m "McDONRLD'S ROAD SIGN DRAWINGS FOR UTILIER To THE TY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.sB1NG z , am yy CIRCUITING. ? "McDONALD'S" GROUND SIGN h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT t1TGlviGtiP RAMP + OIROUHDBREAK. w ° 6'X18" CONCRETE F- ! \ CURB (TYP. ) PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) S. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH �O HANDICAP STALLS ONLY PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PavExrr. > w ff °" 70-50 "WELCOME" SIGN S" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. V. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SMALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW p• 21`� W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL NID WALKS RCURBS. FINISH NERIINE. LANDSCAPING, x AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWhfR/OPERATOR.TOR. .. /� 10. LOT LIGHITNG CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS REPORT RECOMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. ci m+` p' 6 m PAVING SPECIFICATION (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) " O u� O " 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE I—A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE T °e "HsO 6 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 6" CONCRETE FILLED 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE z GUARD POST (TAP. OF 8) 451, CONCRETE SIDEWALK , �f �0 � REE INF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. - ❑ � ON 1 1/2* MORTER BED - o 6° ? > w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NONE: MvBRWAD'S ENGINEER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REGUES A CAPS DN O z v S'�I IORTTIION. TESTS LL BE Kr THE PACE cDONTLD'3, r k LL LL MENU BOARD Er�EnwxaE. e.a WILL IE cwwem. \ (��0 0 p LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION V `/ g w z .✓ '� //��TT oE CO w LL ul SIGN i'I' ,M9lW -7' 1991 - w o 2S'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER z o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N NOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. z N S S" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION LRNDBRNKED PARKING NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) m TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" OF VEHICLE DETECTOR TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' x 20' m 75 o 6"X18" CONCRETE " SPACES 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 T4 CURB TYP. ) P SO '0" g'0 z ( 2 R 20 0„ VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 LRNDBRNKED SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 4x BUS PARKING ZONE 2� ° — SPACES — x — m — z rn d UTILITY INFORMATION 4 w 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION O LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER — L WATER I I c 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL STORM SEWER _ A 25 25 R ELECTRIC H I H H Q, r• 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. - H H H H H O PRINTED DIRECTIONAL W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. GAS uH o� ARROW (WHITE) TYP. a o• \U' SURVEY INFORMATION H N ~ O PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT. LRNIZISFJ2A. & FRANK C3 w PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) �: ` Ou? 125 CHURCH STREET N Ld N MRLVERNE. NY 11565 I (SIB) S99-3663 O z G' DATE: OSAPR90 K c0 0 Zw e� a LEGEND cc N z 24'' 2D SANITARY SEWER GAS ¢ ¢ H 5 J Z 66 - -�. ej o_ � 6"X18' BPN�RETE WATER LOT LIGHT ■-� P0 CURB (TYP. ) �28$ �6EXISTING ELEVATION ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 17 g ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TAP. ) — S 84.2' 10' i5 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' D MAIN ROAD STREET ADDRESS OLN. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUGK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. SP - I IICBGG6 (ORIRYN7 /r/ CUL"IONS GENERAL NOTES: ' 6 AMA u55 CAI_CULAT100 -/OLUFIE CATCH 8ASIu5 1. McDonald's Road Sign and Base are by the Sign Contractor. p _ Conduit and Wiring are by the General Contractor. PA=i DRI�\uY 4;IDOSf1i.IraG r< I 'I$O,2LaxF7 U5E(IJ iI"b`PIA X 121iDEBr PA-2 PARKIQJ G,9uPSY x,lo6%1' I1155.4CY.FT u5E(2 �_' IODIAK 9' DEEP 2, Bases, Anchor Bolts, Conduit, and Wiring for All Other DA- 3 - 3,220 SF x,lW x 1 534-CO-FT- USER-Y-10 PIA- %S' DEEP Signs an by the General Contractor. y PA-4 6 tacicxlGt: Kl 0l9 urFT u5E 3. %" Empty Conduit to Locations Shown at the Lot Pai- a C I l (2) - Io'PIARS' POP � meta for Lot Lighting is by the General Contractor. Lighting > 5 Q a -DA-5 -1 ,3507•FK,16&Kt g24coFT uSE(J) -lo DIAK4 PQiP Q Z tA\ T'1 Fixtures, Bass, Poles, Conduit, and Wiring are by the 0 ��p OF i6ew ' DA-=6 - - -1;8?7.5FR,1(4gj. _ 303 cu FT USE0) -lo'DIAxi DEEP Owner/Operator. � 5`.' m eptal DA--i 1125 S Ex.a166xt- I Sb co FT z _� ILIA _ I i 4. Dam for Flagpoles are by the General Contractor. Anchor Q 5 q� pA tea DA- 5 1 j(PTS S `Is•I66 KL -RTOCu.FT uSE(?) IC D(A X 9 DE$R_ Bolts are by the Flagpole Supplier. o X 914K��ORZlu/ fir'" AA-q WOF 4, 46as.EK.K.&x1 7¢Ocu.PT E u t S. Proposed Utilities are Shown in Schematic Only. Exact J�V R\5t_ OrOi �r - Locations shall be Field Determined to Allow for the Most 'I•S\ i \� Economical Installation. m ryg t 9,5 D O 36 C. e - - -- - _ S. The Contractor shall Coordinate with All Utility Compania - e `b - - - - ...... H...t FPAr1E_+_y W -- - � hg1 °s 4•q 517E •; _- -- - �_ - ', to Determine Exact Point of Service Connection at Existing Utility. Refer to the Budding Electrical and Plumbing ac tg O cT +; _ �( _ _ Drawings for Utility Service Entrance Locations, Sizes, and 4 aJ� h1- . Circuiting. riyb .I�` ?o• �' , •P-r' v,r,aN w ,^ . m +:' .E ' ',:' _-SPR&c�1ST REh.IF. 'fRA�F1c_- ® v seARtar� 1oP= 4 om est-- 4Ua A : L 7. All Elevations Shown are in Reference to the Benchmark a 7 h and must be Verified by the General Contractor At r3¢ 1 yP+Q ^ �� hU�� ryA• Iyo,g+ i to P-RECAST (REIt7P._DRAIt:HSfAE _ _ Groundbreak. Ytie Q� LON ti o \ 9 �qq •5`'c Y.C. . _ S. Finish Walk and Curb Elevations shall be 6" Above Finish E ryq•� ;A ( Pavement. g 9. All Landscape Areas shall W Rough Graded to 6" Below 7 0 P, tiq• e ' p gh O & •, Top of All Walks and Curbs. Finish Grading, Landscaping, .5 and Sprinkler Systems are by the Owner/Operator 2. o c "'D �� LA g5bA e� q ti of Ex y (SIPaDu>a .vATeR �ry\u l.• tE .'` �`pfQEp�� �0 \.6 �1�;��aG` 5e 4 EE T FLli4+E ' 1,MN vRPNt a.� ° 5 0 04 ..opV` .Q Cu \DATA\\' EWA1.K5 / R Rp,NK \NL, I _ PAVING SPECIFICATION: (Mm, SER t a n, F ro J\DA 5\o Fqy C8\� t'IP'� TY /! C �` ¢a��` rJ`, EQ\GK� `S •• :• L Or,(7 T 11' -VA"� �___I��S�_ - mum 3"Total Compacted Thickness.)t Thi°kn. .l �y��pa0 ,� 4.�G/�,e( y/E_asq -Ek. . . ,4 -'-•- ' :•• rLy(e ��\,.,I R 1JoTE: DA = DRAINAGE AREA - - ..,- --PAVIWCT- LISTED Fp 1•'1- Top TO BASE P�Q D � j�/Q � � \a'� V ;k r• i._ t 2t,tRE?• WNnY` �4M - - • .I'�2° 1tlP_ �QuR5E--TYPE--�-P �\ �' �`F 5Rr o R _ \ti 9] M 9w�PA 8 5 P hiciso w - - Co'�25TBAIE11�zED_ 9UP1' SuIIPYrSSE AS APPBaiED _ ,a r �, qa I Qat, - •ciP 1 ••QM 1 .: 1lJEM I. b 91.iR,�JEL+'�• 120 Ele'j"r cEascrfnca ° rr••;q- T, Pee u22,5 -- :.a,ay,.- ,;. :,:. t + CR GEIJr�rre,�� i nnxoteoArAeipzr - - - - t- - - - - - - • - 6t„29'fi D 5)USN@'SS N.i,n _ Er`� l 13011A1.DJ fBNS u•„r.r term ,r,. n �I•� J� `Q 'j e,.� v.n nye 9 'j. vtiJ 19.1 �1 pL `� _ .Y�jflr y e ' f 5 two, ..,u•„., - - --- -- - E �^ •O ,•Y "'caro p1W 922-7-3 Not., McDon.ld'r Engineer R .The Right To Request A Como S.? ' atRequestp ^• non Test Aid/Or A Con Semple, If Tuts Pro,@ Correct,Per 3g S)• h DDy 0.9 �(��- \t t3 _ - - era enr•n Above Speclhorom, Tests Will Be At The Experts Of McDoneld't V ii 29.1 s _ u.r• rr.,,, iW, Orhnwits, G C.Will Be Charged. Z 29,$ pew ,,,, LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: J RtOh Dp.ti �1pPED ----- ate ,• J o •r:`•.`••"`•• !km \,pa r n,.u.u•. c.,n. or • REFER TO 5HEE7 _SP-30._ FOR LICTH'nl4 LOOLIT ANDT-.tEC7EFCAL CEQUIREME147S, v JJh v.rr ret• r.,. ral,n ..,,. LAUD Natty o¢ FoeMEeL �\a ; PF AMAC IMC, FoLMELI`l Does T ,LSO y� .d't'f volt-•Ew , Note. Electrical Contractor To Circuit Lot Lighting As Noted. bF W. ICE AUD FUEL CORP } " C� /I � 29.a H cat` .TP & °o l.fi ti e v ,tat yW( O'x Qal'(N Pp./E PARKING INFORMATION: I� _ eA ,SPE LT E' E'L ` „ ' \ Armowzn • Total __ _-___--T-CP - Spaces - 91-- x 'LO • 90 PSP aro L 9' 1 W`�'' t,1 i�Z PpO� D \t' �• ry 1 i�, aG,F\ D rurx^n wn eKrn spaces Spaea-- x 0 Lcp(.P Nun: n,m•r c.nru e.,• n sCF I -- LAUD N f op STAJLE J, x99 ,� 1 ''r . n . s1Y LAND N/F OF eu •, 9clk_.. - - - $pixti - x • JAMES PENDULIK r•" `ter` - - - - AUD JANIc%E M. RISS R. �• POFD Dp 3t ' r' Dp- �1 mwn s. t.a,_t - _ - OLD+Mtl4 - oa �•I `Z.A\\1 EE � I � r �" � ./. 1\ - - GoR,A rM, r•� � w•ki - S7ACKI!!CT ._ - _ _Spaf�s - f'Ih'I''�'I{I,ILI �.'� P� � 1 4_ / • -- 5- -O x l- • i 'Yw �•� UTILITY INFORMATION: p\y "'AA911 _I '•\ t ------- t,.. Sae: Type: Location: G129A fg•5 s « \ - - - - -_ \ •r" ^•"•" '"•• Sanitary Sewn - 5£E- 5HERT -SP-1s A c.'LS, �\ - 1 E 2l. '-'--- set• - - a Z otK,� o ..•. Water WELL , SEE 9HEET- 5P-3 LINE Storm Sewer u,v.ry at .e ,m,• w..•..m Electric -SEE m n m m S a -SHEET.-SP,3¢ ' -- - - Q m fJo� $ s LINE of EXISTI J \vx�D$ 98ra G Gas , 29 3 �. ,6LL U• 1L1 IPS P'eE I f~jE \ j j 27.0 "'.r I^ ••n rat. ere.. ..awe Dere At\ SURVEY INFORMATION: K Lll�riEcGRoU �ID. v o -y.�r Prepared By: Q. O ��IS�INF -}It2B Lief? as O'r • '��- � - - Ep\ALE.A j - � �� �, - Dated: U4 US 0, D El'a l*5 PEr< 1'ol-r� op SoutHoL t '� 27•e - �L+hIfJI�IG reo �cyl�lA;EMEN 27,s 2i.5 2 ! LEGEND: 4. RE�Ee t° ShE61' SP'aA �° � u.4 r �\ �� " SITE- APE& - 12.94 AcQE� (13o1421s.O Sanitary $ewer -S Gas -G a q o elf LItiH films w -_ ,ASA4` Sf,___._._�.. Water -W Lot Light �'� LP:30 E e %=L0-� yER --.- ---- ------- - -- �-ff3�TTp - Storm Sewer -ST Existing Elevation (76.5) O Ecc / 2 .1 27.1 . �J - - - -- /- EYIST. cEss Pc°L 27_1 27,4 2G.7 0� 1•A'� --'pA�ED-AREA--- - - ------ -- ------- 1 . -- d _ �q7. �•tg, 15, - "-q(T0475.FOR:-rjj �e;_- Electric - E Proposed Elevation 77.0 584' 41'- IONV - n o • - L11I.1 P5'fJ1F'ED--. AREA PLAN SCALE: 1 a0' r,. ---- -- ----- - yGa42s-OC-Z4•1��-- Le.I 2y� Pf,zklNe'r R�Ulrceo. 112 5 = 4015 e5 2G S '143 25.9 25.4 25.Q 25,4 25,4 _?}lk) ______1 STREET ADDRESS: REGIONAL DWG. NO.: 25,9 1"Af> lPEp- - 4�.5fl4cE5 OLD MAIN ROAD CITY: STATE: O`Sj JRED ARoti,Jl MATTITUCK CORPORATE DWG. NO.: .- - - - SAY E4 �olsp F. Fp�Y fOr ,. +L COUNTY: - -- - - _MATTITUCK- '_ * SUFFOLK SIT�PJ.AN - -- 2owN 6F `x>L�7HOLD a----- -- - - -` - - SUFFo1.k_ cczutilT`( N.,"{; _ . ��ry "°• e3" + RAYMOND F. FELLMAN • ARCHITECT , °F THE sl N15 x90 BROADWAY • AMITYVILLE 10222 GLACYER COURT' ORLANW SP- 2, NEW YORK 11701 . 516989-3553 FLORIDA 321309 • 305-351-4596 , ', � t Ma@bNMM�M�1 bfln Md Ih by tNN'�MI CMmeemr '� �., � G, r�� CultAuitl{tMYllle�ne�FMbY ��!GrkiliMCoi➢trllelpw-, ° , a !►�r� �►nanergoi rw �e�'pr+lt, wla widdj ro. All od,w x eivow V.0 by �At Gtner�l t utmedtor y y 0, ii'°.Ari tlx I:YtnduR {YI L01Miketn Shtwb,et Me-'Lot Ptri• K r nwter*4etl.lgl'tt"htNtiltG"'oCon ender. LI♦/ m > k� �. FlktiiN PI.9PoIM ot11MOR, Mid Wir➢� we by' the CC y gIJ bwnee/Oi�raeal.,, ,tt 0 - 4. r NN wtio$I N eNi by4t 6wr"'Cortirde oI. Andhor molb,tre 6Y the'Fleepole Edpoliar. 4 pro ➢ �� - e Lu4etIddM Ihvf bsl Field Determined to Allow ffor 'the M EebnanNktl>t`tself"on e, Ttit CdMIHMtUb grNl Cootilhato with All Utlll" Companies , 3� V1 to lit . 111 to ttM gi7➢Itiitia�Eleot lvilNatbn is liaiNinP LtiIHY R uµi M4mWne . or ihipir for'UI➢litt, eerwo"Antranda Looet➢dna° mass, and _ f dl I Ail'lMhtkaN;III own,he At!55llthrinta,to the' Mnehmak- �- elid mart ba.N!itiriNad bt tM oenerN Contractor At .,, „, � ' Is, F➢tiilll Wtlk,and Curb Elivetlona tbNl ba e" Abe" Finish C� pertinent. P' e.. All 'La"Ifft else Arta thmt' vw Routh Weikel to e^ Below o Top of All Walks end Cuft Flnnh Gredlne, Let thespIng, P`� 2 and e06010 Systems we by the Gw;ner/Opirstdr. , � f ra r i` V PA41NG 8P€Cti`tCA710N, r � - IkkANhum,9"TeW CnlnitfrbN AMihe➢t Taie►naw.l "';": W. ` 1 �5 A O ; .11 4. bm Now IMeD�Y Ard/b'ACW6 eamPi�It Tan hwr co~,M need•krwir(brdrinr !10 win ealUi.rin llitivnw W ttapenMrK orN+irr➢r.,a.c:wan se Ck}gjd., i .`� LOT�'d if#G NECOMMENOATI ;{^ NOWr"'+tjY�C nYc4r 1d drkuM'L'pt lifhllM At Newt. .0 'a ► 1a ` Jq �',y ' \ \ ® uralry INfbpMaTloN: - dJ. ' � ` \ Sanitary 9erwr ';!a O ' starmen+te � „ to ,; 3 r Ota A INFtrrov TI� ?' 'g' n ,I ; pend ^+'" Yr F.+►�F LA14?1�j-(t,!(P.I, .IMi.rRliflk � ,1 SNlterr9tlwer S' — Gb, 4sl,iiohr. ' M tin, a� 0 EhkMa s°c.�-,.,E ra: ' M,�'I�'ENY►lligd' l F/.v l ,' a r r 4 uE7 ADpR REGIONAL DW6 Nb, OLD MAIN ROAD - - - ., taco CITY ' STATE a� CORPORATE OWG NO SITIES PLAN * � f �sEPza f "F t Ll:MAN ARC ITE a �i t'sikt4'N aid aaoAowtr r FMirrJicr_e r -lpdas oLkS r Cbu,erd . 8�iao , New �YONe 117Q1 '. 'btt)Yea•3!!! ►�.CalOA .Ueilt • i e1163514!!e r. MUM Is aft" - n NOTES : SHINGLE RETURN 8"X 16" ALUMINUM LOUVER I BRICCK TO BE LIGHT IN COLOR OF MANSARD (TYP J RAIN GUTTER WITH W/BIRD SCREEN ON TO BE CHOSEN BY MCDONALD' S 24 GA GALVANIZED 5 , 0„ BACK OF PARAPET CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER 5' 0" GUTTER FLASHING (3 BACK ELEVATION) (SEE SHEET A9) 2 WHEN SPECIAL EXTERIORS ARE 1 TOP OF PARAPET LIGHT BEAM S ARE C V + I ' -4 / 16" TOL BE TAKEN ED LFROMC THE BUILDING SHINGLES AS PER EXTERIOR DESIGN AND COLOR GUIDE - EXTERIOR DECOR SEE SPECS 3 FINISH TO BE LIGHT IN COLOR AND, COORDINATED WITH TRIM ' 4 ALL WOOD IN CONTACT W/ CONC SLAB OR FOUNDATION WALLS AND ALL WOOD TOP OF MASONRY WALL ON ROOF DECK TO BE PRESSURE TREATED , Ips - TO RESIST WATER 6 INSECT DAMAGE 5 6" FIBERGLASS INSULATION MECHANICALLY 4 ' 5" CLEARANCE WARNING SIGN •SEC:URED TO NAILERS FASTENED TO THE ` [TYP ) STUCCO SYSTEM GU TRIGGERS SEE DETAILS A6 A17 IX4 FRIEZE BOARD (SEE SPECS 1 6 SOFFIT SHOULD BE PAINTED WHITE OR STAINED AS PER GUARD POST REQUIRED LIGHT COORDINATED COLOR EXTERIOR DECOR WITH OPTIONAL7 INSTALL METAL ROOD DECK AND ALL BUMPOUT WINDOW STRNCTURAL STEEL PRIOR TO INSTALLING TOP OF •ROW- OCK COURSE MANJSARDS °0 � � �� • 8 ALL, STEEL FRAMING TO BE BRACED DURING CONSTRUCTION PER ASCI RECOMMENDATIONS � � T(�P F FI��OR SLAB 9 CONSALL TRUCTIONPERPER'SMASONRyBE BRACED DURING r EV INSTITUTE RECOMMENDATIONS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S�III L = - - - I- �� GUARD POST BUMPOUT DRIVE - T - - r - - - � frh T P OF DR VE-THRU PAD " A2 LJ 12 A9 L J � REQUIRED WITH THRU WINDOW J BUMPOUT WINDOW TOP OF FREE ER SLAB rI - - tl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - '- 1 - _ - _ - _ - _ - 1T - - - - - - - _ - - -- - - - - - - - - i - 1 - - - - - - J \` • 1 L - - - 1- - -�\-/- - - - - - - - - - - - LIGHT BRONZE TINTED REAR ELEVATION I " INSULATED GLASS , 8" x 16" ALUMINUM LOUVER I SCALE 1 /4" = I ' -O" W/ BIRD SCREEN ON BACK OF PARAPET (3 FRONT ELEVATION) 5 ' pEOU L QUAL EQUAL FASCIA SIGN TOP OF Pry _7E PARA _T _ _ 9/ 1 I n 24 GA GALV RAIN DIVERTER PAINTED TO �f�(V �I MATCH SHINGLES �-• -� TOP OF+MASONRY WALL p IpO 8�No a 1 1LYY`�_ rcry F SH D FF T •------a,m�_,___, ' L + I _ 1 �• P[ll�rIJl0 Iri 81 a O 6 COLUMN WRAPPED INKK6 COLUMN WRAPPED IN AZ - ANODIZED ALUMINUM O ANODIZED ALUMINUM GUARD POST REQUIRED H H WITH OPTIONAL —T O n BUMPOUT WINDOW 0f n ( O I < 00a PEDESTRIAN SAFETY aH Z W N RAIL TPPmOF.RrOWLQCK COURSE t7 < J N " PERMA PL.Y R SIDE PARAPET FLASHING CEMENT N < ¢ EMBED IN! ASPHALT w + T P OF FLOOR SLAB • i 1 ry METAL COPING w i : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PERMA PLY R y Z ~ - - - - I " INSULATED NAILED P1 PARAPET WALL PERMA CAP EMBED IN ASPHALT z o r LL I I LOGO WINDOW 18 GLASS ( TYP 1 - ONLY SEIE SPECS NAIL P 6" 0 C 0 < F (SEE SPECS ) AT A7 I " FROM TOP EDGE ONLY . N < -T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L_ - J D BY REAR PARAPET z ¢ F- I - r � � BOTTOM OF FOOTING Z a i FRONT ELEVATION CODE OR TO ACHIEVE / J " v ADEQUATE SOIL BEARING '\ (w]//' ❑ N = I ' -0" 3' MIN NAILER N o I /4" / LAP TYP w STEEL JOISTS FABRICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 22" L4P SCALE = - SJI SPECIFICATIONS 2 3 • I l / \ \ r ~ 1 3 WIDE RIB 1 1/2" STEEL DECK SEE DETAIL / \I A854 S4 A6 2 LAYER RIGID INSULATION I LAYER 2 1 /4" / • / PARAPET POLYISOCYANURATE FOAM INSULATION IS I TOP LAYER 3/4" • j.,, / FLASHING OWENS CORNING RIGID FIBERGLASS INSULATION - - - - - - '" -• ` - /• (SEE SPECS ) WOOD CANT BUILT-UP BITUMINOUS ROOFING•OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP 33- IC ROOF SPECIFICATION-UL �\ Ix, (�( TYPICAL) CLASS A ROOFING SYSTEM WITH MINERAL CAP SHEET YP c^" TYP B" TYP NXa� X �i LIGHT BEAM 11 O SE NOTE A5 pJ S $ � H L 1 " X I " X 1 /8" ZO o E m > HORIZONTAL BRIDGING < _ II _ O 10 U) J H WOOD CANT GIT Hz > TINTED GLAZING 1 - 1r- -T -11- � 7- -T -y1- Ir- �r -11 (LIGHT BRONZE) SUSPENDED ACOUST H II MI CE;LI e ' I 1 " II II II II MI o❑J b I1— 1 1 ° 5 EMBED IN PERMA ASPHALPLY R REAR OUTRIGGER ��+ < N o < f�c MENU BOARD A7 SEE SPECIFICATIONS PLYWOOD CRICKET pyo Z bf VALANCE _ iv J c < 16 O 17 - METAL DECKING 3/4" OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS < m F- Z ' n _ RIGID INSULATION Z ,1 (n m 0) cv 36 PIERMA CAP 2 3" POLYISOCYANURATE 0 ❑ W 1 'D VALLEY STRIP-- FOAM INSULATION DRIVE-THRU PAD TOP F F R A 36" PERMA PLV R W f L + VALLEY STRIP ELEV -0- 1 " of iX Q i� �x DRYWALL TAPED LANMOTE__' LANDSCAPED AREA w ' SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR F 5" FLOOR SLAB AND SANDED TOPSOIL BY OPERATOR DUML sTmmw moFm syxm COMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS OF QUARRY TILE BOTTOM OF FOOTING NOT TO SCALE PRODUCTS AND PROCEDURES VAPOR BARRIER _ FLOOR 6 BASEAS g 6" COMPACTED SAND TO ACHIEVEYADEQUATTE w A 0 4• CROSS SECTION /� FRP PANELING SOIL BEARING � STUCCO/BRICK SCALE 1 /4"= [ ' -O" t A�3 F» fid;, rt 111 . t' .. I_ Old o LITE . .........II IIIII I ---------- - -- -- -- -----------_---_=--__-_-_-_____==— - -�-_---____-_-_==- --- __-- _ _ -- �-- ____ rr=- = -------------------- -------------- ------- ---= -_= � • ` F IF/ BIN ...... __--_ 527" II'! 107'! rV 1046'! DIST. 1000 SEC. 122 BLK. 6 01 LOT 2B 40_,. 2T DIST, /000 , 2B2 SEC, 122 BLK 6 3,p1 e 107356 Nti o DIST. 1000 2854- SEC. 122 D/ST. /000 n DIST. /ODO DIST. /000 0/5T 1000 01ST /000 LLT 26 SEC, /22 1 e SEC. /22 SEG /22 SEC. 122 SEC. 122 BLK. 6 M �; SLK. 6 BGC 6 BLK. 6 f BLK 6 245„ LOT 3/ of°v L07-29.1 ,I LOT 29.2 ,I LOT 29.3 LOT 29.4 y b p J \ /4BL 974 QPO\ 0/sT 1000 DIST. 6 / • / SEC, 122 N DIST. 100 / SEC. /22 X00 BLK. 6 ry' SEG DIST. /000 SLK 6 LOT 27 m/ SLK. 6 I SEG 122 LOT 30.1 ^ LOT 33122 0 b° y BLK. 6 / LOT 32 ° 200 ' RADIUS LIST SUBJECT PARCEL IS 1000-122-7-3. 1 97'2 60'_a /B4'4 1201 /274 127! 127! 1 127' 501 1000-122-6'26 Ernest & Ano Wilsberg, Mattituck, NY 11952 MAIN ROAD CS. R. 25) (66' R. O. W.) 1000- 122-6-27 NY State , Albany, NY 19200 1000-122-6-28 NFB Developement, 9025 Main Road, Mattituck, N52'02%O"E37!37' NY 11952 1000-122-6-29. 1 Troy & Joan Gustayson, Box 247 King Street, 2701 DIST /000 3461 - 1:St57' 1501 365P Orient, NY 11957 SEC. /22 o DIST. /000 1000- 122-6-29. 2 Sunbow Associates , 1065 Hyatt Road, Southold, BLK. 7 s,a N 4r 1w SEC. /22 NY 11971 �0T/@D/ST /000 ^ m 0 ;e; BLK. 7 16% 1000- 122-6-29. 3 Sunbow Associates , 1065 Hyatt Road, Southold, SEC. 122 „ "� ,y o 01ST. /000 DIST. /000 LOT 6.4 Z NY 11971 BLK. 7 114-2 77,17' a o SEC. 122 0° SEC. 122 LOT3.2 552%3'40W N BLK. 7 ro/ BLK. 7 10 0 1000- 122-6-29. 4 Abagail Wickham & Eric S. Bressler, Sox 718 , LOT 6B LOT 66 ` Cutchogue, NY 11935 0 1000-122-6-30. 1 William Goodale, 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk, NY 11956 D/ST /000 DIST. 1000 ' �0' O1000-122-6-31 Parvia , Zad, PO Box E09 Lotowana La. , r O SEC. 122 ti SEC. /22 157' 15%!_ Stony Brook, 11790 t 8LK. 7 BLK. 7 1000- 122-6-32 William & W. F. Konkel, Main Road, Oettltuck, LOT2 „ LOT 3./ o' NY 11952 yV 1000- 122-6-33 Robert Goodale, 665 Stillwater Avenue, / DISK. /000 Cutchob'ue, MY . 11935 LIC 72 cka 1q% 1000-122-6-35. 6 Harvey Bagshaw, New Suffolk Avenue , Mattitu •,q`' A LOT 6.7 O NY 11952 1000-122-7-1 Amac Inc. , 7400 Main Road, Laurel , NY 11948 Pei O 1000-122-7-2 Stanley & Janice Fliss , 565 Old Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 DIST. /000 e•� Qa 1000-122-7-3. 2 Suffolk Etched Products , 1556 W. ►1NSn 'Street, `'B'• '� SEC. /22 ` Riverhead, NY 11901 BLK, 7 1000-122-7-6. 4 William Gremler, Kraus Road, Mattituck, NY LOT 7.l 11952 t r 1000-122-7-6. 6 Stype Brothers Real Estate, Main Road, >z Mattituck, NY 11952 05 1000-122-7-6. 7 Frank Murphy Garden Center, Mattituck, NY Pp( 34f' 11952 \> 500 ss 215c• ) 1000-122-7-6. 6 Brisotti & Silkworth, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 0, O•�• 11952 DIST /000 lege• AP6• R• 1000-122-7-7. 1 11981 BLK .2 Pendulik, 7 Long Pond Road, Ridge, NY SEC. 126 6 LOT 4.2 1000- 122-7-6. 3 Martha HusinB, Old Main Road, Mattituck, NY - 11952 2o7s1 sow DIST. 1000 \\ SEC. 122 BLK. 7 LOT B.3 / \ / OCT 3 0 1990 REVISIONS MAP SHOWING ���DBOCamann, LAND USES ANO CaalbmllonslndicatedhereonsignaythatthislarK/w,sprepared Barrett Lail isera e B man IMPROVEMENTS atdbytNewYtionofherL� Sur,,s s, Sole New Yr*Stab Assoonlyt me peesst forwh re 5/TGATEO /N survrmrs. Is preeared.add on his only the usin om Consulting Engineers and LmdSwveynrs MATT/TUCK TOWN OF SOUTNOLD go survey Is prepared,antl an his behalf to the hee on and to governmental agenry and lending institution lead hereon,and to SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK the assignees of the nursing restltuuon Certifications are not transferable to additional Institutions or subsequent owners El 125 Church Street El 1001 Middle Country Road Mai NY 11565 Ridge,NV 11961 Tax Map Designation: sNeEr unamhodzedalleohonoratltldmmwsurvrymapbeanngabcens edlandsurve rssmllsamolaionofsodion 72N sub-divlsmn TEL:(516)599-3663 TEL (516)9243230 2,of the New mrk slate Education taw FAX (516)593-8160 FAX:(516)924-3557 Otis TRIC T 1000 copies Imm the ong.ml of this sure,map net minket an SECT/ON /22 OF otlglnaloltDelantl suruapfsembosutlsmisdellnhtbeconsmered to beevadd caps BLOCK y PtDREO BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SURVEY NO SCALE GATE LOT 3.1 JEZ JEZ KHB l" _ !00aaaaaa ' NASSAU SUFFOLK BLURMNTINb Do i Ace"ee To SeanE DOUBLE' vy F— CAST IRON FRAME_ AtJD r<r•� ARRANGE 1: - COVER TO GRADE. - C , CO r � . • .�F/-? n- S �24'MAX Qom,- a. i FINISHED GRADE ° ' E 0 _ �• 1.0 - � �� . 24•�A/JC T _ . > u N PEA SEPTC TANK J T ] O Bo® ® ® oma ® m m$° GRAVEL Ia6 %7y °oB ® ® oso e, ® m ° ,1- DETAIL 4 c °o1, Di a m 60 alien O - 00® ® 03 ® ® ® ®GO A'- .9 06 ® I8 cm ® fa ma° p . '28223 Q) moo ®® ® o a i e9°Om2 nam ®. t® ® e1 ®a p rHM' ca py Comm In m ® ® Isf ® / I° , o °a, I} a m0 im ® ® m lee N® , to z 9 =0 0 IMIM110 13 P ` 4P 5. �O "MIN. AEOVE GPpUND i rgST IRON FRAME AND m2 IN arLn J Q w o 0 \\v WATER LAVER TO GRADE N J z CL w IL o ♦ LEACHING-POIOL C.) U) ` j § . SpR-351 - FINISHEDGFSACE = LIC0 P crrnlu�,7 r Le DETAIL _! c o a p 1 u It0 0 l p r i rte- ' oo °° 10 IW- L f LP o ° o GT z O V QQ % w , ,SITE INFORMATION _TO SEPTI(. a h c o aJI'� 14� 2.�9 .�G�i5 �13U,�C21Sp� t � Z TAIJV, / 11 PROPOSED'. �111I.bINfa ��' 1+-�'<i' ��• -o � I -�-CARLSON MONOLITHIC McDonald'S I j GREASE TRAP os y�fN iso .J \ VSO Z42" 52,3 0 0� 40Yo ° �� � � ��`•I�G TZ6A�rj (' I -3 5G�'S) — 28. to pLI1jG t%W70GREASE TRAP—DETAIL ' � �_C,�': M_ I o©a 122 -� • 3• i s a NEW +wE LL - - - _ 1 ------ - -11 -- - 2 42 ct_PpEtz IJr'L WATER RV. � I � '- -- - •_ -_ _ � rove - o � 13 2 � rt m � .Z 20D GAL, 3l4"NoN-FREEZe POST �� 1501 -- - - . T oP-A4,E 14 }IYgI?a.NT W/ K-EY � ' � NEW U1pTE�- - wiz SMITH FIG sq 10) - / n MTAIL THI fSANITARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS: � o I, IGIS r-how - !�o 6,A, pPAY /v; A � �vNI a Y I©G j < g9 4�5 &OGQb SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFHEALTHRENO SERVICES APPND'9ED FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY H.S. REF. NO. eio -90 -on FLow �_ ', �`B�/ — — '1,50'10 GPC 5 17 18 19 a .;PE _�� This ,IJl al Is eant<n fer III crlstlunnnn of the sanitary �yATEK-1EVEL- 7 w ir, t u-- i' : qu n •.: r r• i • „int to Articles VR and - 8q0 GPbY 2 q°II ' 297, b GPf1 jDG1 -- 7mu a r:: r^ ^ n•esshe L C f1}�/9g28 'I 1. WELL CAP.- 18' AESV. ,nr ne .r��jj�20 �i5�p4y 15 IN (••IY POL.0610 2, CONDUIT CONNECTOR ', /. FdUlk I}m aTt r ,.. J: �,. n a • pE ]� 3. CONDUIT - 5EP i J 1991 ' " ��� / DATE . ffll 4. PITLESSADAPTERf $ �J. ./VY11G ldfry _ LUP'I1s1z- IIJ�( 1,�hlD IrL�lb1 I/ 5, SAFETY ROPE 28 2G7D Gpl�x 2 �D� J = �'? p (aQV-C S�GI �ICATI VI �Z� IVl �ll �f/^I�'P'I �II 14P / C N S �{ 6. ELECTRICALCABLEE-123�v1��. -1— /�,", 7. TORQUEARRESTOR --" LYw CSN©�� • CAST IWIJ PIPE _ 8. ELECTRICAL PUSH-IN CONNECTOR ' $ MATTITUC NEW YORK / tN MIIJ 4o' oP ¢^_gLA K_STEEL SUFFOLK c - •VaTee 9. PIPE ,. a $ 10. PUMP20 GIFH P. i%a N. g.U011EP5lBL£ FIINf -- I 118 Ur v I�� IQI On �' �/lutvl (J e 11. LIGHTNING ARRESTOR 12. DISCONNECT SWITCH - h i 13. TANK 200 •(,ALLOnuS Si:zrpq I, I MAIN ROAD t ,fjC I 15. PRESSUREGAUGE 1 Dw OLD J ���� � Vc�/ I ��� ��' = I1g0 lr* I';� 15. PRESSURE GAUGE I`tix/ -- PuHP -HIJ 20I I Ol�' n II Iq kvATEL 16. UNIONS AND P IPE FITTINGS (5) 17. RELIEFVALVE 18. GATE VALVE 19. TANK VALVE (FAUCET) DRAIN THERE-ARE-NO- APPARm rr POTENTI'AL - SOURCED OF ' SANITARY ` -C AMINATION WITHIN 150 FT. OF WELL. ALL DRAINAGE RINGS _ STAWLE55 STEEL SHA L BE 50 FT. MIN FROM WELL. 'WELL Sc RfiEIJ 5'-17" 1oP OF 664zac u 4°' NIIN SELo W WATER TA'b LE. S P 3' T T, WATER AND SEWER PLAN WELL DETAIL C-0140.1C 1090-01 Ir T la AIUTGS = MANUAL VALVE + 1 • PfU IPE AUP FITT! (a5 dHo_WN NO•R MALLy 01-061E;'50LIPI TG Eft; pt712N!5HF_P by Lil-ENEF=AL eo A1T2A,S'TOR, m C 2. AN I=LL' n.'S24CAL OUTLET a 61-100L> 6E PR-oVIPEq SOFT HNF- P WA-TL--2. - WIT✓IN FIVE' PLIET OF r- -T-r-- , r-_`-}--^ F=ROM /.�TO�AL-1C TANK THE L"L�UIPNtENT LOG ATIO(U, YY 1 MAAAUAL 1111�LT A m 3. ALLOW z<k - INCHEs AT3oVE Fi -t-t VALVE � ' T 60FY(�LEF- FOR FILLUAILa MANUAL. OUTLET ,) - L v ¢. NIAIPUTAIN P-Lo" VALVE, n P�L'TW�G-IU TANKS �' 1,V ELL, = = p X4Ld Dl J - m d c V U J q y � w o Q1 r � ayPAga t-Im/a' 70 i LIME SvFT�IUE� m OUTLET FIXTU'�L=S TAt\tK, o '� N o STDI2ALnE � T iv K � o , m TANK FiRIME TANjjc,EN E1Z r'TA!'uK Z O Q 2.'7" Z,�,. j LL n PFOM UMP zO LPr� CUL LIGAN HA -200 o c° w W CL CL 0 4'-Cn" U. D a C :5 U `v = LL u m WATER CONDITIONER SCHEMATIC WATER CONDITIONER ELEVATION C L) Z W " 0 N.T.5. --- ro 1 0 F- r U LSI 3Vm U / Y O V (,+( O 9 n G1 4y�* i o G m i t] W i 2 FIRE WELL SPECIFICATIONS WATER WELL NOTES WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM 1 . THE WELL IS TO BE OF THE GRAVEL FILTER TYPE BY 11 . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A POTABLE WATER SUPPLY 1 . WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE AK FLOW HI-FLOW DEVELOPING THE NATURAL FORMATION SURROUNDING THE WELL - SYSTEM CONSISTING OF WELL, HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK , AIR MODEL HA-200 SINGLE SYSTEM, 75 GPM PEAK FLOW AT 25 PSI COMPRESSOR AND CONTROLS ALL AS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND DROP, 50 GPM CONTINUOUS FLOW AT 11 PSI DROP. SUPPLY SCREEN, THE WELL SHALL HAVE A CASING OF NOT LESS THAN B" INSTALLED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL HEALTH DEPT. WITH 24 X 54 SOFTENER TANK AND 24 X 96 BRINE TANK. - - INSIDE DIAMTER FULL WEIGHT WROUGHT IRON STEEL DRIVE PIPE. REGULATIONS PERTAINING, TO INSTALLATION OF THIS TYPE. - 2 . PROVIDE WITH AQUA-SENSOR CONTROL SYSTEM. 2 . THE WELL SCREEN SHALL BE OF STAINLESS STEEL AND SHALL 2 . THE WELL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CASING DIAMETER OF 4" AND - HAVE AN OPEN SLOT LENGTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET, SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH: STAINLESS STEEL WELL SCREEN 3 . COMPLETE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH Q (COOK OR JOHNSON) SUITABLE FOR THE CAPACITY AND MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS . CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 5 YEAR WARRANTY AND SERVICE CONTRACT INCLUDING ALL PARTS a 3 . THE TOP OF THIS WELL IS TO BE FINISHED WITH A 4" T, A FORMATIONS ENCOUNTERED; SANITARY WELL SEAL; WELL HEAD a PIT; SUBMERSIBLE PUMP. WELL SHALL HAVE A CAPACITY OF AND LABOR FOR NORMAL MAINTENANCE, SERVICE AND REPAIR. 4 X 4 1 /2" BRASS INCREASED AND A 4 1 /2" ADAPTOR CAP WITH - CONNECTING CHAIN. THE HOSE THREADS AND HYDRANT WRENCH 20 . 0 GPM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT ALTERNATE PRICES v NUT SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE MATTITUCK FIRE TO REFLECT VARIOUS CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED AS DISTRICT• FOLLOWS ; 4 . THE WELL IS TO BE DEVELOPED UNTIL FREE OF SAND AND THE 3 . 1 ) 100'- 0" DEEP WELL - BASE PRICE. GRAVEL FILTER WALL SURROUNDING SCREEN IS STABILIZED AT 3 . 2) PRICE PER FOOT OF WELL ADDED OR DELETED. � THE ULTIMATE PUMPING CAPACITY OF THE WELL. THE WELL IS TO BE PUMPED WITH THE CONTRACTOR' S OWN PUMP FOR AT LEAST 3 . PUMP SHALL DELIVER 20 GPM AT 60 PSI AT THE 8 HOURS. AFTER A MINIMUM OF 8 HOURS PUMPING THE HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK AND SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT HORSEPOWER CONTRACTOR IS TO TAKE A SAMPLE OF WATER AND HAVE IT SO AS TO NON-OVERLOADING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CAPACITY TESTED FOR CHLORIDES AND REPORT THE TEST TO THE BOARD OF OF THE IMPELLER. PUMP SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ACROSS- FIRE COMMISSIONERS. THE-LINE MAGNETIC STARTER. PUMP SHALL BE DEMING OR APPROVED EQUAL, INCLUDING ALL PIPING . S . THE WELL WILL HAVE TO BE SURGED BY MEANS OF STOPPING THE PUMP AND LETTING THE WATER DROP BACK INTO THE WELL AND 4 . THE HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK SHALL BE A 200 GALLON GLASS ^ THE CHECKED FOR SAND. IF SAND IS BEING PUMPED, WELL LINED VERTICAL TANK CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING 125 PSI . n WILL HAVE TO BE SURGED BY PUMPING AND FLUSHING UNTIL TANK SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PRESSURE SWITCHES, PRESSURE -, FREE OF SAND. ,GAUGE SIGHT GLASS, AUTOMATIC AIR CHARGER AND AUTOCON DUOTROL WELL AND AIR CONTROLLER. TANK SHALL BE ADAMSON, 6. .,THE BIDDER SHALL STATE IN HIS BID, IF THE WELL LOCATION BUFFALO OR APPROVED EQUAL. IS REQUIRED TO BE MOVED DUE TO POOR GROUND OR WATER DEPTH, THE COST PER HOUR FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE S . AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE PACKAGED TYPE COMPLETE WITH O ,_ ORIGINAL CASING AND INSTALLING SAME IN A NEW LOCATION VERTICAL 10-GALLON RECEIVER, CONTROLS , RELIEF VALVE. TO BE APPROVED THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS. IF COMPRESSOR SHALL BE SINGLE STAGE TYPE DIRECT DRIVE ; ADDITIONAL SCREEN IS REQUIRED - STATE THE COST OF THE SIMILAR TO 177-BELL AND GOSSETT MODEL NO. SYCT-01 . WELL DEPTH PER FOOT AFTER THE MINIMUM DEPTH REQUIRED FOR THE WELL. 6 . WELL PUMP SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY AN AUTOCON DUOTROL .CONTROLLER SET TO START THE PUMP WHEN TANK PRESSURE 7 . AT COMPLETION OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE A DROPS TO 40 PSIG AND STOP THE PUMP WHEN PRESSURE RISES WELL LOG WITH SIZE AND DEPTH STATED, AND A WRITTEN TO 60 PSIG. ` AN INTERGRAL FRONT CONTROL SHALL ADD OR QUARANTEE THAT IF ANY EQUIPMENT SHALL FAIL, OR NOT VENT AIR AS NEEDED TO PREVENT TANK FROM BECOMING AIR - - FUNCTION PROPERLY WITHIN ONE ( 1) YEAR THAN HE SHALL BOUND OR WATER LOGGED. AIR VENT SHALL BE EXTENDED , REPAIR OR REPLACE SAME AT CONTRACTOR'S OWN EXPENSE. OUTDOORS . 8. FIRE WELL IS REQUIRED TO PUMP 350 GPM FOR ONE HOUR AND 7 . WELL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A DEPTH AS REQUIRED TO o 303 GPM THFi,RBiAP"1'F,R. INSURE THAT WATER QUALITY MEETS NEW YORK STATE DRINKING p WATER STANDARDS. ACTUAL DEPTH DETERMINED IN FIELD. IN F=N LK COUNTY DEPARI PENT OF HEALTH SERVICES O 9 . SUBMERSIBLE WELLS ARE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH A 15 HP. 3 NO EVENT SHALL DEPTH OF WELL BE LESS THAN S .C.H.D. APPRO'•IED FOR CONST RUCTION ONLY PHASE, 3500 RPM ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH AN ELECTRIC STARTER, DIRECTIVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD FOR INDIVIDUAL FLOW "I TYPE NEMA 4M CAPABLE OF DELIVERING 385 GPM AT 10 PSI WATER SUPPLY. . NO. _ DISCHARGE AT THE CENTER OF THE TEE AT THE TOP OF THE _ WELL. 8 . WELL SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.H.D.STANDARDS USED IN APPROVED LAB. PROVIDE WATER SAMPLES roval is grznted for llra ¢nnstruction d Ole Sanitary10 . THE SUBMERSIBLE PUMP WIRE SHALL BE g8 RUBBER COVERED AND WELL DRILLERS CERTIFICATE, and 'Wer a!Ii%p"'I•'=!'!I'"s Pursuant in Articles VB and TERMINATED IN AN ABOVE GROUND TERMINAL BOX WITH DURA- Sufk'•I: i:auaw ..;n>•v :o:e lad is not en expr¢sSed LINE 4MR60 PLUG - W/CAP AND LANYARD KA231801 . 9. CHLORINATE WELL. ped 7 ! ' .Ir?,- ' c.n ¢r ocOupY the {,I n Lh�'IHE$TWO hl YEARS 11 . THE DROP PIPE SHALL BE 4" BLACK STANDARD WEIGHT. f"/ .•,I. 10 . ALL INTERIOR WATER PIPING WILL BE COPPER TYPE "L•' WITH E DA1i 6£LOYJ. WROUGHT COPPER FITTINGS . 12 . THE PUMP SHALL BE A TWO STAGE SUBMERSIBLE TURBINE TYPE DATE SIGNATURE EQUIPPED WITH A 4" CHECK VALVE WITH GREASE PACKED MATTITUCFC' BEARINGS IN BOWL ASSEMBLIES. THE BOWL SHALL BE OF A SMOOTH FINISH DESIGN TO GUIDE THE WATER FROM ONE STAGE TO THE NEXT WITH A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TURBULENCE. CRPRNI) & FRRAR ENGINEERS Design and Co.Isultir,g Services SP-3A 568 Broadway,Amityville, New York 11701 . (516) r 91080 - - C.ONO.0 1090-011 w' DRAINAGE CALCULATION GENERAL NOTES: '�Q �P�rG�, AREA USE CALCULATIONS UOLWIE CATCH BASINS « �O 1. McDonald's Road Sign and Base are by the Sign Contractor. p �l X19 0 DA- 1 Driveway 2300 sf x. 166x1 . 0 = 381 . 8 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 8 ' deep Conduit and Wiring are by the General Contractor. IN DA- 2 Driveway ,5900 sf x. 166xl . 0 979. 4 ( 2) 10 ' -0" dia x 8 ' deep \� DA- 3 Parking 10150 sf x. 166xl .0 = 1684. 9 ( 2) 10 ' -0" dia x 12 ' deep �� 2. Bases, Anchor Bolts, Conduit, and Wiring for All Other DA- 4 Parking 10900 sf x. 166xl . 0 = 1809. 4 ( 3 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 10 deep of DA- 5 Driveway 1200 sf x. 166x1 . 0 = 199. 2 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 3' deep Signs are by the General Contractor. w v' \ DA- 6 Parking 4800 sf x. 156x1 . 0 = 796 . 8 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 10 ' deep H cc (y Q� �I \� DA- 7 Parking 10200 sf x. 166xl .0 = 1693. 2 •' ( 3 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 12 ' deep % mpty J V" � DA- 8 Roof 3223 sf x. 166x1 .0 = 535 3 meter for LotCLightinglibyothe General Contractor. Lighting > Q P\� DA- 9 Driveway 4350 sf x. 166xl . 0 = 722. 1 ( 1 ) 10 - -0" dia x 8 deep 2 (a DA-10 Landscape 4190 sf x. 166xO. 8 = 55. 64 ( 1 ) 2 ' -0" dia catch box Fixtures, Bases, Poles, Conduit, and Wiring are by the C g DA-11 Landscape 15400 • sf x. 166xO. 8 = 204. 5 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 3 ' deep Owner/Operator. a N y 4_\� f DA-12 Landscape 16000 sf x. 166xO . 8 = 212 . 48 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 4 ' deep Q Z V` TCN O O X TIn Tp DA-13 Landscape 12000 sf x. 166x0.8 = 159 . 3 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 3 ' dee Z ` DA- q O1TGH 6dSltd P p 4. Bases for Flagpoles are by the General Contractor. Anchor DA-14 Landscape 21(=j% sf x. 166xO. 8 = 28(p. 9 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 5 ' deep Da-15 Landscape 8400 sf x. 166xO. 8 = 111 . 5 ( 1 ) 10 ' -0" dia x 3 ' deep Bolts are by the Flagpole Supplier. o, r6, V 25 in CO • ` Z 5. Proposed Utilities are Shown in Schematic Only. Exact • / °/� 4b Locations shall be Field Determined to Allow for the Most �♦ 6/ X�\ Economical Installation. a 10 6. The Contractor shall Coordinate with All Utility Compania o C w I: to Determine Exact Point of Service Connection at Existing Ir a 1 cg O & G( DE Utility. Refer to the Building Electrical and Plumbing �•/7 5���` Drawings for Utility Service Entrance Locations, Sizes, and yOF �� � ,l�i Circuiting.nob r ® `s 7. All Elevations Shown are in Reference to the Benchmark SOP �D - ` � d and must be Verified by the General Contractor At fT51 f: Groundbreak. v Will c 1 V \ . � i 1 8. Finish Walk and Curb Elevations shall he 6" Above Finish E � Pavement. 0 O ��\ Or �� %� h 9. All Landscape Areas shall be Rough Graded to 6" Below �l Top of All Walks and Curbs. Finish Grading, Landscaping, �noi and Sprinkler Systems are by the Owner/Operator. LP (9 l9 f s > rlo j a . p� LZ rif'�' ,'' I • ��• 1 i/� I I C FEB 1 31991 O � 1.0 O r 1 00 tN C/t$/gy ND \ k ,1 \' D O U 2 .LO uQ�o11� \ S^ VGPROENC�NtC T PAVING SPECIFICATION: 1 •;,, lei TYPICAL t' I a �� v ypo W e� +�1\�\\Z�JO NKMURPN _1. YPICAL CATCH BASIN (Mlmmum 3" Total Compacted Asphalt Thiekrnu.) O O \\ 1 \ C2� h��h���1��RLv OF FFtA - • 1 3 1�121�� pD �I top '�G « Y-\� ORFO\`M ( L /1��1� LlS L ►S � . �`\ �Q Q LpNo /Z I r �I.1r� O 5) OPOS� • 6Fi - tIrr� f� o 0 2q• pR pLD 1 0.1D0N � . r�� • 2i ll Dlcl� GOLIk`�F. ' t 3 $ �'� %' ro " �2q�,a t �� �' - - - -- • Cdl Stglwzeo SIL, SU�j 3o6i? #� A-pp w r•''I�-Do+�t�Ds GoNs}'• ISP• / / 5 �u� �� �� 2`- � . 4�• . i'2� \�\a�%i5 Z mw R. . € E ,Nao . Ali vlflG 34I�4L � 10 AG T�ANGG' jo �, - �, � , /]q �,r� �. �9 OF `aC. * / �\ �,p - ' �� vai °_" Note McDonald's Engineer Reserves The Right To Request A Compac- 4 P\ Q'1�t// __ - _-- -- tion Test And/Or A Con Sample. If Tests Prove Correct, Par a $ y� LU �pP POO ' fl �� i \ ; p 0 0� C O �� \ p �� ` p _ =� s a - �1 �`_ ` im Above Specifications, Tests Will Be At The Expense Of McDonald's, 111A -0 J� �� g SER1Ep` 1 7� \ \ G O - y Otherwise. G.C. Will Be Charged. H V u ," � � i = _ � _ • ,mr�,���, i �Pa�Fo,� ` (� Y / \ / n�Q Z 1 00 \(1� f C� 2 S f \p W u _ u LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: _ 4 / �\\� / ✓ ��� 1 U \ P\ Np�� o LOCATION MODEL NO. LAMP TYPE POLE HGT. BRACKET TYPE (1U / ® aMLL = aa28FT. SINGLE o) 1-3 E602ACO2 100 H O D 3 4-5 E602ACO2 1000 MH n SINGLE 19 Z 6 D W � 7 E7019CO2 400 MH 18FT0 SINGLE � � \ 1000MH 28 FT. DUAL 1 80 0 80E602ACO2 Loll SINGLE SIGH1it NorteL' Eericut>z` Cn o, 1n3t1 r cTtor5 To sC�iL`�G . ted,`M to )I tg kLrUG W .e� 0�2� - -- - - - PARKING INFORMATION: t� e�° � LT %� h , L- ., �.z --- R =, _ - ------ i3 Spaces q x '2,0 c ?v s P ,moTotal -, Spaces: EV Spaces eq , x 2,10fb ° @ i5 ° Gfi CuD n , 1l - , /• c--- - ® 11 t 2� � �D o / �\o Vf ol _ 1k20 Spaces I x ?o ' @ ° is \ ` / 2° \ .10 U o o (� 21 °/ r �4a� `J j Wit g1��ZY'o 1 I F E - -- b3 Y"�/`L IJOP.X►1K9D I'j Spaces Cf' x i \ p 900 � L0 �"; �1� - y.� \ l� 1P ,- .,��.e,,,. � b �a.� _ - _-� .,a�. i O y,p '_ ' _ ,� �.,, = ��•, �, m��e°,,."_ � UTILITY INFORMATION: A ` ' S�Nr ,��i� \ 1` e •��`� i r �/ j � -� ip�v� o , � (��y � \ �/� h\,/�� �;�;�-.�m,n,.a�.• q on �I 7 � • - 11 UK-� �l Size: Type: Location: � O - �✓ \Tj 0'9 em Sanitary Sewer SEE SH�Et' sl' 3 . ca UP �, \ j�l. _ - \ ` ` ` - ' . � f ' 1 \iUSN �� , 1Z -1 9L OIL Water WELL SEE SHOE P' 3 \\ \ pL\ Off\ah1�,, VVV L8 \ / �- I�IJ SI �Jl� Q r� m of Storm Sewer V'1°l' d 2�,p0 \ I r� I 18 2� Geo i _"� 2 nFi' Electric ��F'G E6�' Sf'- 'S2 Z m v g } Gas SEE SNEFif Sp - 37 aJ 110 - I I�:a- "° . ° . ! SURVEY INFORMATION: S 01 Prepared By: TEST HOLE DATA -� r`Syc �� �\�� )(j` 1� is l ��_4 L F ,�� i�� - � :, = - ! . -_ LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF STANLEY J.& JANICE M.FLISS JR. / �"� , - � � � : '. �Z"I• �) Dated; co, I SITE INFORMATION C ' J i G�b .OoX .21 LEGEND: C AIN ° 2q tcaES L/l 30,&2 l 5.r) G s Sanitary Sewer S Gas � DO S- water W Lot Light H LP:30 S I �1 ' Storm Sewer ST Existing Elevation (76.5) Electric E Proposed Elevation ' 77.0 P✓ ED Al2 �Q0 .rOC y/gtlq a ' N M 10 I -� ° o PLAN SCALE : 1" = 20' s&t2 -In �1 f}':� 2 �losr.�p azo ,�1�� 1 l I ��$ 5 o� . 59 / REGIONAL DWG. NO.: b`" 1 GUpjSTREET ADDRESS:SS: '2,G. �' t ' 0 26 [IAI.DPI&OK90 OLD MAIN ROAD CITY: STATE: 0 10 20 MAP OF PROPERTY I,ItED ARpyjr� MATTITUCK CORPORATE DWG. NO.: i. DF• f T 0 F44( P A COUNTY: 8255 MATTITUCK '_ * . ,SUFFOLK -- SITE PLAN _ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD No. RAYMOND F . FE LLMAN • ARCHITECT _ f r E S1AtEgE 10222 GLACIER COURT a ORLANDO SP 2 (AMMENDED AS OF 2- 11 -91 ) SUFFOLK COUNTY N .Y- NEw BROADWAY 11 01 5 61769-3555 FEB 1 1991 FLORIDA 32809 • 305-351-4596 w , _ 0 DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS GENERAL NOTES: AMA U5E CALCOLAT100 qOLUM E CATCH BASIM5 1, McDonald's Road Sign and Base are by the Sign Contractor. p Conduit and Wiring are by the General Contractor. r PA-1 D2wEtw( OcoSFTl.I4CxI 190,7 CL).FTUSEO ) -IODIAx12'DEer PA -2 PAR WCr1 6,9405 F x.Ite&XI 11155.4 cu FT U%121)- IODIA)C9 DEEP 2. Bases, Anchor Bolts, Conduit, and Wiring for All Other f- q D Signs are by the General Contractor. GqD• A- 3 3,220 S F x, Karo x I 534 cu•FT USE(( ) -10 PIA x 8' PEEP w N ¢ PA-4 G11405 Fri,146 KI I o o cu FT U5E(2) - IO'DIA XS' PEEP 3 °G" Empty Conduit to Locations Shown at the Lot Parr 4 DA -S I 3$O 5F X,IGLK1 cU FT USE meter for Lot Lighting Is by the General Contractor. Lighting j l� ^124 O) -Ii Dux4' Pe¢P O c a l➢ EC1t�N Fixtures, Bases, Poles, Conduit, and Wiring are by the ¢ o cZ7 / ,�o OF 0 DA-CP I1 827 5-F x.146 K I boa COU USE (I) - IO�DIA x G DEEP Owner/Operator. a ry Qota�` DA-,T 111 25 s F x J44Xt I gC° co FT a z s r1.1 4. Bases for Flagpoles are by the General Contractor. Anchor Z O DA- 8 1142$5 f X.I&(, K I '2T0 Cu FT uSE(2) -lo DIA X 9 DEEP Bolts are by the Flagpole Supplier. o O DA-1 WOF 4, 4405.F X.I44K 1 -740 GU PT 5. Proposed Utilities are Shown In Schematic Only. Exact y O ♦� �� Locations shall be Field Determined to Allow for the Most V �5- I✓� -P Economical Installation. a, G• � ry°•d' D .r {36 e ce 64 ti5' O• '1� 6 The Contractor shall Coordinate with All Utility Companies c ZZ J 7 m `b •'O" E.H,c-, 1. FPAME +yP.An on P � ` • � 'u� 'p 517E � �. "- -- to Determine Exact Pant of Service Connection at Existing � c `e �• tib' KA pE _ R' o a o i G Utility. Refer to the Building Electrical and Plumbing ¢ U O U O 5 `• `:� Drawings for Utility Service Entrance Locations, Sizes, and np, oS �`� �o" �5\ ry1 l t °�;s " • +�" ! �. cD P PRECAST REIMF TRA FFIc Circuiting. to°�`pwY ." ',� BEARINCI TOP- 4,000 Pc I $ l !� d > f 7, All Elevations Shown are in Reference to the Benchmark 1 V 9 U t➢ yU� \ 9.W ryq,P 3 / �i` :. �` wY\''- and mdrt ea Verified by the General Contractor At S g qE \q 9,�. qo, - " W Groundbreak. PPECAST PEIIJ F. DPAINAyE ti� y o`�e� / tigq "`��:a �� Ndln,.ur.c 21NcyS • 4000- R5.1, a Y Q• Y .�: ti o \ 9 N 6. FinishWalk end Curb Elevations shall be 6" Above Finish Pavement. 8 Pavement.ou c }' O ,Zyr% �e\.°t 'y°'\ u 9 All Landscape Areas shall be Roygh Graded to 6" Below 5 st PP / p w Top of All Walks and Curbs. Finish Grading, Landscaping, S �O q,t.tis. l N and Sprinkler Systems are by the Owner/Operator c er,91.4 S ( ii T E%\S�lar'V O - g9OLUD tvATEP ' i!; Ili e ci FIJI y 6 'v ti�te hS;9 �LPP hA�Ptie,q � � i A' � i 1990 Eg �. QE rC �U co�u tit, N of RpEL\� 1 JI \� � $ E C P. OEZpIL \g 0 ory ti� ti gl'A -i'� 5 P"4 0 FJAy '1. 0 Q Z•tP FE Ry �` F���N 6R 1N PAVING SPECIFICATION 1* m a �\ Lam s QtL a TYP CATCH (BASIN IMmlmum 3"Total C°mpacted Asphalt Thl.kraw) l\o AA� y21' ;.::;:. •:.• OA-8 \ 21I �No oaD„ lJOTE '• DA = DRAIJAC E AREA PAyIkG LISTED FROM7oP TO BASE O 3 s 0 h (�) •(ED '`�aLVE' Q : A ;.;. 1 • PpVEE t° ,JAJ,N.F ,TON • I /2" TOP C009-61E - TYPE Co F q II 2a" ti°' n\ 'mac eP1 tPIH{�� ? •0 - y 1 ilio. ; :. by ®l ,I a tEe hc'tu • T/,2rr 61f,IPEK coUCSE - T-fPE 3 E v' ti • L011V �1{P - „11. ,Y .c7} � a gZPaI .rENE emuoewn o P ��r �q6 H� 5 ` L21uv - P_ ��l(y" e*•.'' .o Q ',;+,�,':•: t �� pP ,•,.�.�eEoscMvrFn.., • Ce" STAB(LIZEG SOIL 5UB '&FSE A$ APPRa/ED �_ I CouS-G REP. 5',1 9,6 L D .:. 0 . N... . r + nrtro°u oan win IJALD N L p�En t-��A•.q::::::•:: :::. \o a B'( McDOes ti ,J � 19.1 �. 'r'•Y:r:,j.:j:;'. -r>:. Ipim ,.,.,,"". a Note McDonald I En Co p0 , u.°wmeu n°c-Iry-+ N Tell And/Or A Con SamPla 1/Tub Prove Correct, Po Co 0 ee'st'SOf 9meo Reserves The Test T r R.C.N A Oom Pae Above Spec,fluuons, Tens Will 0. At The Eapenre Of McDonald', 3 or owue c C will ae Charged t 19.8 K ... r.,. LOT RECOMMENDATION: ATION, 40 a. ."".... ...a • REFER To 5HEEF SP-30- FOP Li(9HTIAICI 04� E l -------- " LA'IouT AMD ELELTEIC4L MQLAREMENTS ° Y �- -- --- of OE FORME-12 AHIACJ IWC, OeMECLY oa® � DA.5 tido � �,�>"✓• ,I .FW , ^ ZLP IED Nate Electrical Contactor To Circuit Lot Lighting As Noted. of L.I. ICE AUD FUEL CORP 21,5 '} \ �/ $ e '' y�A ENT ' 29.8 Lj eAJtt ��4e W ,l ?° 2oE oaI'(N Pp,TE PARKING INFORMATION h5PN1 P LOV4� Fs 11P 6,t. ti8 owAr.,,oMGE ,. R , IisDER pU. qL. O D 1 ccsrucsrAtr •, Srace. 4� Spaces 91 x ZO @ 90 lI Total 2255 6lt,ttED of9� r x..,. r. r.r c.nnnne6teo"a win �� Spaces x @ U i A- �, •c ?r. 51 Et' LAM NIF °F ,s LAUD lJ /f of STAWLE`( J. 2�'1 " � 1 4D7 iy/ JAMES PENDuuK - , `��� Fws 9 CAR Swces x @ Auv SAWIcE M. Fuss JR• � . �1 Et��LED pA,''' pA uMWN n I°°°.rlt-,_, STAcKWy Spaces is @ Nw.. �° rn 6 UTILITY INFORMATION: R 1Q o.l. pESAtI' 29.4 e' - 14 .21'3 Size. Type, Location $ Sanitary Sewer SEE SHEET SP- 3 O 270 Water WELL _ 5EE SHEET 5P-3 y t I u7f'DQE 1 FWP?- '( LIME �c Tb. `qg,5 O } d �VREOoUS D oStorm Sewer - 5EE THIS WCT' 4oN SITE - N m n m m a Q 293 40.4 pa8 ��, °It° Electric SEE SHEET SP- Sq- Z .. LL ° �J E.° cpt�' Q m' ,1g.S_ gU-1T-ED ------ : Gas -SEE SHEET' 5P-3q. LIME of ExKTIMCjt tVmDS T. �� g 2 .u. 1.2 21.0 S SURVEY INFORMATION: 29.2 28.0 27.1 w % 28'3 Prepared Byr�A LAMDSCAPED A?-EA TEST -HOLE TEST -HOLE - DATA -rLA5r BAM-17, LAWZI5EKA + F21WK Dated APRIL Ca 1910 29.0 22l•S 21.5 27'2 27.0 27.5 _-StTEJNE4SMAT10111_ LEGEND: ; a 21,a SITE ARER- 294 AcQEg (13014215.( c E Sanitary Sewer -S Gas G ° 6 c 28.4 bUILD1J/T-AREA _ a4,4465,E Water -W LLht 30 W C9? 2412 2L,7 27.1 p�J A612 _- - - - - - - - - . 3 / - --- - g (76.5) .� u ExiST. CESS PmL o. 27.0 °/�-LO"F"- COVE2 ° o Storm Sewer ST Existing Elevation ¢ 27_I 27,4 _ , 1 ' PA" EP- ACEA -- - - - - - - - - 30 o479.F oR 2 ,( Electric rL�• .,cj 15. ; 3 /� - _ E Proposed Elevation 750 a 8.26' SS4°- 42' - lo"w y[0�a LA7.IC5CAPED AREA �� 128 oe 74% -- -. � N m tg'I q5� i'!1BKh.Yt)-RE-QUIRER-- '---- Ii3 SEATS 28,6 SPACES PLANSCALE: 1"= 30'A REGIONAL DWG. NO.: 2i, 2G w•3 25,9 255.4 25.q 2s.4 2s.q �'4Cc-SPAEES - STREET ADDRESS: S,c,T,N, - IOCQ -122- -7 - 3,1 mLD MAIN ROAD CITY: STATE: ('/IAP OF PRpPr::MSERER ARC"/rMATTITUCK CORPORATE DWG. NO.: otS f AT � OND F. Fire pl b COUNTY: - M 771Tuc , f � o SUFFOLK cxvN of 5ou7HOLD �SiTE _ PLAN S 7 ( :� "°. e3a6 ARCHITECT F. OF THE S1,1t qF 570 Sdone a NEW YORK AOI 170+ Slfil'IB93555 LORI GLACIER COORr OnL4NW FLORIDA 32809 3pS35 Ld59fi t• , ,. x.° z^.r , LANDSCAIPING LEGEND GEP�eRAINOTES: NO. ESOTANICAL NAME! . COMMON NAMES 8134CINQ 1. gReCbrvePd� Relanlndtl!luwwbyAwlNEnCallu!!!or• 1 4CEtf2 PALMATUM GR,M5ca.1 K1r.1G -GG'L%tASC .-L rc11•.1G MAPL.0 A5 3HOWW Conduit Bond Wiring M by the ovemod COn"Amfor. 2, PYRUS CALA.ff.RYA*4A elQADFORO 59AOFoczD cALLta4Y PE.ars A5 5Hovv61 2. taaw, Anehlbr telt!, Conduit, ed Wiring for All Other 5 TSUGA C'.AaACap-.Ast5 Cq�IAC+Iq,-•6 HeML-oGK Co jL-cn ' o. G. SiEmMDy tomer Germinal ContrrCfir. YI G 1 4 TAXI-15 K MEDIA HLr_W-511 1.1tG4:5 --dew ASA HEC)G 3. Y" Empty Conduit to Leatione Shown rt the Lot Pori. < mrtw for lot Lighting of by tin GMIN'!l COMHftot. L*tbrg C 1 Z 1 rj U AIPE21M CHI"64515 SARG. GLAUCA 'fSLUb SA;Zr-e.1T J""tPE0. 31-0 O.0 • Fiktum, Ban, Police, Conduit, and Wiring are by the o: N D ownCo JUUIPe,RUS cH,NEi-1515 CxxC WST *i i-G C wt Cz ogsT JUIurPE2 21.0` o-C, 0 1t. Ertrt for Figg eg wa by the GwIwM rle Conttor. Anchor vi "T THU-1A OCe1DE"TAL.LS AUREA 40L,01!" CBLcEir- AG:Do RvtTAE 15 C "O.C . Eola lin try me FlegpeM Supplier. A� 8 THLLJA O . C.AuICADLA}l -GQ(Si55.L-1 OLA" GRP_E�1GL•c a ARe,o12. a%- O, o.C . r g. PMPNN U"m" w! ylroNn M Eenwnn+e Only, Emmert 9 Aa•11J L14L. FL.ow EGLS A5 1515L.ec-TED 15.1' C;' rU +1EQ AS am4sa'o Loectlonc 1"M1 be Field Deme to Allow for the Most EeonemieM InrtMhtion. O to Pious THUF1'BERGIJ JAFA0E5E 5LAI:IK rluE At, 9,14oW4 - �O 6. The CMlMetbr Ing"Co"hub with All Utility CO MWib 'ga -- - � �� tb Ortermkre EAert Point of Eervke COMngCthM rt Ekiating � a Utility. Romr, to the Building EMMWM end Flumbing et +� L.LOTES : Dnninge for Utility Seniee EntrImm 1.60010nt, Biel,end i,.• , 1. AL.I. PL.A"T11..1(2, PE05 To t;.&GE EVE PI. IE EhAQK. Foil MUL'CH Cheuhing. 6 AC E.AS 1.doT QI,.gJT ED TO RECEIVE SOD LA w...l . p 7 Ah ew#vr RN Ib'Rh egg M RrlgrgrkM A the CNlohmwk 6 "j. ALL l.A�lO '$CAPaUO AREAS To BE PRCWIDe.O wtTH II-L - GL2ou.�,D end must be Vwif W by tin OtltnrM Contrretor At ddd O AUTO NIATIC SPR, -LKL-LF.c2 1RGtLGgTLoa =-rsTEM '1 4 tii.1. L-4`-lOSCAP�.-�G 5PcG1M�l-L5 SI-1�L t.L- 135 �F r=,D - SiZCi A=• PER 0���' ' STA"o/ aCD S XCPQ THE S FinMi WQh Mid Curb EMvrtMMa #41 be S" AbM Pinilh �' 8 of 5. LAUD SGA PII-LG .n HL=wI..1 15 5U5,1cCT 'TC �1�?2U��'+'-/ uO�+.��LDC = Pin, g >� ,� e� ow�1f:R,�oPERATOR., p f All LenAblFrt AMM then M Rolrgh Oredgd 13 S" gMbW � ovp Too of An *Me win Cwb►. Finifi Grwtirw, LMdlelle 1, y and Sprinkler Syannl3 we by the 0—1— toperrtOr. Y 4 yU ; I y '[ PIEGE �NNFOR[ED (.'u0E3ER P&L. STRAND 2+12 WIRE (fN.IsI M /.pPROX 'Z BALL DIA, DRwL m rt. cLOwzLSTQlt _yt/4' ��' .,,; ArcES AT ANbL.E 4 CRAW VBRIIGA•L. g [," Sa�eea BURLAP if KRAFT FA(ER vi § �E PAVING SPECIFICATION: � QjJh i I �� � MALI Pe R MEA6u RL J G" (MIMMwn 3"Tail CeIM1MM ArPkMt TnNRINw.I 3" wooD /Lrs ve C�RAvt 44 GUI 5 So AS REQ. 4 ••:;r,.,'••, hI9RTId1LNRAl ON G' HoRTIcu LTucv.L So,L. , •� x`"• Stitt 6KILF,LL' - ') z Nen lec0ovamT Two ingewarAseem""Sommo The RIw 1A RMnM A.Pat c I, - •_� , �-- Iran Tm AM/Or A Cew garrralo. If Two Prada Carnal.hr •• Abora Sawdeaoant, fen WIII M M The E ApMe OI MaOenatd'L l 1 {'{ ,••.•,�•, a t _ ..•�-p` GALL DIA. 1',� ' On/nwre. G.0 Will M Ckaraad - 1�� 10 u Ep LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: MAJOR- TREE- DETAIL . � ,2 i Ca " Now li a *M C"tfmor Ta ChLvu Lm LltMme A.Neth. • PARKING INFORMATION: I 4 °1 " t a • I . 'i / z r , TaM Spt ■ 1 s I • L �• E -�--.- �.......�..� .... it .y'i 1 SPlliga A • �JOPv� I ; :• '�!'�\ t a UTILITY INFORMATION: • Sona: Type: Loolhon: •�s a LWE of Ex15Til1c1 woof ` ` M I•°'�- f wow `Fl _ sle"itsory Sewer r Storm Sgrwr � n e N1 41 °' 1 {'-dr. l GALL f I, o• ENetrk �'' DIA. Ga SURVEY INFORMATION: o MINOR SHRUB " DETAIL Proper" By: `9 ' �6 v " + -I 9 8 HYD?nSFFA -�4 Doted: 9 `� LEGEND: 9. � 7 t 'Sw itary 9119M --B Del D wow —W — Lot Light 0:70 ' Sterm Suaw ---ST--- eitmot love"" (76.5) E EMetrk —v ------ Frlrtaegll EMetion PLAN SCALE: 1"" M'• STREET ADDRESS: REGIONA9c DWO. NO.: Ri/Elib MAIN ftBD CITY: STATE: ,'tEl1LD ARCRrr CORPORATE DWGr ND.:. . CEO !p F RF CoA Ago <f C�"TY��: y�yI►g LANDSCAPING PLANmimmismammem • RAYMOND F. FELLMAN " ARCf17EC7 ' �� FrRf tiLiLlfi t� 910 BROADWAY . AMITYYILLE 1=22 a"=" COURF • OIILANDO \ ; NEW YORK IMI . SIe.7ea3eeS FLORIDA 32" SO33S GENERAL NOTES: CAST PON FRAME ANDcA�ST IGou FRAMC DOUBLE TANK -- " -- - �- -••.�` it /�--_,r\ u�1P E LL COVER 7D GRADE. ARRANGEMENT . 1 �l Z4'M>K t. 12•M1'- `� ` .. Y - - _ - 12 ^- 1. MoDeneld't Rood Sip end Owwe by IRI SpCOMtfIltbr. C 10'•0" , 6 a+ / I. ._' . . -. .,•r x ., .._ .: CerrJuit Ind Wiring pMk by the G■rrel Con rwhor. FINISHED GRADE ._ -'[ ,... . - a. - • I O ?.- ',v ..2 - `- ` ,GRAPE. ° O .- 13 . / .-o . / - - - 2. Beer, Anchor IMM, Conduit, WA wlNrlg for All Defier 0 611 �\o \\ ___ Siff"en by the GWWW CpnlnEtor, __ _ •��� 1O •. %-�� \\"-�/ � j `.- - - - - �-�- - � S• %" Empty CO~ to Leeetlel2 IRItlWh w tl■ Let hit• 12'MIN, - -__.___. , . .. . . _ . .. . . . . .. _ 314 mtleer for Lm LightNlg N by tate t#nulo CdnrilettK. Li/-..- - - Fixtures, BIw Conduit, end Wiring by tit° O :.,._. �...--- ... _ - (J., Owner/Ol never. Poly, i . N III N y � N FRAME AND .-_.»..,. f GRAVE PEA SEPTIC TANK C�T IRO GRADE 4. SAW for Flop** IM by the GWO" C°ntr.emr. Anchor covER TO - aD2 a w ® 0 Oil i -- Soitl In tel R y Sam s Ie N ® i 3� � ' DETAIL q. __._ by .,�,. spm. 6 y °= I 1 E IN an Ira `� FINISHED GRADE 4 S. 010001M UtnRIN ft Shown in SENE�mMk Only. EwrM °i ■ 0 w w ato ,`_` Economical Intl n do a a E i i ioo OY - Leatlons hall w FWd Determined to Allew for me Mort ansa0cm a ° T� „ - 16 17 18 19 u13°°maw ® � w �aa • • ,1?s q g -4 S '+ F ` 5 S. The Contreetnr Ilan Cc'erdine■M.I1h An UNrifry CamperrM ■ e �• _ to Dolnmim ficat Point of Shia Con infien K ExNtlng be J 10l g c Utllity. Refer to tel Building EMetrinal and Plumbing a132lo ® � lo ■ 0132 to °� 213 re a loco _ - - STATIC- \vATfi9-tWEL Drwri"O for Utility Smite Entrt 01 Locations, Sites,end 9 y- CNE fZ TO SEPTIC Circuiting. 1. WELL CAP _ 2. CONDUIT 7. An Elevations Shaon m in Avis a to the NerwhmMc % I I - - •NI I I - GREASE 1,AP .� -- " -" - - Gr mutt M VM1Nd by the Cenral COntreetdr At -O�MIN, A�VE GPWND `( A0� , 1 CARLSON MONOLITHIC 3. CONDUIT' ._._ -.T,y-�yJ „ -,-_ Grimy WATER o I 7 ' 4. PITLESS ADAPTER B. Finita Walk pal Curb Portions shelf be S" Above FMIM B J S. SAFETYROPE hrement. a # LEACHING POOL i 8 6. ELECTRIICALCA6LE "= 'te3 S , \. 0uhh Graded ding, to d Below , �O y 7. TORQUE ARRESTOR g. An Landicov Atwi Shan bI R DETAIL O � � �� CAST IRofJ PIPE" _ Top of All welkt rate Curbs. finish GrWlrlg, Ltndseaping, IN KIN 40' of 8'. ELECTRICAL PUSH-IN CONNECTOR and Sprinkler Syfrms we by the Owner/Ope r. 9 \vATEQ 9. PIPE 10. PUMP- GREASE 'TRAP .DETAIL X11 11. LIGHTNING ARRESTOR O / 10 12. DISCONNIECTSWCTGHr 13. TANK w 1 0 0%u'1 14. PRESSURESWITCH 10j - � /0 y1 s 0 it PUMP HIJ 20l 15. PRESSUREGAUGE f o Q IN tVATE2 FITTINGS 16. UNIONS AND PIPE FIT /// ��' OOH PAVING SPECIFICATION: { - 17. RELIEF VALVE (Min rmem t'Tmel Comoom AWigt TMrmr.) fiY 18. GATE VALVE 19. TANK VALVE(FAUCET)DRAIN W s / JX STAINLESS STEEL Oho �,•.;c WELL ScRfiE14 .4•tr: 1 ! r WELL _DETAIL_ - ,r�71 N°n lion TNI r VOY A nrYlvw TM RYNt Te Rq,lwt A Celnlre Above Trp Ar"in, A Car h Win 1/trTh Prone Cr 01 M i. � 1 _ -- -� ':::::::;'•:• , - _ _ Aberr 1pelllrllem, Trfi WID ee At TM Egwlw ei MCDen°d'4 - Rd OMrwlw, D.C. Nin M Ckargre , //�� l tri r r'•'. t \ SANITARY"A,M1' N_CALCUIJLMOK, LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: I '�,"tFEBCO MODES 825Y �Y/ KEY sKDem J \ I30 1AL PER GlY /SEAT To1TAL09• FREE7E FLo�/.- ED PRESSURE LONE �D4ST HYDRANT SAWI,TA9-r! toCTPD /SPAT AoSEATS= ffigo qp(ASHITH : e 5b/SEAT x o9 SEATS 17 SPDkITcNE{JBALL VALVE BACAFLOW PREVENTER ORIE FI459 10) (TYPICAL ) EST COCKAWAY FROM WALL / 4 TOTAL 2„Cn70 1C1PG. "/SUPPORT STAID K 2-Et9uh!ILG1L f�EL15{7�( Nlne: EWce1M eaftni nn To Cinia"Ln LMnkN As NOW. 1 /ATER SERVICE Vit 5�t� 890 CI•RP 5AN1•TAI!j /2.49 AcRE!Lc '277.CPC FD/ACRE <GccgrPM Nd PARKING INFORMATION: UP FROM SLAB 70 FACILITY © I NOTGt PP IR90Tf lS 14 HYDRoIogIcAL Zol11E IV - 'o 4 3.5EPTI(_ TA)Jk, tow Specw x - I" ATER: TG i 21CP70 q•PR A2DAYS = 51340pa spl.ow x 4,i. ry b.o.V. I- 1F1z.Uort Po_ t - - -- - DS'SA1US _ ' PKDkiiDE (2) Io:D XxCdW14H SEPTIC. TAM 11S - $peri x FF L'7c..,x rJ �S , ' �J+rJJ.'SEE CAPAeiT`( = cv,000 O1ALLo1J5, SHUT OFF - fLovx-.1i pvrcf' \ r Splew x O VALVE PIPE 0t �,\ - - - �� 4 •C�RfiASE TRAP UTILITY INFORMATION: pp STAND O 1 / 11780 CTPD PRovfPE IDI•p' DIA 95iI•o`1 LIQ AEF 1N yRE49E TRAP Slat: Type: Looll' n: o .,,., Sanitary Slur V •5 \h pwr✓ / YYItn Sy � 5• LEAGHIIJCT 1 rLS 3 ,) 4- DRAIN TO WTSIDE BUILDING / 2,67D CTPAf I.S SPD PEAS-Fx PEAS-F1,71S5•F kECt1JlRFC Sterni Sewer t r lo' ABOVE 6RADE / PROVIDE (5) sol DIA X 14'-d' EFF MPTH POOLS -- 11884• .5• Eluetrie � er m � r m Gr SECTION A-AMEMO SURVEY INFORMATION: j REDUCED ZONE Praperlddy: BACKFLOW PREVENTER DETAIL c 1 / TEAS / BARRETT LAW-LISERA � FILIK # I. THEIN57ALLATIOM OF THE REDUCED LONE BACKFLOW PREVENTER p 9IT�,9NF11J.RMATION bwae: - AP>aL. t. =1910.: SHALL MEET AI-L LOCAL COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE HEALTH - / LEGEND: ° DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL / SITE APGA 2.99 Ac¢E5 (13o1421s•f� j DRAWING RECEIVE5 SUCH APPROVAL v bUILDUIGI ARBA 4,44(o S,f. BenMry Sewer -S -- Ga =G - THIS.3 Z. THE DEVICE SHALL NOT BE SUB.IECT TO FREEZING OR FLOODIMG AND -- I o •^ % LoT taVB2At1E -_-_�3% Weser -w - Lot Light �y LP:�O 6 MUST BE SCREENEDcc 5. THE DEVICE MUST BE 7ESTE6 AT LEAST ANNUALLY BY A N.Y5 H.D. --y,..-- _ PAWED AREA 30ro¢75.F oR 23% Storm Server ^--ST--- Primate Eley iic (77-0 [S LANDSCAPED AREA 9Co1I28 of 7Q'/o �leehic --•- E --� Proposed Efev°tion 77.0 6 GER7IFIED TESTER. 4, PIPING SHALL BE uNBRANCHED AND uNRESTRIGTED F PARId11r7 REOIUIREP 1;3 SEATS _Zg,Co OPACEs FLAN SCALE: 1"• Se'' µ too MAIN 70 DEVICE EXCEPT FOR THE WATER METER„ ly� I a� STREET ADDRESS: REGIONA% DWG. NO.:S MAINTAIN 30 INCHES CLEARANCE (MINIMUM) IN FRONT OF THE OLD MAINZ AD ROPARKIAICj PRoVIABD 4(v 5PACES ROAD - `a bEVICE. o. ALL WOR14 SHALL CONFORM TO THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CODE AACh T. ALL MATERIALS SHALL 5E NEW AND OF CURRENT MANUFACTURE .• CITY: __ unimmAmommm STATE: `'4EeED i o � CORPORATE DWG. NO.: t� DNo F. r4 D� COUNTY: WATER AND SEWER PLAN "t• �� , RAYMOND F., FELLMA14ARCHITECT rrRE cascod' e70 11R , OADMAY • AMWOVILLL loses 'm.ACER COURT . 01s"Not, � *) NEW, VORx I'f01 'ell:rae4919 rLORIbA 390120 . 105]S1Jbte - f,7� V I n w i N r .ri h+WIX FINISH PER 573.ECTICN� 6"x18" CCNC?, 07 �QPB (n.YP, 1 , �'0FCD1G 5'I'FfZ P ky ' BU=Dr, SIAB PLAN m T N9 CLS i BD= F 10P a71ZT`M .'-O• TO 6'-D` i (3lE SH7. EP - +'-0" •3 c� / . .p, • ' 6• A47LIST THIS DIMENSION FOR g• l4EE SHT. sp-Q v -y ADJUST THIS DIItENSION IOR 6• Q ° 1y" STYRIFCNM 3i ` / la L OVEN TIME OR PAVER COURSE 6. 7 I' ply �� ,C14 FINISH GRADE 1/2" EYPItySIgN JOINTCT`!P� ° /' BY LVA)SCAPER BIE EVEN TILE OR PAVER COURSE -✓41t•KP, dofaT wtTt1 ° - } • • • . . OVFA EIS. JOINT FINISH GRADE 1•L1K105.E CAU%A& 2• t. �`(ER A ROUGH GRADE • ••: ��•---_• •.,. • •—�• •• 70P OFA G1 B( LANtYCAPER .Yy� T11..E GT2oaLT) j . se BY G.C. • . • . uPAVEMENT •'i • a • -T-YP1CAl. ---- it Of Z b . • O B e a ROUGH / h '�. c�O• -% L o . • •on •d • np••P•� � •, • • . , • • H GRADE —� ■—_r_r •a •• vii '! Y " .or°O° C. �- '� • a � �0�``''n OaG'•G• P ••. •.� • • • • B7 G.C. oq • • • • . r- a ow < j \� % t • • • : •. .• P • •t o / Y o •o nota wO 9 ••Oo: •;o o: is .oma •' �,. / • �" 4"aro POURED C01JC / / \\ 5 a- • • �Y • •J ,AC UQ • • � •�'• 0 i � /�� • -mss°x iOl Qoa,ll2EC to.1C, f ' / culz0 - T`IP. AT CDT'►+, CCPkCS'� W+C.fC> AND CRi}i5: Poky Vl[11 ]500 psi alrintraytgj tonCiT t! lidVing ep Ca•`tPACTED GRAVEL 'NOTE. DIMENSION VARIES WITH WALK FINISH. /�j, // 6" r Is- CURB - i" aux. max-.,e aggrega te. ,yeximm allowable 111LIMP will be 4% CURB c GUTTER An Ad=Xturs shall be used at the mlxr to provide an air tEE o!TA'I- content of 5y% with a mlerancem of plus or rOlmla yl. THim v AegT •Note, DIMENSION VARIES WITH WAIT[ FINISH. ea " a�°tPY�CT6C -aIZ.AvEI, o w � � Clvaige 30is ce Of prenolded terial shall be provided bet✓eelh rue. 9 mnQPte and other mn=rEm PsveSrent Or structures, and also not rare than 20' apart in walks. Crack control score linin $Hall be provided w at 5' centrs'3 on oo a to walks and curbs. Edges of walks, store lint's, and ;crow shall be rounded 4". Walks shall be lightly broorred and shall be mcl3t-cured as specified. 09uniformly graded mixturs of crushed stdna, w ,shed oorAun-whsdd grawuwith 100% parsing a IV shave and not tore than 55% / `� • •"im a No. d sieve. Plans material in equal lifts rot rmre than 6" TO V SIDEWALK [LANDSCAPE/WALK/PAVEMENT E / + j 4 TO 16 SIDEWALK [LANDSCAPE/WALK/LANDSCAPE, "ky nth 11033 than 3• eedr in m¢rched thidvY•sa. U y c SCALE: 1• - ! '-U` 1.087 C.Y. Cunc. ♦ 7 S.1 . YInLh + xelnf . /or 4' Welk SCALE: 1' 1'-O' .071 C.Y. Cone. ♦ 7 S.F. Flnlah + Nelnf, for 4' wlx < aW + Y= © BAQG•'II.L Atm FTIS. l911F3CLAL: Satisfactory soil wtrrx.al for bx7cfill and 1 ' fill 371111 1]10 f'e• of LOC7C Or gel than 2• In .094 C.W . Cunc. + 4 S. F. Ylnlah + xe1,J . /or 5' w.1� per L. l'. .0107 C.Y. Conc. + 4 S.F. Finish + Relef. for 5' w•I111 L.F, m ` W gravel r airy deleterious . IU7 C,Y. Cu11L . + 5 5. 1 . Flnlvh + Nnluf . tut 6' walJJJ .096 C.Y. conc. + 5 S.P. Flnlah + telnf, for 6' w•Ix debris, 1•aste, toaln material, vegetable, and any other Tie leanous natter. Place hedcfill and fill ®axial in layer not sore than e' in s� oiy e ' loose depth for rte renal oovpected by heavy .aY..1a^t, and not aoxe turn ' 4" lose depth for material meted by hand operated equipment. :rnpwt each layer of backfill and fill astarial tom lase thin dy 95% naximm dry density. STBGRA= PR P.4FATICN; Corpsct this top 6' of subgrade soils to not less than 951 m5a"Leun dry den3ity for sox.Ls which exdYibit a well-defined noxsture anvirf relation Lnip as der&=m and in accordance with ASN 01557, CONCRETE SLAB TO BE BRUSHED a•d to not in•s than 90Y relAtive dry density for soils which do not BROOM FINISH WITH SONO-GLAZE OCS- 17 A aJcord a 1.10L'-dafx_'hed aovtvre density relAtu.o a+ tennind CONCRETE SEALER AS MANUFACTURED BY : w accordance in SONNEBORN-CONTECH,BLDG PRODUCT DIVISION LL accordance with AS-.M D20C9. 771 COMPUTER AVE . ,MINNEAPOLIS . MN . 55A36 p Q o (6 ) 27 835-3a31 BRIC1( I PA�tR 6®-1' ON SILIOOt'L' SJIIANI' 'may�-•N t' W W WALK - DETAIL U w Z a w O x ' � oN r, M I 1 MAX " , Ww — OL A• CONC . SLAB Y/ ZCONTROL JOINTS ' a o I' r I 1/2' CARY FELT EXPANSION 5' -0" O.C. ( TYP . ! e - a a • a - LJ ¢ J r- 7 JOINT • 20' O.C. ITYP, ) _ •„ JI m = a m Of 3 a a 7 si e a t 4. Omti•w,•IE 1/2• CAl1E1f PELT f:I TON MINT � ¢ s am m m a m m a SDEINAL!( TREATMENT_ � W 0a 0 m a as aa � • �•�°� � � 1020'-0. O.C. f/IX. w � � � � aa1 � �E � Tet � i VGIALS r' o � — _ -a > MIs m � � � � gJ LalaJ � Z , fo E .� a � M � M � � � � � i - ¢ moo t � E J1LK FINISH: BRICK PAVERS nf2N 0f a — 0 m a s a to m = 0 a SCALE, 3"• I ' -0' ,Nz., a = Ir .0 D /I I� o N � a mea J � 7 M +l � ai \lam/`•_,J\/f\ Nc >i 6. ,L J S Z w /A (CONTINUOUS) RlVld Paving over Rigid Base 1' O FINISH GRADE 1" R• - ^Nu a NON-SLIP SURFACE By IAC1CSCAPFR � •a . r - ROUGH GAADC • TOP OF PAVFMNT -RpglBrck Pawn, b' N� BY G.C. '♦' . l-W.Mroee ! \ 1 mttl BJ 1 . • � a • :Ie -0 - tB , / • ,° I. o i`� in nNml orcr Cele Slab W 1 •• � 3dk �i i ' • •� , c —Mn A'Cnx,rad Slone u •, - I /2' EXPANSION DINT WHICmpialaSno-Gr•ee Z g o =11111 IIIA- 111= _ O } It �i Q w w n NOTL: . 0 i - - - P10VIDL MANSION JOINTS e 20'-0" Dere (NL7 . D-EIsAIL-- 7 -6WECIAL AVERS �o IV AT ' O __ VE�TNRDI'11-1 t. iVE O 6" x 18" CONCRETE CURB PAvF- TO se *xAvIc.TL5 A MFab r L�� carz�( a Z snaI•E: l" - l'.o" APPRov/EO-E�uAL. .028 C.Y. Conc. per L.F. + Reinf. P E25 TO -LE 21, "1.1. "T+iIC�-' O "ZUM 5"Am • /.1w7Cp � 0 aTTER3 = 51E12@u�60o JBI9c• �otbR,�tBa tl END RAMP WNOi 1 MN W F (Y , SCALE 3/8"= 1 ' -0' � ffi r . `.JRAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT N ,n516.78%.3555 .� nS31W YORK 11701 • ritRMA 30 � 3S59e in '�1 JT I w WTL: m 4A4LIS NOT FACING THE PUBLIC D11R-o-WWREINF 4•' OONL LE BIDCK w/ - BE B• CONCRETE Bt=. Ai8y1, lo t44'1C11 BUILDING. . ' TO BID(7C OOURSFS w BRICK fYriiD(7( F 4" CONC. aLu== __ _ V •1 4" FACE BRICK 3/4"M45gY CONDUIT CAP ED p a M LOCATE U. O u� 36" A.F. F. 6. OLID ' h 0 �•• " o o FILLED. STEEL I 7 .4• 8 (TYP.) m o o t POST 3/4' INSULATED ^' �i MIXED WATER LINE, _ a ' STUB-UP TO HOSE B BB I11 a {I (FREEZE PROOF IN COLD `', 5{ N AREAS-JO5AM 1717 0 or c EQUIVALENT) 3� - �' _ 4 x x ORD! 3 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ——i ( '� •,. c,• -- — — 1 T am 60 - :•i:a '�•- cc JO GRAVEL DOUBLE G fo h AEFi OD6- 0 GATEfir I ( lA • H" C.C. OR T• ' ,f «- IM' (SEE DETAIL) L' - - - - - -- --I Ic BLOCK Ok ± z m m r ---"- - -- - - - - - (2) IS CONT. L 16" j-- w 6" 6'x6'x116/10 E.W.W.M > I p I ,., POURED =43111ME a ry 1 C5. � PAD TYPICAL /-7-11 TYPICAL i 4 � FRONT ELEVATION WALL SECTION Q I m � SCALE: ]/B., = 1 ,_0,. I 1'-6- a °to rr -ft, 4' fi 4'-0• 12'-0• M.O. I . 2, -6 15 '-0• 2 • -6- 20 ' -0• GUARD POST SH ENCLOSURE w TRA � �: 1- . 1•-0- � A �/ 1 LLJ 73Q , 5 ys,111 .3a "C. Y. 1 Sllh .nA Anrnn + O I } ! L W REFUSE ELCG4.0802E GATE To bel GN4l11 1.i"V_ d O p , W// tilx 1 wN\?E M11.LE0 CEDAR 5'ToC4R DE (zea" A`fTAC1,4FCG, 12•-0" M.O. S'- ,4• FRan. ad C.0b, /• 4',O• A+ ~ o VNi 6.-o - -- --------` r (wrnNc x ts.e t`lo.) �. _ I 2L\7= -IMEAL CC0 - l:.' FIT J O Z LU --I -- - - -- -- -- -- - - �� I —I� OVENS ' a xsT 'FIT rata BEr it POST A A _ cl we Bore AL&tlITE . S LL N s •� ` 1610 BL \ \ Fr N HYDRAULIC I _ - <•, . , Nr� , GREASE \ \ /I / I r I METAL COLLAR TYP. 1 WELD TO FAA:4: :+•., I "' in z \ ; I WELD BOTTOM COLLAR TO —y m az O � : FITTING I \ / :' . .`. ..: o z \ � / I � C � I POST BOLT \P COLIdA HYDRAULIC GREASE FITTING ¢ ¢ O= �. (TyP . 4 PLCS . \ I I II 11 I DRILL AND TAP HOLE. L and M or Baan U a *h+ . i / I DIN BFM /I (TYPICAL 4 PLACES) 6 I ( RIy W! L /y I CennaCTlon May HP,Vori.d b 3 � s PA 7yE r( to I PLAN VIEW Solt Field Condltf�n.. PLAN VIEW sTo UM) / \ (Vlth CcMinq) ( thout Casting) FILLEDNCSTEEL f Eltitlirnp Surfoce • o. Duect.d � zo G7 POST 31 Britk 4 -068or3 i I CANE BOLTS I • sSy •, I .c I Hood, v SII 3 n Sid. Hooka• •: w w w'. 1cj Z 15'- 0 dg POST PIP£ tTyg'iT< S4O _ -4. ' ► -A4 B+ 4,-a. E I-� 7 e" 3'- 6• (SEE C 8• OH m m0") . � ► I'I . • � . - O 1/2" STEEL PLATE I" U ' NIPPLE WELDED TO PLATE Kato df Connrucrion .leF<a Re4C. - I p SECTION A - A e.waen Amy S"ceaas IFbora SECTION B - B + - -R C.oncrefe CSO.. 35 _ p j�� 'i • T� 4 (V -IAll, COLLARS ➢'OC9fm1/2" BOLTS TO 3/4" CANE BOLT Z wN FRAME W/ 4" HOOK O I - D %STA ;' L A � CA T C N ,, A .S Oa7- u j 1.4. r � p TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE TRASH F.TIGLQSLiRE GATE Pis? RAYMOND ,F. FELLMAN ARE06351 ITECT 570 BRO.OWA; •' "MITYVILLf iOg33 GLACIER COUORLAN00 ' •" 1 �.� y-� NF YORK 11701 . SIfi 7Ep:A333 ctcRIR6 'S.eop 45Gfi mVY.YI�Y� W DETECTOR LOOP N N PREFORMED PREWIRED VEHICLE DETECTOF LOOP r. ` - TEMPLATE AND ANCHOR ROLTS Y ' \ D19TRISUTOR INDICATOR CONTROLS CORPORATION 3000 EAST LAS HERMANAS STREET � RANCHO DOMINGUEI , CALtFORNIA 90221 1/2•0 115 VAC WIRING MR JIM OOULD 12131 60!' 0824 I 1 /2" CONDUCT TO MESH/ BOARD 0 FOR AUDIO \S, MATERIAL POLYETHYLENE TVVIN0 I/2 I D 100 PSI LOOP \ \` 1/2-B 116 VAC WIRING MADE FROM ONE LERGNT Of THIN t• OA — — — — — — — FROM BOOTH STRANDED WIRE. LEAD- IN If pRE - TWISTED AT FACTORY Z 0 f V2• 1 1/t•B AUDIO CONSTRUCTION FORMED WITH ONE CONTINUOUS LENBMT OF PVC WITH Iq d r 1 CABLE FROM BOETTN \ SNOOP CORNERS AS DRAWING BELOW WI 0 of WIRE LOOPED FORMED A PI PIGTAILED A9 IN DRAWING BELOW. 1LE[YE FOR MOTE Do Mor uR[ AE IerOecr rE Nr coot tx LOW .00► I<ErR ALL e[eAln AND el w Z m� c SPEAKER POST 7' �T I \ J+'' DETECTOR LOOP sceEENIN. AT LLArT ; FFET AWAY FROM L00► q UD. � sC Ip SPEAKER POST NOTES �� y W U, THIS TEMPLATE 97 TV BE USED WITH SEPARATE I 11 SPEAKER 01 SPEAKER POST . IN CONdVCT10N WITH THE S' ■ 7 CONCRETE \ MENU BOARD n' roW t,T Keu; PAD — I = cru^re toARD � I w Cy MWNTING BOLTS SHOULD EXTEND t- ABOVE PAD r. Bae t►CAIU:R �'\ -�� --� I­ 43 E� rOET 1 q per' of I E" ALL CONDUIT$ SNCC OVI.D EXTEND .• TOB ABOVE 3/4•' C . O CONCRETE PAD. I, _ 1, L FOR AUDIO b 'T -"—�-- - n' rn - — ^D --- J W MATERIAL '. SOBA, BALV 1/41 TO 1/h LAMINATES 1 y '�--- - > 1 /2" C . MASTIC ALL 1101TATION$ ARE TO DIE !MOWN ON 2x12 - TEMPLATE O TEMPLATE B 0 I\ >d-o' ? c�y�'N m y0+ 1 DETECTOR LOOP NO ICAL[ _ —._. . d SPEC ER POST O of H 0 1 1 /2- C. — — E ° AUDIO FROM 1''O" e 2''8 fWNOATtON PLAN I" CONCAFTE as AtINYDRCED 6 BOOTH 1 — — — — � . Irn .' , IME W sono [ W W M .rN - - — , NO RCALC NC TED IMM^N On 0' O rO eE � PL ACED .I!MIN x 0' Of SPEAKER POST PLAN ; I IN I r D rEtTDe LM. I /2' C. REFERENCE MENU p4.�ARD 1 2x 12'S BOARD I - -�'- '- � I —'�4'A IE� CONC CURL SCALE: 3/8" • I • -p.• ( I O'IrT• I .�I TANDEMLAYOUTS � ., 1000 0 ._ �.'cyR. o Q SCALE : 1 /5' 1 • -0' —I�— � o CONNew I/1' CONDUIT 0 W I TIIVC TIONo , . �Dl I - - - - - - - - - - - - BE WED ONLY. IB Ut• I 1 1 — — — 1 — n_ w o I I oe —D' CONC .LAD E — — WLO'D U U DRIVE TNI1U t/EAKEN MERU GOA" ON rOET FOUNDATION ¢ W W M d D' T M�Tfp {BARD TEM_ PLATE D o W E : IE sV'9- . • SECTION �° a No S�' 0 r. N U � N D.T. 6PEAK R eOSf OR I / / ILL 4 RANO OLRLL[T BOX Z o on 9��•� �_0�� \ AT B'1� A.F.R I '11S•t 4• PUIIL BDoc 3' -D" H . x '1' -0" LeJ6 D Alf If.I . HANDRAIL t0 0 �+ nQ Z CONC. ?AD S�t1�4' 111 00 A.F F s . $IIIL.L GOO 1�1 ¢ 0 �. U ° . W N i N q IJ Q _ Z C u q Y) E a .+ t• 1SID CONOR TO MENU BOARD OUTSIDEICVNTRACTOR I � J TO PIGTAIL 012 (FULL WIRE AT EACH END FOR INSTALLER TO PULL AUDIO CABLE VE3TtBUE.E w w b — I INTERCOM SECTIONS PLAN I O o d I L 4=ME p -[LEE WIN ALL u"ME OUIED CONDUIT LIN" TO Of METAL. ►vt IE 001 ALLOWED CCAJ. PIVOT= AES _ A, F- I i1/ 6ASE PIA1L• 6 A93M �a � rJ � 2'-6"r2'-0" Inc. BA F, 2' vn-;5 8Y Slfai `VPukiL f O WIN eIeL.0v/ GPADE IY �' � O I • � u i� > U7 D.T. VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR . ¢ 1fW� b 7- SCALE: SCALE: 1/4"el'-0" O :m- W V N� g V STIBULE HANDRAILIvai -x . . ,. GALE: 1/!- - 1' -0• U -i DRIVE-THRU LANE STRIPING RAYMOND F. FELLMAN • ARCHITECT 4A1111, PAID I Sam 4ROAOWAY 11701 • AMITYVILLE Ib;;3 GUCIER COURT • ORLANDO 1 1 SGeIW: I/(,•• . I'-�•• NEW YORK IITOI • 516Je93555 ELORIOA S;e09 • DOS331139E m J_ W bl"I"' " E (4 REQUIRED) u F' t uj BALE PLAT[ I 1' -6" t ■ BASE T?LATE m y 2" DIA. HOLE mD 111 O BOLtA.X S FURNISHED LEG N 5 5/8• 3/4" 5 5/E" ANCHOR BOLTSSUPPLIER ; BY LIG"+ ING SUPPLIER ; s z - > o � INSTALLED BY G .C. . III • Z m .,, !, R — � ANCHOR BOLT (TYP . 1 3000 DSI CONCRETE g I o oPOURED iN GLACE._ TO BE FINISHED SMOOTHto 10 ' 0 WITH ROUNDED CORNERS II IIFaogtoe(0!tt 3� •OPTIONAL METAL BASE COVERitT( PAINT TO MATCH POLE) IIII !C, p DD�EE tRftICE }NN 6"x1 " CONC . CURB II cu 1 d0 t r I I FINISHED GRADE �I II I_ II 3/4• CONDUIT DATVIETHRV I • �I II II II �� � � "' Q DT SIGN BASE PLATE SPRAY PAINT (W/ RUST III II Y Q PROOFING PAINT) EXPOSED NQ BCALE II II --T`- ANCHOR ASE TO F { �y 1U T{7 I 4E ItTA L ' IDp oe GRAS ry I .nI MATCH BASE III IIS h (t�Y F 7A + c i• ll ' W II I:I IIII JAM NUTID C} 2'-0. _ I� Il igljll •• _ NUT C _I_ _fit- II 90 c i e'-2" II FLAT WASHERS __ Q W - � II II • IIII BASE PLATE f rl w > c - o FLA4sPOL.E BAeE AJct-IoR.A1GE -- I� t`'I � izEo l••tT� A5 PER t'nFR •. - --III IZII___ O LEVELING NUT - --o �' o mPEOtFtaATto"s- (4) 1/2• 0 x 12• 4 J • Lo 1 1 BOLT PATTERN BY I_C 0 0 ANCHOR BOLTS W/ to I 1 LIGHTING SUPPL:EP 2" HR. F'UANISHED j 12." n ® POLE AND INSTALLED I QTY_. CO[JIIi. 1D BY G.C. � J' s `w ANCHOR BOLT --T .FOR METAL BASES �zNISH L2" CND. POURED �RIy ORDER NO. 5230. AS c s i TER1.W1E 2 112 ® AM NU' c o .=e ., TOP OF GRADE ry I �� � G.C.GCMANUFACTURED FA I ;o . �� F 5 FOR 52� G�t7IR. _ I MORGAN METAL FABRICATORS Y o ro Z NUT P . O . BOX 2AV O s sR \ u it • Ir .^ R FLAT WASHER NOSE: G.C. TO USE ANCHOR DOLT/CONDUIT STUB 1101 )OFA AVENUE . °.vy \—-? - II Il II , •>'� `� O BEAVER FALLS . PA IS010 BASE FLAIL LAYOUT TEN ' FURNISHED BY (11121 543-74-85.II.I II C, � I LEVELING NUT -,INDICATOR-,INDICATORCONTMONTW LS CORP."O II C C 11 �� • I1 - NON-SHRINK II tl II ` GROUT 1.1dfE : aaeA E14.1 Fe+uriOATto.1 (4) L2"0 x 24' II I II 1 OE6tfe L1 O`( oTM1EQ 5. CONCRETE AIR SRN STS HE II4 `_==- -jll- O O r cOuLDATIG': I I 11 �i L ° J -7— AND I* 5TALi - GRADE LGHT POLE CA SE BY G. C. oU - w o I I c SPEAK ER POST BASE d W PC= 0 D I o"W BY G.C. Or� C C.T. Conc. per L.F. Depth 4 L.F. A. . 3.021 v ° o n _ A. ROAD SIGN \ (`)�t� J -- BASE V �J w O N W U ~ Q 2Et�1Fo2CS W/(4) ats OAms ¢ m d OtAw/ #x eS 71ES AT '- O Z W- 300o P.s.\. co.ICRETE - �2'�o.G.,_ _ _ - - - - r- PoJR.EO W OLAcE 'HANDICAPPED PARKING ONLY- !SIGN - � I (¢i -j . CURBING (CHECK WITH LOCAL COCES ' _ Ix 1 (WHEEL STOP ) FOR SPECS) - O rn .l c) ra � N ¢ z Z ENTRANCE EXIT SIGN BASE ~ Zss SCALE: 1' 1'-0" 3"otA. e:4l,v. an. . PIPE/PasT� no z a = .062 C.Y. CODc. per L.F. Depth ab L.F. A.E. - AT 8'-0" o1.C. w/Tb P, cio TToM 9L - A1..1(] II-1TEQMECt qTE i7•.4t1.6 /I ^ OR N N O W 'J Q HAtl.l - LIIJK FE.�GE MATT- rs- Z Y PER Tow,•.) 7PCCS . n_LI 1[.. " U PAINT D _ S ---- t Y - HANDICAPPED - • - 'O SYMBw�x60'•H. 1 I vu•ooD STo CKAOE FCI-1tE P.•.JEI-5 OLUE u ]r r Ec ) ac) To STL. PIPE FRAME STRIPING m "1 PER Tow.) SPECS . 0. u T r A ONLY EXIT 4 Z o [ , g¢n,OE2 STALLS M.•. F- ow w .•..�.'�,,. .m wra. [u, �U` ��/y,���� " ,3 ����� PER LOT Q• (NWJ� [nee. u:mrr.[•1 r—� -->— ,yVAV�4',/ \�' � ml PcuCiED COL.1C. O — 'k. , I P'o257 PTE. - 7`(PtC4LAD . RV1 I tr t THRUM I I— OTE : A eKlaTlam FE cta6 AT Z [ '"+o 6 �27`f L.II-•tE% 7o DE REPAIP-E.o O AS FIE Rt11RE0. A r DRIVES g E N C I P M •DETAIL b/4't a PAVEMENT MARKING HANDICAPPED STALL MARKING F , SCALE : 3/ 16'= I ' -o• RAYMOND F. FELT N • ARCHITECT g -� P ''� ' 570 BROADWAY . AMITYVILLE 0222 GLACIER COURT . ORIAROO �+ NEW YORK 11701 . 516-7893555 � 40RIOA ]2809 • f03351J595 � L 131990 LL D E . Asphalt mix material shall be, dellveretl t0 the site at a N UO SECTION 03514 D. Performance Guarantee temperature not lover than 275OF or higher than 3200F and ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING shall not be p1aCltl when the outside air temper (For 15 below ASPHALT PA DXaIGr AHD I1s5PECTION PROCEDc7Pa The Contractor shall guarantee ve writing the period of oneduring PART 1 - GENERAL performance of the comp Ltad pavement for • period of one (1) year . season or paving, inclement Or the. weather . (For late rM season paving, see Appendix B, p'. 02518-6) . In order to Snpure ty proper functionlM of our uphalt parklnq PART 2 - PRODUCTS The mix shall be compacted immediately after D1aC inq a5 soon m' lots , chars era tour oejor era+■ of conaidacatS.o° vh1cD c.ha 1. 01 Genital Conditions i! the 101% ■ill support the roller vithOUt Untlu! tlelDliCe- lots , t-b' a con■trncUon LpgInear wt +ttend to prior, dari°q ' 2.01 Matecisis ment . Initial eampaction rolling with a steel-wheeled tandem , y and of tar eonatruet ion of the lot. They are u fo� l°wn The General Conditions of the Contract, and the Supplemental 3 General Condltlons bound in the -specifications for the nt Series A. Asphalt Prime Coat shall be MC-30, MC-70, or !tC-350, eomplyLng steel three-whealed, vibratory, or pneumatic-tired roller ' F 1. Pavement t>o•Lqn 7�.co.■.•M+cion• Standard Restaurant Buildings' are part of this specification. with the requi[ementa of AAS HTO specification Sea tion !182 or ABT9 shall foliar the paver a! closely e3 tossibla . In areas too Q specification D2037. small for the roller, a vibrating plate compaeteI or nand The Contractor shall consult them in detail for instructions tamper shall be used to achieve thorough compaction . Each I'ha sap■c important factor influaacir•g tr"' stability and pertaining to work under this trade. All bids must be based on fl z W ;at of ab asphalt Pavement structure 1■ that ma retial specified as stand oleo. The term Owner as used herein is g, Asphalt Tack Coat, when enquired, shall be SS-1, SS-1h,- SS-1 , course shall be COmpeCted to not ,less than -9 S% of maximum F p �• long Y for both the specific b.ar l.aq or CSS-lh olio tad one part eater to one part emulsified ed laboratory density and uniform specified thickness as re11 as it De properly deaigned McDonald 's Corporation and/Ole its appointed representative . 1 ~ it be pe ctse cob-gr.de soil and the e■ticipatsd traffic asphalt. Before dilution tri• enulsitied asphalt shall Comply t0 required grade and cress-section . Compaction shall be a 1 . � with the requirements of ASSNTO Specifications :1140 or '1209 or completed before the Course hu cooled to below 2SOaF , p U loadinq at each lot locatio�n. when the wOLIS investigation 1 .02 Scope of Work O `n 1� Ls rf oaaad tb• enginwr fret i ASTM Specifications D977 or D2397. w severe s!u oM bow bqa or auger• F . After Compaction roiling has been Completed and before the strut a to ar Furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and services to complete you vement areas to • all asphalt parking area and drive work as shown and specif Led on C. Granular Insulation Course material shall be tine aggregate , course has cooled t0 no. lower than 140aF, finish tolling a a Q w arae■ recoaaan • the drawings and herein. coarse sand or stone screening, graded so that 90-100\ passes shall be performed with • tantleA !teal roller and shall Ic ca c t o a r a ° continue until all roller marks and imperfections are pavwsrnt o ■ on r �ygs rher. an • o r 3/4• U.S. Sieve and not more than 30\ peaces No. 100 U.S . - - c�o snp-gr.ae bearing Sieve. eliminatad . - N • o sYeCru •os tests ZOK 0a .03 cork Not Included capacity, rya sett d' wtw recognized of which is exPressedrn-California�•• caarinq suttee Method' ognre the capacity A. Earth removal, filling, compaction, or any rough grading of p, Granular Sub-base Course material shall be hard crushed stone , G . In instances rheic the asphalt base course is to remain numerical .ale or •CIA• . parking area and drives. slag, crushed gravel, or uncrushed gravel having cough t:zcuce exposed for a designated period of time before the aspnalt N w arau. u op- ant, subangular to angular partigla shape and shall be as surface course is applied, as instructed by the Owner , toe lie aver. of t.ba fact that ori^• �csi only, will re- B. Barricades and tra[fie control will be furnished by the specified by the Ovnec on the Site plan. asphalt base course shall be repaired of any (allures, trete Do•ed to parklnq areae for paa■an9 General Contractor. cleaned, and primed with an ■sphalt tack coat a001ietl at c^e 2 ga-ced an �• pa„+•.nc du iqqpp thiekn.■a dw to ib`reased E. Asphalt Concrete Plant Mix Base and Surface Course material rate Of .05 to .15 gallons per square yard before the aspnal• ,a traffic loading from trucks. Aleb, special conaldaratlm should shall be as follows! surface course 1! lnatilled . a subject to fret bea+a, 1 . 04 General Requirements be given to dulgna for northern areas w "tel this is aap+cl&,IT important schen a high rater table 1e Pre■ont APPENDIX A - Sub-Grade Classification 1. Asphalt cement roc the asphalt concrete plant mix shall er W th syI po•aibility exist• wba" surfe0e water Can iatlltrat• the A. Pavement Thickness Design (20 year design period) comply with the applicable requirements of AASBTO or hue at the Pavoccent p•rlphary, at IandaeaP• •e"s ' Specification M226 or ASTM Specification 03301. "Good to Excellent' - 'Good, sub red* soils include clean sands, end at locations o[ any objcl which panetrata the Pav".nt Pavement shall he a plant-mixed asphalt ant-mix course over a land-gravels, end soils from Of detrimental amounts Of plastic 4u•rd Poets etc A leaaral rule-of- plant-mlxnd asphalt beau source, or a plane-mixed asphalt sure u ocations of a• , (asphalt sad e-Of single deep-lift course, over a Bound and well-drained 2, Mineral aggregate for the asphalt concrete plant mix shall mater Sala . Generally , any sell that retains a substantial R amount of It tbursb i■ that the tool pavement etz�acturebal granular sub-base courso, where requited, Over the prepared consist of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate• and, lE loatl-bearing cap city then rat . CBR (California Bearing Ratio) values U a,atereals for at least coarse■) consist of poo-frost suso•pt-iD �y�y a sup-grade. Thickness °If each course Shall be as specified b7 needed, mine tai tiller. The costae aggregate shall be of 10 to 20. "Excellent" !tabegrad• soils include rill-graded, clean an 504 of flea fret peateretion depth. TO additionally _ _ sharp sands and gravels . Generally, any sail that is unafreet:ea by of * 'yap+ r ib la frost heaverpt. bots �• asphalt suzfw e■+] gran the Owner on the Site p'.1an. In all Cases, the minimum sound, angular crushed atone; ecuaMd gravel, Oc Crushed p°a d.ded b u >ao,t to elle frw wtar to thiekneu of the structiu re shall b• as described below for tt^ slag , Uncrushed coarse ag9[e9ate may be used in base moisture or front action. CBR values greater than 20 . talar Dew Ghoul be 9T specific sub-grade type , or types, existing at the location C : course mixtures If' th• mixture meets ell design criteria. collect. the Pavement- The fine aggregate shall be well graded, moderately arise? "Medium" - Soils include 108103, clay looms, silty sands, and sand-grave lOed ao�iroe for lnfoa.don about tp,a design of asphalt to sharp sands. containing moderate amounts of Clay and fine silt . Generally , any soil a =c A belt In■[lasph lulldibl. 1, Minimum Strut turn !'qc Asphalt Parking Areas! that retains a moderate degree Of finesse under adverse moisture A good i• •The Asphalt Lnstituta• Asphalt 3 . Asphalt concrete plant mix snail melt the requirements of i5- ' CC ditiOns , CBR Values Of 5 t0 10 . Collele Fart, Maryland, 20740. Minimum Compacted Thickness in Inches Standard Specification D1663 and anal! meet the follow ng dy • f sed p..ema■t finish a1..•clon. 3 Granules; Asphalt gradation range requirements for each. course mix . ( Simila. "poor" - soils include Clays, silts, sandy seams . Generally , any sail * u 3• _p• Dela propo Sub-grade Type �- mixes specified by local agencies may be used if they have that become$ quite soft and plastic when ret . CBR values less than S . -m0'rE, minimum Insulation Sub-bass Baa• Surface Dee Lift performance) . ' Inapectlm Course Course Course Course Course history of satisfactory P 2• s�'"•�r'••' ° s`�a l-L/2 APPENDIX B - Late Season Paving and tt of ■ oda oil and u or be", Good to ExeelUnt 0 0 2-1/2 1 Base Course Single Deep-Lift Course* Surface Cour ss In wpe4 ti - i-- yyO ` b- oaou..petsd tg��i�ic ( 3/4" Max . Agg J (1/2• vex • Aqp J ( 3/4" wax . Ay' " In cases rhare tM ■sphalt Dasa course must be installed in cool or or to P acemrac of upha c must 0 4 2 1 3 Sieve Size: Total Percent Pasaing(Dy ■t • ) reathei, in order to amble the store to open by the end of the year , v ,; PC � Coal 66ali ��y�b ry spec or rein wloc -- _- o rtes ou • oons0l••^t, tboor be allocI *tedium 1 3 the minimum temperature Of the mix shall be 2850F . Then the ground U ; P• tion of the C. I.F. If the r•"Its Lpdicate Poor 3 6 2 1• ( 2S .Omm) 100 temperature 1S 408 - S32F . , and a minimum of 2950F . when the for is the •ata Par or or 'typo' __ ground temperature Sa 328 - 40aF . clod to bel rolling small be o o _ 3/4" (19 .Omm) 90-100 100 completed before the course has cooled to Dilor 2SOa . r that COsq,4ccLon fails to wt specif ioationp, the ie shall be the -- -- - Q ~ w Of the __ 90-100 100 w inspettion/testing and for correction halt Specification• . reapontlD illty of the contractor• (sae •Rap 2. 11inlnum Structure for Asphalt Ocives3 1/22 (12.Smm) -- a_ 90-1001 0 Chaptar IV. . Section C. ) 3/B" (9 .50101) 60-s0 C� Minimum Compacted Thickness in Inches 3. vavea•ent pan pity and Thicknnso Tu Sub-grade Type 3 Granular Asphalt 4S-7o 60-BD i w H cted awpbalt - No .4 (4 .75mm) 35-65 d yarns of the finished, ocespa Insula tripe Sub-base Hass Surface Deep- 25-53 35-65 w Coro drilled spec taat� for purpose of dater- Cour3se Course Course Course .,aursa • 25-55 No .B (2.361010) 20-SD PAVEMENT PAINTING INTING SPECIFICATION O w u PavemuOt RusOf t be •+cured and elninq density and thieknas•. cTbaca ones for this vert, Par- 6-25 Q ni O_ mood to Excellent 0 0 4-1/Z L S-1/2 No .SO (D .SOmm) 3-20 5-20 Lesaed by • quell(led uvulae oonsuleanc, ■1>ou ld W allocated directional arrows - is rn for 1.n rya site Portion of y" C. I.F. If the results ladle.u 0 5 4 L 5 2-9 _ 2-10 All pavement painting - striping, letteri)g, to tamloa■e tail' to ret ■writ ic&tims, the :tedium No .200 (0 .0751010) Z-B to be white 1) color. �„ z w that density for correction of the work spall be ~ coat for mora tato and halt / Poor Z 9 4 1 5 ASPhalt Cement rye i-asponaiblllCy of eve. emtreetor . (sae 'Asphalt Pae- Lirted below are recommended paint manufacturers and products: ¢ � ser 30. , Section C• 1 or 'rypae Content (weight Carbit - yore Marking p+1+ �1� G 6Ofg s Silcatlon+• , Chap Glidden - 'Tcalfle cone Faint (2ie) 474-3121 " N •LL contractor Cannot guarantee compaction on a single life , percent of 4 .0-9 .0 4 .5-9 .5 5 .0_: 'Trai!!e i cent Marking Paint' (412) 434-3131 O w a 4, Pavurnt Construction InsPKu4a total mlxJ Pittsburgh - , two lifts of equal thickness may be substituted for a single Sheerin Williams - 'Pro-Ma[ TTalLle Marking Paint' (800) 321-9194 O N ¢ _ cion Engineer' ■ r•sPonsibility to monitor deep-lift. Maximum ALlooable Maintenance, Ing. (Premise Industrial Corp. ) - 216)2-Stripe• Z IC la the C.on+tsve p pavement, The (216) 264-6262 and anapest the Lastallatim of the asphalt w Percent of Re- ¢ . = and Inspect ep a partial checklist of tame of the items that 3. Minimum Structure Cot Asphalt Truck Perking Areasnc) should b• Is alpartd than condoctlnq ■^ Ln•pectlon� and Drives (Subjecct to more than 20 a less than cycle 0/Reclaimed pavement areas to be striped suet be Bound, and Lee of dust, dirt, 'N a: 1- 400 trucks/day) . Materials freight oil, reAa veil .rid grannlsr be" �� ccwspa�ed percent of total NONE NONE 9[eue and any ocher ioni9n utter. Remove loose dice re o .~. A. Is GY+ nts-9inDoes Minimusm ComDaeted Thickness (in inches) mix) NONE brusning and/or blowing cleat with ale oe rater pressure. Care should (E s a to r.quiz.d d•n■itT. cr°ss-section, and grade?idea elops7 Glra nUla[ be taken not to spread sudaee deposits 0! oil or quota owe ///��� a o tatareel appear to wt spec Sub-grade Iyypa3 additional areaS Ln she eleanihq ,prodeslls. thee• should be removed with A U granular base Insulattion Sub-bass Deep-Lift •Note: In truck parking areas Only, 3ya" mix may be substituted N city being applied Coucue Course Asphalt Course• for 1/2• mix in deeD-lift construction provided that solvents or cosmecelal now paints. d, striping should be w o s I■ • un-1 pri"a coat of correct Wan asphalt content falls within the range of 4 .5-9 .5% by wire-brasbed to Issues rive paint bond, ee removed eneinro ec badly on the granular bass aid • 7surtsas �'t will came aero g 7_1/2 weight (5 .5% optimum) . cracked, flaked, or peeled. Where application is Coat pro CeeCive w Z coeurs with the ass Goad to Excellent 0 sealers or coatings, such materials should be allowed to cure for at zo trance of the upb•lc ai.x uniform in 0 � 6 7 PART 3 - EXECUTION least 49 hours before painting. A cheek should be ode by applying \ o 0 C Is Cha general apps Medium test strip to determine the readiness fog painting. J >= a toxtnre7 Is the temperature of the mDOLtored and from 2, 11 7 3 .D3 COnet rUCtlOnSur - retinq requiremeats7 (foul p■iulon of hive O�arMat•d Poor wrothe mix often is an i„dioption of overb•ateisq . or 'Ty)par' The pavement that Mae ing will be laid out with chalk marks for require J a slam I-nd aid •+Y h•^ • nm distri- A . Initial Preparation - If specified by the Owner, a commercial striping so that urking will be accurate and in keeping with Plan- Mix s+y D9"r positioning and dimensioning shown on the Site plan. One uniform roe _ w button of uphalC. ) *If coneractoeeannot gunifantse compaction on a single lift , two so0lumaehlorate,dperate, orkiller shallbeapplietlstdutneas of paint should be 'applied by brush, roller, oe spray, at a rate of ° .. depth of aap7ylt •�• spread chocked fragwantly7 lifts of equal thickness, may be substituted foe a single Prepared sub-grade follorinq recommendations of the product not less than one gallon per 200 square feet. One gallon will yield u D. Ia the dap deep-lift- manufacturer . from 300 to 500 lineal last Of 4W ride strips. w F F all c. Ip proper roller Procedure be Lal followed?Arejoints and NOTES? irre4itLritiaa D,ainq properly aorrocted B .. Placement of Granular Courses - The granular insulation and paint should not be applied voce weather 1■ rainy, foggy, or Z a o $ edges Delp9 properly rollaa7 rade and earn excessively humid (over 859 talatioa� hwldityl , and not when ambient 1, Pa[kingares■ seek defined as those arta subject to sub-base courses shall be placed over the sub-9 1av1 and terwch per pauengic car seekdtxa�ffef (Max. 4,000 lar axle load) . course compacted at 95% of the maximum laboratory density : as or pavement tesperatuca is below SOaP. , and not when above > determined coon on the same material by ASTM 01557, Mechdtl 0) and cpndltlone ate entleipated Loc tight beucs efts[ application. FF_ p\ m o f Ia [lr surface of the finished Pavement 2, Drives re defineld AS those areas subject to passenger car 9+ W •petit Scation7 and true traffic; (Max. 10,000 lb. axle load) OC up to 20 uniform specified thickness as well as to required grade and C7 f ealah.d taphole atu:uctore cross-section . pavement should not be opened to It ssne until all paint is alloyed to La taken of trio trucks/4y. cure for at .least 1 Dour. (consult unutaeturet !Cc specific drying G. ua the cord.aa•o and location of) . 3. See Appe,dix A, P . 02514-6 , for tub-grade classification. o- repraaenu vel (As far u saber C . Placement of Asphalt Prime Coat - The prepared granular times) . Q B. Pavement 9mothnese sub-base course or prepared sub-grade, mese granular sub-base 0 course is not specified, shall De primad with an asphalt prime Vcost The surface f the eolmpleted pavement structure when tested 5u rf aceelof deoncietat a e Curbse of , gutters, vertical gallons P faces er u Ofe yard (f) IY with a ten (3) Loot straightedge, shall not contain existing pavements, and all structures to be in actual contact Lrregulariti4 in exc:BSS of one quarter (1/4) inch. with the asphalt-aggregate mixture shall be given a thin , ever A C. Pavement Te stng and Inspection coating of asphalt prima . Care shall be taken to prevent t <1 - spattering any surface that will not be in Contact with tris Z asphalt aggregate mixture . p aMs The Contractor shall furnish for teat and analysis A IMI represents tivrcore samples of the compacted asphalt oavemea _ p, Placement of Asphalt Concrete Plant Mix Base and Surface , or 11 structure. Sapling and testing shall be in accordance Lith Single Deep-Lift Courses - The mixture shall be placed in one $ the course lift thickness shall b■ at least two times the ma latest raixions -4f the AASBTO. or more lit is as specified on the drawings . The minimum ximum C911.and teatin particle sire; the maximum lift thickness shall De that which oc tale ASTM 9tfused procedures Eor sampling q t can be demonstrated to be laid in a single lift and compactedmaterials beinused in the work. All phases of the tock + i1: wbe periodicall;inspacted by the Owner. IE the [•sults 7E t t° required uniform denairy and emoothnesa . Asphalt courses tests of speed inspection meet the standards required by the shall be spread with an approved, conventional self-propelled asphalt paving machine . Placing }no SPreatlinq tris mixture plans or speC11c&tions, the Owner shell baa[ the cost of sac:. tests or LnspaCon. if the results d° not meet the plans sucn or shall be a continuous operation . Any corrected directly in the °i _ s pecifications,tne Contractor shall bear the cost of sure surface of the pavement shall De eorreeteo directly heeled tris RAYMOND M O N D F. F E LLM A N ARCHITECT work is found to paver . Small, confined areas may be spread and finished by p► testa and Lnspelons. Additionally, if any nand ,azvx cuaca couar oauaoo uu{{ )age be detective imatar ial or workmanship, of cont[a[y to e>o eaoaowar , ar,rtry u.i[ na,o� steep aos3a,+ase u�i \�VVV � a defective I thu drawings or herein, that work snall be www coax nm, me.>e►3sss - removed and repeed by the Contractor at his own expense . W W 0 SECTION 02515 3, 07 JOINTS to POR'I'UAND C�EMENT CONCRETE PAVING e. A. General: a m � PART I - C;ENERAL L. Concrete work shall be jointed AS shown on the project drawings. If not indicated on the drawings , o 1. 01 DESCRIPTION a jointing plan shall be prepared by the contractor and approved before paving begins. A. Related work Specified Elsewhere: 0 B. Control Joints : 1 , Cast-In -Place Concrete: Section 03300 1. Provide control joints of contraction joints which , 2 . Earth....rk: Section 02200 shall be formed by one of the following methods : sawlog, forming by hand, or using Cull-depth eon- inZ 3. Concrete walks and Curbs: Section 02515 struetion joints. Joint depth shall be a minimum of ons-fourth the slab thickness. Hand-Corned 8. DRcriptino of work: joints shall have a 6 Q 0- ll hmaximum edge radius of 4 inch. " - ea. Saving of joints shall begin as soon as the concrete � 1 1. The o,< mnt of the work is shown on the drawings and has hardened sufficiently to permit sawing without a specified herein. excessive reveling. All joints shall be completed 3 w e before uncontrolled shrinkage cracking occurs. Joints 1, 0: OUALITY ASSURANCE shall be continuous across the slab, unless inter- M rupted by full-depth premolded joint Ciller. Joints Q A. Reference Standard: shall extend completely through the curb. Joint openings wider than 1/4 inch shall be cleaned and 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 - sealed before opening parking area to traffic. INI) . - Cast-ln-Place Concrete- I 2. Joints should be laid out to aid construction and 1. 03 SUBMITTALS control cracking. A square panel pattern is preferable but a dimensional ratio of 1 1/2 x 1 is W Cwt permissible. Joint s aero shall not exceed LS feet. ~ rC h A. Reference Standard : G w ` Keyed joints are not require Tr ansven a 3o rocs shall a 1. Conto nn to the requirements of Section 0]]00 - be sawed. Spacing may be varied to accommodate catch . basins, man holes etc. when pavement areas have many drainage inlets or other structures , pie Cast-In-Place Concrete. ce joints to ., approximate the cracking that mould occur without PART 2 - PRODUCTS joints. Whenever practical curbs should be cast integrally. 2 . 01 CONCRETE MATEPTAIS C. Isolation Joints: A. Reference crandard: 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 07700 1. Provide isolation or expansion joints to Isolate 4 ys c - fixed objects abutting or within the paved area. Q� ria as Cast-In-Place Concrete, except as noted below: They shall contain oremolded joint tiller for tae or y _ c full depth of the slab. ,I � a. MAimum coarse aggregate size shall be 1 inch. ° o d I m F J l0 2LT 2, 02 PROPORTIONING AND DESIGN Or MIXES 02315-3 ?ORT•-Aaw CEMENT CONCRETE PACING rfd 1 0 3b A. Reference Standard: - 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 Cast-In-Placa Concrete, except as noted below: 3. FINISHING a. All concrete shall have a compressive strength of. 3500 psi minimum at 28 days , except in A. General: � � Northern Climates• where it shall be 6000 psi w minimum at 28 days. 1. After cmncrete has been struck off and consolidated, o a a bulli:lost may be used to remove any high or low > - b. All concrete shall be produced with a minimum spots. Bulltloat use shall be confined to a minimum. o w O� r P A final, skid-resistant finish shall be made with a w Cement content of 520 lb. per cubic yard burlap <drag or broom. ( 5 . 5 U. S . bags) except in Northern Climates- Where it shall be produced with a minimum cement 0 o LU 0 content of 560 lb. per cubic yard ( 6 . 0 U.S. bags) Z 3. 05 CURING AND PROTEICTION o cal d. 'A C. All concrete shall be produced with an entrained O air content of 48 by volume, except in Northern A. Reference Sltandard: w u E Climates- where it shall be produced with an ¢ m W 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 entrained air content of 61 by volume . - Cast-in-Place Concrete. • oy a. d. Ail concrete shall have a maximum water/cement EPZ w - znrio o[ 0. 53 (6 . 0 gal/bag) , except in Northern 3.06 CONCRETE SURFACE RAIRS ~ ClimatesA whe re it shall have a maximum water/ eemont ratio of 0. 49 (5. 5 gal./bag) A. Reference Standard: u- 65 oN V) e. Lump shall be 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 07]00 - O The maximum allowable concrete ■ ca e. Lu 4 . Cast-In-Place Concrete. rn (z If inches ' ."Northern Climates' shall be defined as those areas 3,07 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL o Z 00 expoee,l to freeze-thaw cycles or the use of deicing 1 1 salt A. Reference Sitandard: L� Z C) = , 00 1. Conform) to the requirements of Section 03300 ¢ o - 0 Cast-Inl-Place Concrete. 7, 07 CONCRETE MIXING U � A. Reference standard: a rn 3 . 08 OPENING ZD TRAFFIC vwi _J 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 - J Cast-In-Place Concrete. A. Gane Ial3 w u PART 7 - EXECUTION 1. Tie pavmment shall be closed to all traffic for £ at least seven (7) full days or until such time �+ 3 . 01 PREPARATION tat th:e minimum compressive strength of the cmcretls is at least 751 of its design strength . -' A. General: Il all cases approval shall be obtained prior p ,$ tcoeniing of the pavement to traffic. & Q 1. Preparation shall conform to the requirements of ' Section 03300 - Cast-In-Placa Concrete. w � w 2. The oulq rade shall be in a moist conditionrior to ire- o with the concrete placement and shall comply Z O menta of ACI 302-69 . m 3. 02 CONCRETE PLACFrrRNT F- W W I .. A. General: 0 1. Placement shall conform to the requirements of 0- X Section 03300 - Cast-In-Place Concrete. W 2. Concrete shall be placed, struck off, consolidated ,canIcal I'1 and finished to plan grade o[ bame h and_finishingnishing methods (n Y machine , vibrating screed, y when approved. In lieu of fixed formsaver designed tour _ W may plats concrete with a slipform P spread , consolidate, screed, and float finish the z freshly placed tonere to in one eomPlete pass of the machine . Pavement 2U The be_Ditehed to area drains A w 3 . lnh thickness shall be 5" to all areas g ec� to passenger suo; venic les and up to 20 trccke per day . The slab thickness shall be 8" in all areas subject to more than 20 �A and I.- than 400 trucks per day. a ' -- w � RAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT 3 ' 7 .� aTo BROADWAY • Aw1rYVILLE 101=2 GLACE" CODRT • 011UFID0 JUL 13- MEM YORK to", • ale-9 ieSss ILDaIDA ]2009 • aDaaat�a99 cat ' l c. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does propesed a~tion inyolve a planninl,; or zoning decision' \<lYes DNa If Yes. indicate de~iSlon rp.quire.d: O.;:onine amendment wl.oninc variance Ospecial :.J:'ie permit CJ.~ubdjvi.!i~1\ g]si:e"pi Onew/reVision of muter plan Oresource manacemenl plan Q.,other ':@88i al QlIG~,., 2. What is the zoninl,; c1assificaliOn(slof the site! _~ ""_ 3 What is the ma.imum potential development of the site if developed as Permitted by the present zoni. p<> l'" ~'lll thol Q._..l'oJ..'O""'.zOO i no r.nl1l::._____ __.___ 4. What is the propmed zonlna of :he sM? ..--B.__.___. ._____. S. What" the max'mum potentia' development of the ,ite il developed as permitted by the proposed zoo _p'!,.r: Southold To~n Zonin't~~__ __ 6. Is the proposed actIon consistent With the recommended ~ses in adopted local land u.se plans? ~Y, 7. What are :he predominant land USe(l) and >-oning classifications within a '/. mile radius oi proposed a~ e. Is the propos.d action COmpabble with adioinin/l.lsurtoundin~ land Use! within a l~ mile? IlJYe 9. If the proposed aCtion is the subdivision of land. how many lots are proposed? ____ a. Vvh.:!r. is the minimum lot Sizt! prepoS'ttd? ..._.... ....___... ___.__.______. 10. Will proPcsed act,on require any authorjz~tion(s) fOr the formation of Sewer Or water districts? DYe 11. Will the proposed a<.t.on cre"te a demand lor any community provided 'er"ices (recreation educati, fire prate~tion)1 [ly~s DNa a. If I'el. is eX'$tin~ '"">city suffic,ent to handle proiec~ed demand? ~Yes DNa 12. Will lhe "roPosed action result in th& generation of traffic significantly above pres"nt levels? a. If yes. is the eXISting road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? ClYes ~..... ~ ~. -'''' ~itY, Town. Village Eoar~ City, Town. VillaliieP1anning Board City, Town loninC Board City. County HUlth Oepartment Other Local Agencies Oth..r Regi.,n.,' Agencies State Agenc,", Fed~ral ^send~s B. qQ1.~aQ, A-C____. . Type ( eVes CJNa C ---.- QlYes DNa ......:UJ.:.\LP-Lu:L_ O(jYe' DNa -'tpr:.~;al ~v('"~PP"; nn - Ii)VF.S DNa _wa..to.~ < S"all~V":!!lI'Jt"'I. DYes eNo !9Yes ON" _~PC ;!DYes ONo NYS Oept of Transpot."tatio.D. DYes DNa ------------ ...---------.-.--- DVes ON D. Informational Details Attach any .,ddit,onal information as may be ne..cled (I) clarify your project. If :here are or may be ar Impacts associated with your proposal. please dis~u.. ,uch impacts and the measur.s '".hieh You propose to " aVOid them. E. Verification ! certd" tho: tho jnf'.'Imation PIfJ'lided abO"e is true to the best of my knowledge. , "'pplicant/S~ors"r Name -k~ ""h1'r)AL,,'<:., COP (:)~IPf' r.;,)~/ Oat. 7l....?:>. Signature C::'.;;'~':::';~~,,-...::c c~...,..,..._~...-. 'flUe ",.. J-;"':."'"--~J__i "......~'"r-- r-' J . ,. __... lI.the .~tion is ;11 the CO.lSla' Area, >nd YOu are j state agency, COmplete Ihe Coastal Assessment Form before r wrth IhlS '''eument. /2,;:/" p /i:.CVICNCQ IS Y ~'n? I;;' "/'('-"Ju S'd 6O:LO Ge;. to ~m.. - ~ _. -." ~. ..-,'_..~".."L """"" 4t LONG EAF PART II ~'\~ J//4~ CRAMER, Vq9RHt~ ~A'$SOCIATES ENVJRONMENTAik-~Nn:IPt:A~ING CONSULTANTS ""- - "fI1i11 ~~~ . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF ._;c.-",,_,~ Part 2-PR'i.CTiMPAClB ANO~~ITUDE lesponslblUty of l.~ ~!./1 General InformatIon (Read Carefully) "',,0, . In completin. the form the reviewer should be .uided by tM quJl, .'+IJ'J'Y" illY responses and ,l~terminations IA realOMble' The reviewer is not expected to be an expert envl~~~]I)I'Y't. . Identifyin. that an Impact will be potentially lar.e (colUlnn 2) doe' ""/111.'" lhal it is also necessarily s11n1licaii Any lar.e impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to deter'"ine sl.nlf~ ":, J~'/ltifyin. an impact in column 2 sim: asks that it be looked It further. ca 1 . The Examples provided ~re to assist the reviewer by show In. types of ImjfIfU ,nd wherever possible the threshold mqnitude that would tnuer a response in column 2. Tho example. are .."'fillY applicable tNouahout the Stlte - for most situations. Bul, for any specifiC project or site Other examples .rt4l0I1ower thresholds may be appropr; for a Potential Larae Impact response, thus requirin. evaluation In Part J. . The Impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore. the example' are illustrative, have been oHered as auidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of Impacts and thresholds to answer each quest: . The number of examples per question does ~ot indicate the importance of each question. . In identifyina impacts, consider Ion a 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 answerina Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to Indicate the potential size of impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but thresh is lower than example, check column .1: d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially larae and proceed to PAR . e. If a potentially larae impact checked in column 2 can be mitiaated by chanaees) in the project to a small to mode. impact. also checlt the Yes box in column 3. A No response indiates that such a reduction Is not posSIble. .' must be explained in Part 3. - .... , " IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chana- to the, project~.tef oNO ~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Any construction on slopes of 15" or areater, (15 foot rise per 100 foot of lenath), or where the aeneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%. . Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet . Construction of paved parkina area for 1,000 or more vehicles. . Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or aenerally within 3 feet of existina around surlace. .. Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more than one phase or staae. ' . Excavation for minina purposes that would remove more than 1,000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. . Construction in a designated f100dway. . Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect t,. _.IV unique or unusual land ,!:;;e" found on the sitel (i.e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etcrNO DYES · SpecifiC land forms: ".. a - ------ 1 2 Small to ' Potential Can Moderate Larve Mlt! - '6iir*f linpact Pro )( 0 ov 0 0 oy [1 0 oy 0 0 oY 0 0 oY 0 0 oY 0 0 ov 0 0 ov 0 0 ov 0 0 ov 3 Impact : gated B ject Chan es o~ es o~ es Or es Or es Or es 0, es 0, es oi es OJ es 0, ... , . 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Small to Potential Can Impact - Moderate large MItigated B 1 Will proposed Iction Iffect Iny wlter body desianlted IS protected! Impact Impact Project Chan (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Environmentll conse~n llw, ECl) NO DYES Examples thlt would Ipply to column 2 . Developlble Irel of site contlins I protected water body. 0 0 DYes O~ . Dredllinll more thin 100 cubic yards of materill from chlnnel of a 0 0 DYes Ot protected strum. e Extension of utility distribution flcilities throullh I protected wiler body. 0 0 Dves Ot . Construction in I desianlted freshwlter or tidll wetllnd. 0 0 DYes Ot . Other implcts: 0 0 DYes Ot ... Will proposed action affect any non-protected eXis~r new body of wlter! 0 DYES Esamples that would apply to column 2 . ^ 10% incruse or decrease in the surface area of any body of water 0 0 DYes Ot or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. 0 0 DYes Ot . Other impacts: 0 0 DYes Ot s. Will Proposed Action affect surface or aroundwater ~ES quality or quantity! . oNO Eumpla that would apply ~ column 2 ~- . Proposed Action will require i discharee permit. 0 DYes Oi . Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not 0 DYes 0; have approval to, serve proposed (project) action. . Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with areater thari 45 0 0 DYes 0; aallons per minute pumpina ClpaCity. . Construction or operation causina any contamination of a water 0 0 Dyes 0 supply system. . Proposed Action will adversely affect aroundwater. 0 0 Dyes 0 . liquid effluent will be conveye<:l off the site to facilities whi.:h presently 0 0 DYes 0 do not exist or hive inadequate capacity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20.000 aallons per 0 0 DYes 0 day. . Proposed Action will likl'I" O"jP silLHion or other discharae into an 0 0 DYes [j existina body of wate' tv th.. e>:tcntthat there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. . Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical 0 0 DYes 0 products areater than 1,100 aallons. . Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water 0 0 Dyes 0 andlor sewer services. . Proposed Action locat~s commercial and/or industrial uses which may 0 0 DYes 0 require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storaae facilities. · Other impacts: 0 0 DYes 0 I J' Will proposed Iction alter drainaee flow or patt~ or surf ace " water runoH? 0 DYES Eu.:nples thlt would Ipply to column 2 . D..__....,.I A.~t;,.."' u,"'oI1l,.1 ,.h.n~ linnet wJte-r flows. 0 0 DYes L .. . · Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion. . Proposed Action is incompatible with existina drainaae patterns. . Proposed Action will allow development in a desianated f100dway. .. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR ~O DYES 7. Will proposed action affect air quality I Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any aiven hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration 01 more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. . Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a heat source producina more than 10 million BTU's per hour. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the amount 01 land committed to industrial use. . Proposed action will allow an increase in the denSity of industrial development within existina industrial areas. · Other impact5: IMPACT ON PUNTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affKt any threatened or end~ed speciesl ~O DVES Eumples that would apply to column:i ' · Reduction of one or more species listed on the New Vorit or Federal list, usina the site, over or near site or found on the site. . Removal of any portion of a critical or sianificant wildlife habitaL . Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for aaricultural purposes. · Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threa~~ or non-endanaered speciesl ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or miaratory fish, shellfish or wildlife species. . Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres of mature lorest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation. IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10. Will the Proposed Action allect agricultural land r~rcesl ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 · The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to allricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) A .. . 1 2 'I: · Small to Pot.ntlal Can Impact Mod.rat. urge Mlllgated By Impact Impact ProJect Chan -- . --. - -- 0 0 DVes 0 0 0 DVes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DVes ON 0 0 Dves ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 Dyes ON 0 0 Dyes ON ~. ..- :.... 0 0 Dves 'DN 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 Dves ON 0 0 Dyes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 Dves ON Be ge No o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o .~.;"..." r. . . Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile of Ilricultural land. . The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres of Alricultural lAnd or, if located in An Alricultutal District. more . thaln 2.5 .cres of Alricultural lAnd. . The proposed action would disrupt or prevent install.tion of alricultural lAnd mAn'lement systems (e.I., subsurfAce drAin lines, outlet ditches, strip croppin&!; 01' create a need for such meASures (e.l. CAuse. farm field to drain poorly due to increased runoff) . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES ~ 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resources! DNa YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in'Section 17.21, Appendix B.) Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed land uses, or project components obViously different from or in sharp contrast to current surroundina land use patterns, whether mAn-made or natural. . Proposed land uses, or project components visible' to users of .esthetic resources which will eliminate or silnificantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. Project components that will result in the elimination or sianificant .' IICreenina of scenic views known to be important to the area. / · ~JI-~m::~:IJ~V~~n'~""~:::'u~~~J(, AA~/rJR. IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure Vistoric, pre- historic or paleontoloaical importance! ~O DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially contilluouS to any f adlity or site listed on the State or National Rqister of historic places. . Any impact to an archaeolOllical site or fossil bed located within the project site. . Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existinll or future open spaces or recreational opportunities! \.t, _ Examples that would apply to column 2 ~O DYES { IThe permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. '""t"' A major reduction of an open space important to the community. · Other impacts: ~ 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact e: Moderatl Large Mltlgatld By Impact Impact Project ChanG. 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes 01-10 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo . 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONo 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes Ofok 0 0 DYes ONc 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 Dyes ON<: 0 0 DYes ONe -- - -- -- -. . ~ IMPACT ON TRANSppRTAnoN 14. Will there be an effect to existin, transporUtion systems I ~ . DNO YES Eumpl" that would apply to column 2 · Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or ,oods. · Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. . Other impacts: Pil.o:rf:ir_T" ""~l- 'WCJz.511'!:tr 7'1'2.,p {Jf:JJ~A.nDN t:A..oM rllt"RR..~ I.J;YEt& IMPACT ON ENERGY 1S. Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or ener,y supplyl DNO DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will cause a areater than 5 % increase in the use of any form of eneray in the municipality. . Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an eneray transmission or supply system to serve more than SO sinale or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. · Other impacts: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionable odors. noise. or vibra~, as a result of the Proposed ActIonl. ~O . DVES" Eumpl" that would apply to column 2 . Blastina within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive facility. . Odon will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). . .. -.. -- . Proposed Action will produce operatina 1I0ise exceedina the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structu~. . Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safetyl ~O DVES Eumpl" that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides. chemicals, radiation, etc.) in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharae or emission. . Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any form (i.e. toxic, poisonous, highly reactive, radioactive, irritatin&. infectious, etc.) . Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural aas or other flammable liquids. . Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste, · Other impacts: .ft --- 'l 2 Small 10 Pot.ntlal Can Moderat. Large Mlt Impact Impact Prol 0 0 ov 0 0 ov )( 0 ov 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - .Of"; . 0 0 0 0 0 0 - p 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a Impact Igaled : eet ChI es 0 es 0 es 0 Ves 0 Ves 0 Ves 0 Ves 0 Ves 0 Ves 0 Ves L Ves [- Ves Ves Ves L Yes r Yes L " ,...., .' , . IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the character of the existinl communityl 'biNo DYES hamples that would apply to column 2 /'. . The permanent population of the city. tOyin or villaae in yihich the project is louted is likely to Irow by more than 5". . . The municipal budlet for capital expenditures or operatinl services will increase by more th.an S" per year as a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or loals. . . Proposed action will cause a chanae in the density of land use. . Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existina facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.l. schools. police and fire. etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. · Other impacts: 19. Is there. or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environmental impactsl . 1 2 3 Small 10 Potential Can Impact e Moderate Laroe MItigated By Impact Impact Project Chan ~-- 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes 0 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes ON. 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes ON 0 0 DYes ON G- o o He c c c c .- controvef1Y related to DNO ~ES C'. If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or If You Cannot Oetennlne the Magnitude of Impact. Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Responsibility of Lead ^Iency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more im~ct(s) is considered to be potentially larle, even if the impact(s) may mltlpted. Instructions Discuss the followina for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the im~ct 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitiaated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by projed chana' 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 occurrinll . The duration of the impact . Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value . Whether the impact can or will be controlled . The reaional consequence of the impact . Its potential diverllence from local needs and aoals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) ~ ...~".--. JHH os '-31 ['Uilfi Er~I;I. Ii'; ~~:,::S January 9, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Chairman Orlowski: :~':'6 ..:.:~:,=: 25...:.... . P.212 Dunn Engineering Associates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Sfreet Weslhampfon Be<lCh, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck It has come to my attention that in our letter to you of January 8, 1991, some of the tables and fieures were incorrectly ret~renced. We have corrected these digcrepanci<ls, and a copy of th<l revised letter is attached. This information has also b<:<:n forward to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. W<: apologize for any inconvenienc<:, and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you . have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, t:J,~ /h. tf!--~}. WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910011 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates ~ j 1991 -'.""-~ ;":'ii :.J:~ '~l .;.-:.: ..:..~, January 8, 1991 2'::,'::: ~r:.~4 D E. . A. unn ngmeenng ssoclates ConSUlting Enome6rs 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach. N.Y. 11978 516.288-2480 Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. BolC 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board; We have received the Traffic Impact Study Review performed for the Town by Cramer, Voorhis aI1d Associates regardiI1g the above project, and your letter to Mr. Henry Raynor requesting that we respond to three issues raised in the review. Our responses to these comments are as follows: CommeI1t: ~ponse: Comment: Response: "Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a ma'rimum pass. by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated." Trips generated by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant have been recalculated using a pass-by credit of 50%. This information is contained in Table 1. We do, however, continue to support the 70% fi/,'Ure used in the study, in light of the fact that it is the result of a study with the largest available data base and that the study was restricted to McDonald's patrons only. "TIle analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if neCt!ssary." TIlt: analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed as follows: 1) Assuming ,that the: \Ves~erly !imit o~ ~he drawing. area for the proposed McDonald:\ Restaurant lS a lme eqUIdistant from tile proposed facility and the existing McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead, and that the easterly limit -...... ]~,: 1 O'~ '.'='1 10::; :::'U- -,: illll "I", -",...-....,;" J" . _.. ... -, ."'. ' C"T": - .1.'- ..:..=-.::' .:::...;.... . 1"- VEHICLES PER HOUR WEEJ(JlAY SATURDAT AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Ent~r Exit .Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter E.lt Projected Site DriYe~iY Vcl~~~ 34 34 236 235 64 63 l1S 115 . Driveway Volume That will B. I Pa$s.Sy Vehicles 17 17 118 118 32 31 57 57 Net ~ew Traffic on ~diac~nt 17 17 118 117 32 32 58 58 Streets TABLE 1 SITE'GENERATED TRAFFIC SUMMARY PROPOSED "<DONALD'S' MAIIITUCK SOX PASS-BY CREDIT ..~.....~ .''-'1 f U:' L'_.'I';' -"'.'. ~ -- ~~.:......... . January 8, 1991 Page 3 We trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineering aspects of the above project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, ;.J ?-t:r--..A y<-'-"'/ ). , WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910004 cc; Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's ....~ ....~,.~ Jr:;ii O'j "jl 1'::: ~;w ['Uii;j Elll:;rr.';l!..; ::.1':, ":'::.3 ..:~...:~ . P.:. 12 January 8, 1991 Page 2 is the ea~tern Southhold "census designated place" border, (see Figure 1) then 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 2). Therefore, 80% 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). 2) 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 t.he east and continue thdr trip to the west after leaving the McDonald's. This information is presented in Figure 2. 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 50% pass-by credit is applied instead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 66%, as shoVwn on Figure 3. In order to examine a scenario under which the left turn movement out of the site is at a maximum, the pass-by trip pattern for all four peak hours was determined. Table 3 shows that, during the weekday A.M. peak hour, the pass-by trips pattern becomes 54% from tht: east to the west and 46% from the west to the east, which would represent the greatest percentage of left turns out of the site. Although the northbound to westbound left turn component leaving the site increases. in terms of percentage the volume is such tltat no adverse impact will occur, since site generated traffic is significantly lower during the A.M. peak hour. It should be noted that in compiling the information for this letter, it was found that this logic was not applied to entering trips, as it should have been. Tnis omission Itas been corrected in all further analysis. Comment: "The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass- by credit and directional db tributjon. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review.1t Response: The unsignalized intersection capacity analy:lls has been revised to reflect the above adjustment and the results are conlllined in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, no adverse traffic impact occurs with tlle new analysis. A copy of the analysis is enclosed. '-< I: CJ 'l.' PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN '[I ,.. ~~ __~ _ _80~1'!.. 20%..!N _ : I __ SO%..PEl "'- 'i. I I ( 'i I: 1-- Fl] 46% OUT 46% IN :" r'.1 - - -- S4%IN -- ---. 54% OUT ~..::1 ':- !:! .;, ,--, PRIMARY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80x.50 = .40 = 40% FROM WEST TO WEST .20x.50 = .10 = 10% PASS-BY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46 x .50 = .23 = 23% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54 x .50 = .27 = 27% .1 ,;. "I , " [., I-I' (u I" ':1 J. J. FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITltiG -----, .- I r , FROM WEST FROId EAST TO WEST TO EAST eo 10% 40% 10% 40% ~27% +23% ~23% +27% 37% 63% 33'lb 67% T ,-- Co l FIGURE 3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY = 50% ~ r.. ::Hfl . ~_ I 1 :'.: ~:: ~ ') i( ( .. . I;. I _'" ~,;_,,;i 1 " r=;;_,!,iIC:.:"...-. " I .,' . --:.=, .:.:-~..... t/l '" W ... U 0 :3 ~ a. Vl lil ~ ~ ~ "l Z ~" lC::l S2 9u8g...~~ t/l 0 - ;.. w .. ;.. W:t2:1:_a:W= C !;~E~~~~ ~ ~ ll. ...: u) ,..: t/l '.t .. rt'lC'i ffi u ~ I)~ r;.., \_~.. ~ ','! /,"... I <:> ", .:' I ~ . . h-\. ,,{ -. ~ ,~., ,J. \ ' '~ :, ;', : :,"0 . U,r ~ ' "(/1 1 ,," I .} ......... . I, . i. :.-'.'1 ",'/1' ~:..' \, , '.' ::;---:::. '. 1)< J ..,J ).:.:\.. " '!, ..... .... ....' \(,) I ..... "I . . .... (1.(." ". , ' \ , ..-r--.,.' -' . , , )". 1'1 I , ' : l'p ',. " ''''..: " . ,'. " , , .: 1".1.,'4 ....., Ii'" " "I:'! ."..",. ! . "".\ '. '1"(""." ',," i.;I , " . '.. I.. '" . "'. " . '. \ ' '1"" ,. "..... < " . ',. ( " ' -' . """'. . . \ \ " '\'1 ( ", )1", ,., .. '" J' " ',' , \ \' '1\ . " '., ", v') " , . I .! '. r---)~','~.{'.i:""";".',.' \ _ y<",,', ) ,.:.~ "':'j , .. '. /'),: ., 1.'-" ,I. Ii..:... , ',,, I." -, \ I / ' ." . " ", /___ '\ < !:: /~1 /(. ~, '.;'g ~ \~,J'''';''' i;' '~) ~.\ ~ · .~ J j.. I,. _ '. I., , - -". :.:, 2 '1\ ,",.,"', , { ~,. " -. "-,. "" I , ~ ~ '" \"" \ .. ....... ,," ", ,,'" ...... \ j "'\ z Uj \, ,r'tZ\.,", ", "'l":';~"k:'t-r"".'i 3: I- \\}o. J~' 'i,\:. .. . , ('. "":-,' I .I" ........,: II <>: t/l . . ': '. '" , ., . J' ".. \ a:< ""''0..;....,. (':'/", \~:I";~,.i.'"I; Q W '''0 ''',..' J' '.. ". .c 'i(?' 'f",' .. \,~' \j~ j ;/. III 1 . -J~"i .lCl '., _ ..\ ::l J .-: 1;; : .!:! ,\1" I (,j' i \,1 'g 'J--" ','..)/' Q" ~ r I CQ \ w.... ~ , (, 1 "< \ I ~ ~ , Cl / I -t..) I I '1, , "'" ; I /..~\ () @, i"..., :'1.. /...., '. "'" \ """'. I ". . J ~ \} .;" '1' , * '. '" , ~ II@)' .... .....'.i ',1, \ I ~,'.!:: "I " Ii) I '.'.:'...... .; ...~ -<:: (. \ ~ ':'"~''''' ...\ ,<I) t, '<B"~-"'\-$:,~, .: 1\ !~"., ./,' 1';-""":"" \1 ....... "'.' '-"" ,. I . .. ,- . ," \., ""'. ", I).".' "..1 ." .' \ /, " r",. . '. "" '. I ' I::,: r' "., '. .' " .'j . ~ J I . .'. '. :J.,">., .>lr ' ..: .' f:::, , .. :~.", ' ,..,\) 'r t, , .. ./, '. " I ).. "/'., , ", '\ ~ .;' i' \\1 I I \ "./ I " J j . ~ ... '.~ M I 1...... ,. ; /',"', I;. I .',.:;. · .., .! I .. . _f") \/;....~::.<;.i.,1 !;~~...I:)1 ' '. 11 " >,. r.. (I. _ i ", ,l '. ~~~ . ,.\ ~ .' "" '0,: "" \, 1C' "'" :,;,.1/ '(""\''-.''1 ) '., ., ...a ' " .. . ,',. ' \' Cu ' . . ',,,).. '" \ ' \11"':';""" q", ( : ". ;., ) ", "fi I~ "~ ' f f ./' <:i', I , ., 1,.(' ....~ \ . . J "( "" I ' "J. "v'.' 'I' ' ,,\....~..,', I :....~ 'I <"} . t .' I\" .:': r I:: . ) .f,. ".:;; \' '", '" ::, <:> VI '0 '"' .<> :!!1 ,:' . t. .~'~. "" ,> ll.i' ~ I I " I \: '. .. " i { I (J) 9 <( z o Q u ::l: Q LU t/l o c.. o IX c.. rl- ~:e ~::J "z zffi -... ~f:J Q~ t/l o ...I < Z o Q '" :i " z r: Ul t;j /,'"; , '.:,;. / "0 <0 .Q.l.. ".:c. ... Q.l > .;:: ! J ,.." ~I . , \ . '" ,. . ". (I- " ; i J r (j ., " , " " '- '\".. ,&~ ~," .. ,""""'&." ~,.,~..... .;-:"::~... i t. :'~-f cn Q <...J w< a:Z ,... <g WC)(J 0:: Z::: ::>- S2 ~ fil u-o;:cn 00 c. o a: a. ~;";"'''''''''.'''- Ji~: i ~=:'=' ~. - :.~=! I '~, ['<';~i.' ~... -,:':"-' -:-~~ .- :- .~. L':' January 8, 1991 Page 3 We trust that this addresses an)' concerns you ha\'e regarding traffic engineering aspects of the above project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMDlbf P90055 L910004 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Jud)' Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's -'" JHr~ .=1:' .;1::-.:;1 [U:lfj E:it'~l. -':~, ,-'-'-' ..:. ."ooj'" . TO EAST TO WEST Peconic - Southold - Cutchogue - Mattituck (80%) Laurel (10%) - 1309 5540 3082 - 3553 113 13,597 Mattituck (20%) - 889 Laurel (90%) - 1015 Northville (20%) - 686 Jamesport (70%) - ~ 3427 TABLE 2 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED McDONALD'S MATTI TUCK '-. ._'---".-."~ --....~,. ..... I: D 'J.' PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN 'f.' ~ 20% Oln --- 80% IN ----- ~ 1'1 46% om 46% IN lU ,. 20~'L " I . I , 80% OlfT /--- ( I -S4%IH- - ----.. \ I 54% OUT t , \ I '.... r,;:' ':.. ~~ '>' ~ PRIIdARY TRIPS=30% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80..30 = .24 = 24% FROM WEST TO WEST = 20% .20. .30 = .06 = 06% PASS-BY TRIPS =70% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46..70 = .322 = 32% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54 ..70 = .378 = 38% .: \ -- '>' ,.'1 ,. 0, f., If: ((I :~ ;: FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING -. t I r FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST 6% 24% 6% 24% +38% +32% +32% +3.9% 44'l(, 56'l(, 38% 62% . , \ I I ~J '11 FIGURE 2 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY = 70% ,. r.. J":'; j J? _... l:::.:~ ,- '~," ,-", -. .:-,-- ",_""t.",_",.", ":,--"'~ ::.:1 l"'::' :',;.''':, . TIME DIRECTION FROM WEST FROM EAST AM Peak Hour 46% 54% Midday Peak Hour :4% 46% PM Peak Hour 56% 44% Saturday Peak Hour 52% 48% TABLE 3 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PATTERNS ROUTE 25, MATTITUCK . ~,-. .-"'~-- JHil C]'~ "~l 1 ,=.: ~'2 ['UfUj EII';:.-'TI';" " .::....;....j. r-', __ 12. . LOCATlOII TIMe 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO'BUILD BUILD Route 2S At f'dctCry A.M. A A a Avenue/Sigsbee Rood IUD. a C C P.M. C C C SAT. E E E Route 25 DC ar.y A.M. I a a Avenue MID. C C C P.M. C C C SAT. Route 25 at Laurel A.M. A A A Lake Drive MID. D 0 0 P.M. A A A SAT. 0 0 0 Route 25 at "'estern A.M. A Site DrJ~eway (enter MID. A Only) P.M. NIA NIA A SAT. I Rout. 25 .c fa.tern A.M. 0 Site Orivew~y (E~jt MID. E Only) P.M. NIA NIA E SAT. E N/A. Not applicable. r AILE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED MCDOIIALD'S MA1TITUC~ ..r._:..... ., '~~ '>~L . -,r ~,' __ "... .....,'..~ 1'-' ,( ^ ..... ..,' ,.,~ ;-" "\. . . ~~z' /,,~ ('... .....'-.l. .! ~~~. , ..1[, ,:-~,(; ,";: ~, i'tJ) ~\ Y'-~T' ~.- ~ .. ..~" '.>i'" ~. ...\.....--;' ')I, '- J. - ,', ' .~, ',' 'ftJ{ :~ .~o ~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr, Richard G. Ward Mark S, McDonald 'Kenneth L. Edwards seOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 5, 1991 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTM#100Q-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, February 4, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a conditional Negative Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Very truly yours, "--r ~/7/ /1' fl-::nbP' t <"i.~/tJd1,:; f . Bennett Orlowski, Jr. -fr'f Chairman Encl. . ...~~ /...--:L.;~; :;_'__~.. ./i. ::2'1~""~~:"'~,<~, .: = :\,-. . ..;;, '= \1 ..., '--. .,..--.., _:~ V) _'- ~.~'.:.. -:.-. .':. .~....;, ~ - ;)1'. '- .. ................1, .....~', '~'. ~'^I "' ......o,~.. -"- '1 ':'l I' ~" ',F . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOlT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 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 SCTMlI: 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 th&t 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. -~~-..L: ('~ jYJ .::.~~/ -'>-0.- vJi~'1l\lFfOLk ~~, Y~.a.~, ,,)~ ., ~-\>. YJ...': 11.0 -~):) liS I> ~,) IJ <n t.. """ ~ ~ IPS ~t~ '\llO ~~A' ~,... 'O..{ ."4. .,.~. .Y ~:>-_ ~.r r .j)-. .>'~--Qn:-~J'JP' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scorr L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 January 24, 1992 Charles R. Cuddy 180 Old Country Road P.O.Box 1547 Riverhead, New York 11901 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, N.Y. SCTM ~ 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Cuddy: This 16, 1992. direction is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of January The file will be kept open pending further written from you. If your client intends to proceed with an application, please understand that unless the McDonald's Corporation authorizes you to proceed with their drawings, a new fee may be required to cover our review of new drawings. If there are any questions, please speak with Ms. Scopaz. Sincerely, ~~/9~~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. . Chairman cc: Peter R. Mineo, Esq. for McDonald's Corporation /. ------.-----...--. .,...--,--"..- f . $/.-/6fi LC fb ~K 7b Jb'1 11t D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, liBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, LAURINO S CARLINO ARMAND P. D'AMATO JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI LOUIS D. tAURINO JACK L L1BERT* DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLINO PETER ALPERT ANTON ,. BOROVINA SAMUEL YEDlo WAkREN 5. ARTHUR MARJORIE E. BORNES ROBERT M. CIPRIANO WILLIAM A. olCONZA THOMAS V. PANTELlS VINCENT J. PIZZULU, JR. COUNSElORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 (516) 248-1700 TELECOPIER: (516) 248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER COOPER *ALSO MEMBER OF PA i CO MRS January 17, 1992 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Attention: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman RE: McDonald's Restaurant - Mattituck, New York SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I am in receipt of your letter to me dated January 13, 1992 inquiring whether McDonald's proposes to continue with the above-described application. Please be advised that McDonald's does not intend to proceed with its application for a quick-service restaurant. You should take note, however, that the Board of Zoning Appeals at page two of its December 16, 1991 decision specifically found that CoFam Realty, the owner of the premises, and not McDonald's, was the proper applicant. Accordingly, I recommend that you also contact CoFam regarding its plans for a restaurant at the premises. I would like to thank the Planning Board and the members of its staff for all their time and efforts. Va~y~O~ PETER R. MIN .... ~OO~O\'IJ~ @ 0 A .M 2 I 1992 ==~ PRM/cg cc: Wayne Bender, Esq. Ernest Annibale CoFam Realty .- . GHARLES R. GunDY ATTORNEY AT LAw 180 OLD CoUNTRY ROAD (RTE. 58) Po O. BOX 11S47 RIVERHEAD. NY 11901 A.DJAOENT TO KOTOH VEHICLE DEPARTMENT January 16, 1992 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Post Office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan (McDonald's Restaurant), Mattituck SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Board Members: $JdFiLE" Pb 1/3 17f JM j(K. V5 ~(&16)36~e~ FAX: (1516) 36e.9080 I represent Cofam Realty Company, the owner of the above parcel. The owner, as the party ultimately affected by the application, may wish to proceed further with the site plan, and therefore request is made to keep the file open until further written notice from Cofam Realty Company. We ask that you mark your file accordingly. Very truly yours, C:=:R~U~ CRC: jme VIA FACSIMILE & REGULAR MAIL 516-765-1823 ill rn@ffiOW~ (. ;i, ;;;:J .. 11 1992 l.Si j 1}:- I '{-=~-- T .t 'hl - 1 f-:.-" .-=-. , ; -j ,_, 1 ~ h .:>_ 1'- I .,;..~ F .-=-: ,~~ ....J .~j -'_'" r.:-= '::.. 1.:"_' _ je:. ~ ;;~1:::2. r . SfAbFit.E" I'b ;(K LiS Il3 21311- CRAIU.ES R. CUDDY ATTO:a>aCY AT LAW 180 OI.D COtlN',::ay ROAD (RT:e:, D8) P. 0, ,",OX '.....7 RIYJUUUtAD. NY 11901 ltJ)rj^o.v...~T TO KOTon VWllGL.Lt DUPAR'lw.ll..'tT 17+ TltLl lOl e. tltJ,o-e::QQ PA.X: fl'\!....III.U)o{K]e,O January 16, 1992 Town of Southold Planning Board 53095 Main Road Post office Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan (McDonal.1' 5 Restaurant), Mattituclt: SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Board Members: I represent Cofaro Rea 1 ty CO:'lpany, the owner of the above parcel. The owner, as the party ultimately affected by the appl1cation, mll.~' wish to proceed further with the aite plan, and therefore request is made to kee;) the fi Ie open until further written notice from Cofam Realty Company. We ask that you mark your file accordingly. Very truly yours, c!/..-L A~ 6l.v Charles R. Cuddy 0 CRC. jme VIA FACSIMILE & REGULAR MAIL 516-765-1a23 ~// "'~'w;...~ r , \.- Y f'O "c i.U '.'" r l" "" 'v ~ \)u '1 f') '1~, ,yl-' ~'vV (",c2 \~ ..'......-..~ ~:-, ':vf';::;'" ~\t/i .:~ .....c.:..' Q - "" . t, ~ ~" ~*,~\,I~~~L:"; "i.?{ 1 '!o . ~ PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards \',' SCOTI' L HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soutllold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 January 13, 1992 Peter R. Mineo, Esq. D'l>Jnato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, New York SCTM * 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Mineo: The Planning Board has received a copy of the Zoning Board's decision on your application. If you wish to proceed with your application, please send six copies of a revised site plan from which the site and building elements for the drive-through window have been deleted, and to which the specific elements required by the Zoning Board of Appeals have been added. If you decide not to pursue this application further, please notify us in writing so that we may close the file. If there are any questions, please contact Valerie Scopaz of this office. Z~L Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman VS/vs cc: William DiConza, Esq. Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent (IP! v ( . ZJ..:::J :.~;"'R'1 OF APPEALS , ::,'N H.\lL t.:'. .' .. [,;'.0 . S. R. 25 SO" lliULD, N.Y-119ZJl, .. ~FtLJ;' January 13, 1992 To: Valerie Scopaz From: Linda Kowalski.~ Re: Fast-Food Restaurant - CoFam Realty (OWner/Applicant) Per your inquiry of today, please find attached a copy of the June 7, 1991 correspondence from Ernest Annibale transmitting the site plan map on file with the ZBA office lastly revised on June 5, 1991 and received on June 7, 1991. You will note that the original date on the preliminary plan was April 19, 1991, and extra prints were provided for the ZBA members consideration as date-stamped by Mr. Fellman's Office November 21, 1991 for future use. As you know, revisions to the map will be necessary to show compliance with the ZBA's conditions concerning emergency access, etc. before final Planning Board approval may be considered. rn m&mow~ ~N I 3 1992 m OLD TOWN !'LANNING BOARD . ~ ( l PLANNING BOARD DEC~ 17, 1991 ~ . 10 Sherry Johnson: North Fork Environmental Council - You just adopted a resolution declaring yourself as lead agency for McDonalds application? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Ms. Johnson: Can I ask, since I am new to the Southold way of doing things could you perhaps clarify me when you will be determining significance on this? Mr. Orlowski: First we will have to twenty days so within that 20 days. meeting. Ms. Jo~nson: So by the next meeting you will be making a decision. review it. We have Probably by the next Mr. Orlowski: A determination. Ms. Johnson: O.K., I would like to urge you to please consider giving it a positive declaration for the reasons that I stated. I believe you all received a copy of my letter and I would like to request that you give it a positive declaration and require the narrowly scoped impact statement that North Fork Environmental Council requested. Thank you. Mr. McDonald: I read your letter and I was wondering if you have any basis? You are asking us to make it a positive declaration, this is an unlisted action. I read your letter as I said and it stated some things in general terms, in terms of the traffic impact and the impact of trash. The way it is phased in the letter these are only value judgements that you have in the letter in your opinion. Do you have any evidence or any factual data that you could forward to us that would substantiate the claim that you are making. Ms. Johnson: At this time, not really, only from a traffic study. It indicated that it could add a large number of cars to the intersections. We feel that needs more research. Mr. McDonald: Let me just suggest if you have something subsitive, if you could put it in writing and get it to us I would appreciate that. Ms. Johnson: O.K. fine, thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., anyone else have any questions? Mr. Warren Goldstein: I am the executive director of the North Fork Environmental Council and I just wanted to follow just a little bit further about what Mark McDonald was asking my associate Sherry Johnson. Mark, would it help if we do a full analysis of the traffic study as well because the traffic study that was submitted as part of the application is not only in ( ( (. PLANNING BOARD 11 DEC~R 17, 1991 . general terms inadequate it is probably in specific demonstrable terms inadequate as well. Would you like to see that in writing as well? Mr. McDonald: I think if you have objections, you need to be qualitative but you need to be quantitative as well. It is simply a comment that you are in opposition because of the traffic problems. It would be helpful for me if you had specific problems about technical points that you bring them forward. It is very difficult if people have problems and just say I don't like the looks of it or I don't have a good feeling about it. In the SEQRA process it doesn't have much bearing. I cannot tell you if you have problems how to approach it, I'm just saying I'm going to make decisions based on factual evidence presented into the record, not on people saying well, I kind of like it, I kind of don't like it. It is not a popularity contest. How may people like it and how many people don't like it. If you have problems with it, under the category justified in SEQRA make them so you can bring those forward. Mr. Goldstein: I think that is precisely the kind of process we have begun. I am not sure that people fUlly understand, I am not sure if the board is aware or if all the boards had the opportunity to read the letter that was forwarded to the board by my associate Ms. Johnson. I don't think that the specific citations from the SEQRA law add up to we kind of don't like it. Mr. McDonald: I am not trying to apply that, I'm just trying to show you that there are two ends of the stick. Mr. Goldstein: And we don't purport to be on either end of the stick. We purport to be solidly in the middle of community character and our argument about traffic for instance is not that we think that there will be more cars, it is that the very foundations of the study, in quotation marks, which as presented to the board are inadequate for that study so that when we argue that a full study of traffic impact needs to be made we are saying that just simply transposing something that happened in Riverhead or an analysis of Riverhead traffic patterns to Mattituck is inadequate. We think that that is actually hardheaded, that actually deals with the technical assumptions underlying that study and argue therefore that when this makes a determination having to do with taking into account traffic in Mattituck that it needs a study that actually has a firm foundation. In fact, as opposed to what struck me as sloppy sociology to start with, in technical terms simply transposing numbers. There are a number of other areas that I think need to be addressed in terms of that study, distribution of questionnaires at windows in the McDonalds in Riverhead strikes me as another woefully inadequate way of conducting a study and finally the actual numbers that are used would raise the eyebrows of anyone that read it carefully. It seemed to be saying in fact that the addition of the drive- thru window might increase traffic by forty-six cars over the course of 4000 . ,',,,,-"-,.'C;,.."'. . (" (' (. . PLANNING BOARD 12 DECE~ 17, 1991 . customers to McDonalds which strikes me also technically, mathematically almost impossible. There are additional things that we would have problems with and I'm happy to bring them to the board's attention. Mr. McDonald: That would go through on a case by case basis? I would go through on a case by case basis every line, every problem. On every problem you see and on every line on the report, I would rather see that than a one page letter saying that it is woefully inadequate. Do you understand what I am saying? Mr. Goldstein: I think I do. Mr. McDonald: I would much rather see that point by point. When you say this is stupid, this line is stupid because, then I can get a hold of that and go ah, yes. Mr. Goldstein: Well, it will be our pleasure I suppose to give you precisely that kind of a analysis of a document which seems to me fundamentally irrelevant to the problem but we would be delighted to do that if that will assist the board in its determinations. I'm wondering along the same lines since one of the things we've argued at some length and continue to argue is that community character is not an easily quantifiable thing, it is something that has a kind of qualitated feel to it and I'm sure that is something that you folks struggle with on an extremely regular basis but one of the things that does effect the character of the community this way as kinds of businesses come into it setting precedence for businesses quite like that and that is a point that we made in our letter. It seems to me that it is worthy of consideration and it also seems to me worthy of consideration whether or not this will add or detract from the character of the town that you serve and that we all would like to see preserved in some recognizable form so I think that we will probably mix qualitated judgements along with quantitative analysis but I think qualitative analysis of the character of Southold Town is abSOlutely essential in figuring out whether or not to give this a positive or negative declaration. We would argue on qualitated as well as technical grounds that it deserves a positive declaration, that it requires that narrowly scoped impact study that Sherry talked about. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you. Any other questions this evening. Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I didn't realize this was going to be a hearing but on behalf of McDonalds Corporation, I will completely stand behind the engineer's report. Mr. Dunn has had many, many reports before this board and is know nationally for several of his studies. As to community character, I'm not sure that has any bearing in reference to SEQRA. As speaking generally and not prepared to have any comments because I did not see this listed as a public hearing, I, would certainly think '..-,..........;;....~' . . . PLANNING BOARD . 13 DECE~ 17, 1991 that the mitigating circumstances that have been presented would cause the board to come up with an unlisted action to a negative declaration. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: This is not a public hearing, I am just asking if anyone has any comments. It is Christmas and I want to be nice. Anyone else have any questions or comments on anything? It doesn't have to be MCDonalds, and it isn't a public hearing Bruce Issacs from Cutchogue - I am not an expert at all in SEQRA but I was just wondering. It seems to me that this will set a precedent for more fast foods coming into this area and so therefore it will have an environmental impact on the rural quality of our town and what would it hurt to examine this in more depth? I mean, who is going to get hurt by asking for more in depth environmental impacted study. Could someone give me an answer to that one. Why does it hurt to look at it carefully rather than say ah, no problem. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I can assure you that we will look at it very carefully. Mr. Issacs: Isn't that what SEQRA provides for? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Issacs: But if you give it a negative declaration then essentially that part is over with. Mr. Orlowski: But, what information will be provided to us by other sources we will review very carefully. Mr. Issacs: O.K., thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else? Hearing nothing, I will make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald.. Mr. Orlowski: So ordered. Mr. Bitses: May I address the board? Mr. Orlowski: We adjourned but go ahead. Mr. Bitses: I spoke to the Town Attorney because I received a letter from you indicating that you have examined my covenants and restrictions and in the letter is a copy of the covenants and restrictions that you have examined which were dated June, ..:.a.-. ,fJ_l):efr:, d . t ( "'~ .>-:-:-: :;ilL' "-(_'n,,, . . '-"",. ^ "" ,...,' I""'~ ' ':-.... ......;.: .." ....:</ ~ '::IJ! '~.....; {;........'...~...~.. 1:=::l1 <', 1;J.: ,,' ,.,.. ,.u1 ,~ "" ;:- .~ """ '''''' . , ''''''''''c-'''' ~. . '. ~?1IJ~i ~:j& t.:O~\ ( ., 5u6(ILE Pb IfS APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Charle. Grigoni., Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Vi 11 a Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 January 3, 1992 ' Peter R. Mineo, Esq. D'Amato, Forche11i, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineo1a Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mineola, NY 11501 Re: Appl. No. 3970 - CoFaro Realty (Fast-Food Restaurant) Dear Mr. Mineo: Attached please find a copy of the Board's findings and determination in the above matter. Please be sure to return to the Planning Board, Building Inspector, and other agencies for approvals or updates in this project before commencing any construction activities. Also, it should be noted that our office will reauire one original sit~ plan print for review. acauiescence and permanent record-keening prior to the P1annina Board Chairman's sianina or stamninq 'approval of the site nlan. / Very truly yours, ~~. Linda Kowalski Enclosure Copies of Decision to: Mr. Stanley Cohen, President CoFaro Realty 4623A Sunrise Highway Bohemia, NY 11716 Suffolk County Department of Planning ill m&1I0W~ 00 JAN - 6 1992 SOUTH OLD TOWN PlANNING ~gMiQ ( , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chainnan Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. './..~ .r"'. ..;...." ,',,' ....... . ...."...", /........~ ., . ~/{J: .~:.,",; ....-.~ ;.'..::..~ .~fC....I",..\ .... ~ ";::l :"'t'~;,. ,..,., ..,....., .~t.'. ~ \""3>.";:1!" , ~'. ",' '<~'IJ' ,\......~ -' '1") ':~ ( , .' scon L. HARRIS Supervisor James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Vi 11 a Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main R.... P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 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, AprilS, 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/or 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 McDonalds 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 ( 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 100-91A(7) - Hamlet Business (b) per Section 100-10lA(2) - General B Business (c) per Section 100-B1A(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 drive-in facility as defined in our zoning code. The inside counter service which is the norm 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 " Restaurant and the second being a "drive-thru/drive-up" -. , c' . ( 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 under Article X, Section lOO-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. 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 lOO-264A). . . , Page 6 - Appl. S:. 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 ( lOO-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. GOEH~INGER,~HAIRMAN Y RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOViN CLERK DATE / )3)1d-- HOUR 9."1)//j.Af. ~~~~~ ~ ~own Clerk, Town of So Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigoois, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 .- --SM6P,:'& SCOTT L. HAR~ Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUrnOLD INTER-DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Supervisor's Office ~own Clerk's Office ~Planning Board Office Board of Appeals ~ Attention: Linda Kowalski(y FROM: DATE: November 23, 1991 SUBJECT: Proposed Fast Food Restaurant at Mattituck Please forward to our office copies of any and all correspondence which may have been routed through your office concerning zoning and planning issues as they relate to fast-food restaurants proposal(s) in the Town of Southold. We have been advised that many persons who sent the letters were not aware that an application was also going to be pending with the Board of Appeals. As a courtesy to all concerned, we have agreed to request copies of any and all such letters and petitions. GG:lk ~ :.,.,- , .~ sut3RtF I'~ D'AMATO. FORCHELLI. liBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO. LAURINO S CARLINO ARMAND P. D'AMATO JEFFREY O. FORCHELLl LOUIS D. LAURINO lACK. L UBER-r- DONALD JAr SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLINO PEtER ALPERT ANTON J. BOROVINA SAMUEL YEDID WAkREN 5. ARTHUR MARJORIE E. BORNES ROBERT M. CIPRIANO WILLIAM A. DICONZA THOMAS V. PANTELlS VINCENT ). PIZZULLI, JR. COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINtOLA BOULEVARD P. '0. BOX 31 MINEOLA. NEW YORK 11501 (516) 248-1700 TELECOPIER: (516) 248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER COOPER November 12, 1991 -ALSO MEMIER OF P^ a co M-.s Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 RE: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: I have just read Jack Nasca's letter to you dated October 23, 1991 and it is appropriate at this time to respond to your letters to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") and Henry Raynor, dated October 3, 1991 and October 17, 1991, respectively. In your letter to DEC you stated that the Board of Appeals would not conduct a final public hearing or decide the application until DEC responded to the request for intervention. Since DEC has promptly responded to that request there is now no reason why the final hearing should not be concluded on November 21st. The letter to Henry Raynor requested additional information regarding the elements of the site plan and solid waste generation and disposal. It further stated that: ill t<<lY I 3 1991 .r~".\ !""." ! I r, I- IIi! ~ mr;m~w~ SOUTHOlO TOWN PlANNING BOARO "'~ '- ~ D'AMATO, FORCHELU. LIBERT. SCHWARTZ. MINEO ~JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSE LORS AT LAW Page Two November 12, 1991 It is hoped that this information will be made available at or prior to the next hearing in the Special Exception record. (emphasis supplied) As will be demonstrated in the following sections of this letter the Board of Appeals has more than sufficient information on the issue of solid waste for it to make a decision on the application for a special exception permit. Site Plan Elements The Board of Appeals described its concerns about the design of the site in its memorandum to the Planning Board dated April 10, 1991. The following comments in that memorandum essentially reiterated those made by members of the Board of Appeals at a prior public hearing: The drive-through facility as laid out negatively impacts on-site circulation, access and pedestrian safety. Pedestrian access to the building should not cross drive-through lanes. The effects of Pedestrian accessibility to the building during maximum stacking of cars should be evaluated in depth. Also, multiple access points presently exist at the Rtverhead (C.R. 58) building -- and the floor plan layout of this proposed building has not yet been confirmed in the record as relates to the proposed site plan layout. Personal experiences have shown that stacking of cars on-site have created traffic jams and other on-site hazards. On June 7, 1991, McDonald's simultaneously submitted to the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals an amended site plan that addressed the aforementioned concerns of the Board of Appeals, particularly the location of the stack-up lane for the drive-thru window. By memorandum to the Board of Appeals dated July 12, 1991, the Planning Board stated: ~ , ~ D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ. MINEO MJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Three November 12, 1991 The Planning Board is commenting on the revised plan under the assumption that the proposal and layout shown on the revised map will remain unchanged. Given this assumption, the Board finds this revised plan generally acceptable. The Board of Appeals has had the revised site plan since June 7, 1991. McDonald's has not received any comments on it from the Board of Appeals and, therefore, it is unaware of any additional information that is required. Based upon the Planning Board's general acceptance of the site plan, and the lack of comments from the Board of Appeals for five (5) months, McDonald's can only assume that the site plan that was revised to reflect the comments of the members of the Board of Appeals constitutes a direct response and proper documentation on that issue. Solid Waste The Board of Appeals' request for additional information regarding solid waste must be evaluated in light of the fact that the Board of Appeals has no role in the Town's solid waste management program. It is not the lead agency in the SEQRA process, invested with powers pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") Article 8 and 6 NYCRR Part 617 to make a determination whether there are any potential environmental impacts associated with the generation and disposal of solid waste and, if so, to require an EIS; that function has been performed by the Planning Board in accordance with a coordinated SEQRA review process that included the Board of Appeals. It is not an advisory body created by the Southo1d Town Board to study the issues of solid waste and to make recommendation for a solid waste management plan; that function was delegated to the Solid Waste Task Force. It is not the legislative body of Southold which has the authority, pursuant to ECL S27-0707, to formulate and implement a town-wide solid waste management plan; the Southo1d Town Board adopted such a plan in 1991. ~ , , DAMATO. FoRCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO MJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS ^T U.W Page FQur November 12, 1991 It is not a state agency with the power to order the Town's landfill to be permanently closed pursuant to ECL S27-0704 (Long Island Landfill Law); such an Order and Decision was issued by the Deputy Commissioner of DEC on September 4, 1991. Since the sole jurisdiction that the Board of Appeals has over this matter is by way of the approval of the application for a special exception permit it can only consider the issue of solid waste generation and disposal to the extent permitted by Southold Town Code SS100-264D & 0, which read as follows: D. The availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment, removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid gaseous or otherwise) that may be caused or created by or as a result of the use. * * * O. Whether adequate prov~s~on can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, sewage, refuse and other liquid, solid or gaseous waste which the proposed use will generate. Since" "the discretion of a board of zoning appeals in determining whether a special exception shall be granted is confined to the standards enacted to guide and limit the Board's power" Goldstein v. Board of Zoning Appeals of the Town of Hempstead, 113 Misc.2d 756 (N.C. Sup. Ct. 1982); see also Carlstein v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Union, 71 A.D.2d 768 (3rd Dept. 1979), once it has been demonstrated that the application complies with these standards the request for additional information about solid waste is unnecessary. By evaluating the information that has been provided to the Board of Appeals in light of its limited function pursuant to Southold Town Code SSlOO-264 D & 0, it is evident that it has all of the information necessary to make a decision on this application. .... , ~ D'AMATO. FoRCHELLI, LIBERT. SCHWARTZ. MINEO SJosEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Five November 12, 1991 The Board of Appeals is referred to my September 23, 1991 letter to the Planning Board where it was stated that pursuant to the Long Island Landfill Law the Town of Southold was no longer entitled to use its landfill, and that any objection to the proposed McDonald's on the ground that it would consume a disproportionate amount of landfill space was factually and legally invalid. Attached to the letter was the DEC's Decision and Order directing that the landfill be closed and Administrative Law Judge Buhrmaster's Hearing Report which was the basis for the Decision and Order. It was also pointed out in the September 23rd letter that if the Town implemented a new solid waste management plan, which did not include the use of its landfill, McDonald's would have to be included in that plan. For another view of the future of solid waste disposal in the Town, the Board of Appeals is referred to the letter of the Planning Board to me dated October 23, 1991 stating that it would not rescind the CND on the grounds that the Solid Waste Management Plan ("SWMP"I, which recommended the continuation and expansion of the landfill, outlined a number of methods reducing the solid waste stream "but does not mandate limits to the amount of garbage that may be generated by any commercial, industrial and institutional operation." The Planning Board's decision, which was based, in part, upon the SWMP and the report of the Solid Waste Task Force, also noted that "The Management Plan lacks a detailed inventory of the volume of waste generated monthly by commercial operations within the Town, it was not possible to compare whether McDonald's projected monthly volume was excessive." There will be adequate public or private facilities available for the disposal of McDonald's solid waste whether the landfill is closed pursuant to the DEC Decision and Order, or remains in operation under the Town's SWMP. In the former case, although the landfill will be closed the Town would have to implement a new method of solid waste disposal; in the latter case the Town's stated policy is to continue to operate the landfill and reduce the solid waste stream by a number of methods other than the limitation of the amount of solid waste that could be generated by a commercial operation. In either case there ... , , D'AMATO, FoRCHEW, UBERT, SCHWARTZ. MINEO MJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Six November 12, 1991 will be adequate prov~s~on for the disposal of solid waste from the proposed McDonald's and, therefore, any additional. information regarding solid waste is irrelevant to the Board of Appeals' consideration of the standards for a special exception permit contained in Southold Town Code S100-264. The only possible inconsistency in the record of this application is the discrepancy between the Board of Appeals' estimate of the amount of solid waste generated by a McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead (3,332 pounds per day) and landfill receipts that demonstrated the actual amount of solid waste that was brought to the Riverhead landfill from that restaurant (average of less than 800 pounds per day). Since the documentary evidence must take precedence over the Board of Appeals' estimate, the latter figure must be disregarded, thus eliminating any so-called inconsistency. Even if the gross figure of 800 pounds of solid waste per day was added to the 123 tons per day of solid waste that was deposited in the Southold Landfill in 1989*, this would constitute an insignificant increase of 1/3 of 1% of the average daily waste stream of the Town. As was stated by the Appellate * The proposed restaurant is projected to have an annual sales volume that is only 60% of the Riverhead restaurant. In addition, the 800 pounds per day figure does not take into consideration the recycling of cardboard. Furthermore, the trend is that the amount of solid waste brought to landfills is increasing annually. The 123 ton per day, therefore, which was a 1989 figure, has undoubtedly increased in the last two years, thereby decreasing the percentage of solid waste contributed by McDonald's to the Southold landfill. The fact that absolute amounts cannot be calculated does not affect the validity of the data that has been supplied to the Board of Appeals since even the EIS process, which is no less exacting than a review of an application for a special exception permit, does not mandate that there be scientific unanimity before an agency reaches a decision. Aldrich v. Pattison, 486 N.Y.S.2d 23. .... , , DAMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ. MINEO 8 JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Seven November 12, 1991 Division, Third Department in Morse v. Town of Gardiner, 563 N.Y.S.2d 922, such a minimal increase does not require further environmental review: An EIS need only address significant environmental impacts that can be reasonably anticipated and, contrary to their assertion, petitioners have not demonstrated that there is a solid waste crisis in the County, nor how a 34 lot subdivision could have other than a minimal impact ~ the ~ and County solid waste disposal system. (emphasis supplied) Even if there was a significant impact due to the amount of solid waste generated by the proposed McDonald's, this would not constitute the basis for denying the application. As stated in the September 23, 1991 letter to the Planning Board, at page 6: If the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals believed that the solid waste generated by McDonald's was quantitatively or qualitatively different than other solid waste, this would still not be a proper basis to deny the application~ either board would be entitled to impose conditions reasonably related to mitigating the adverse impacts of solid waste. [See Pluto's Retreat, Inc. v. Granito, 80 A.D.2d 899 (2nd Dept. 1981) ] My statement in that letter was consistent with the holding in Orchards Associates v. North Salem, 114 A.D.2d 850 (2nd Dept. 1985)~ app. dismd 67 N.Y.2d 717 (1986) where the court stated that: The provisions of SEQRA are not to be used as a subterfuge through which commercial development may be totally prohibited. (emphasis supplied) ,...." . )... , , DAMATO. FoRCHELLI. LIBERT. SCHWARTZ. MINEO MJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Eight November 12, 1991 The record of this application demonstrates that McDonald's has fully cooperated with the Board of Appeals by providing information about the zoning and environmental process in general, and all aspects of the proposed restaurant, in particularl the latter category includes a substantial amount of information regarding solid waste - more than enough to establish that there are adequate facilities available for its disposal. V~Y~.~ PETER R. MINEO PRM!cg cc: Southold Planning Board Wayne Bender, Esq. Ernest Annibale Judy Pascucci Henry Raynor . . ~ - 0I.A8R u::- Pi> _Lfs October 24, 1991 Mr. Thomas J. Jorling, Commissioner New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Yolf Road Albany, NY 12233 fD)1 m @ m n w m ~' U\1 . 28 . ,l!) .&',1- - ~ ll~',::-:' ,f r. Re: Mattituck Long Island, New York Proposed McDonald's Restaurant SEQR Determination File No: Nl-473800-00810 Dear Commissioner Jorling: On behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council (NFEC), I am providing you with the attachments listed below which pertain to the subject SEQRA determination. Ye believe there is considerable question as to the completeness of the supporting documents submitted for the project in the area of community impact as well as the important solid waste issues raised by Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals, Town of Southold, in his letter to you dated October 3, 1991 whic~ we fully support. Ye trust that you will also take into consideration the community impacts of the proposal in your response to the Town Board of Appeals. The cumulative impact of the proposal was simply ignored in the process to date and needs to be addressed. Respectively submitted: l::.A~o!- ~III Linda Fletcher \ Vice President NFEC MORT" FORK EMVIIlOMNDn'AL ~QUMClL , a nonprofit organization for the presen'ation of Ilmd, sea, air and quality of life Attachment 1 Attachment 2 Letter Callahan to Goldstein 6/14/91 Report NFEC to Planning Board and Board of Appeals - Submitted 7/26/91 ec: NYSDEC - Region 1 Southold Planning Board Southold Board of Appeals H. Raynor, Jr. Routt> 25 at Lol!e Lane PO &u: 799 Matt/tuck, N\' II (}S2 S/o_kJR.HHHO ~ ATTAC-,T 1 June 14, 1991 Mr. Varren Goldstein, Executive Director The North Fork Environmental Council Post Office Box 799 Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Mattituck, N.Y. Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Dear Mr. Goldstein: Subsequent to the April 5, 1991 Public Meeting at the Southold Town Hall on the referenced McDonald's proposal, on two separate occasions I reviewed the file on this matter. As you know I expressed previously to you and at the Public Meeting a concern that there appeared to be a flaw in the process wherein the cumulative impact of the proposal was not addressed. More specifically the concern focused on the fact that as demonstrated by representatives of the North Fork Environmental Council a serious potential does exist for the proliferation of fast food chain type restaurants triggered by the proposed McDonald's installation in Mattituck. Accordingly, given the obvious potential negative impact on the character of the entire North Fork, you would assume that in some way the proceeding leading up to the issuance of the Negative Declaration in accordance with the SEQRA process would have addressed the affect on the character of the community. In the course of researching the files, no mention was made of this substantial issue. In fact, Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, consultants to the Town of Southold in completing the draft Long Environmental Assessment Form for the project which became the basis for the issuance of the Negative Declaration actually checked "No" in response to Question #18 under Category "Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood" which asked "Vill proposed action affect the character of the existing community?" (see attached copy). Ironically, the response to Question #19 relating to likely public controversy was "Yes". Thus, given the above, it is my belief that the basis for the Negative Declaration proposed by Cramer, Voorhis.& Associates is not valid and the process should be revisited to appropriately consider the cumulative impacts as exhibited by significant potential changes to the character of the North Fork. E. 50-11 212th Street Bayside Hills, N.Y. 11364 718 631-1462 (home) 718 244-3661 (office) 516 734-5568 (home - summer) cc: Ms. Betty Brown, Pres. NFEC Ms. Linda Fletcher , , (~ " IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed action affect the charact<l of the existinl community! "'liNo DYES Eumplcs that would apply to column 2 ~ . The permanent population of the city, toy<n or villase in which the project is located is likely to srOY' by more than 5%. . . The municipal bud set for capital expenditures or operatinl services will increase by more than 5% per year u a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict Y<ith officially adopted plans or loals. " . Proposed action will cause a chanse in th<! density of land use. . Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existins facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e. I. schools, police and fire, etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment, . Other impacts: 1. 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mltlgated By Impact Impact Project Change I I 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes ONe 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 19. Is there, or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environmental impacts! controversy related to " DNO ~ES 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 C'. Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS ltesponsibility of Lead ^cency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impac1(s) is co....dered to be potentially tarle. even if the impact(s) may : mltl&at~. Instructions Discuss the followins for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: " 1. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitisated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chans~ 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 occurrins . 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 divell~ence from local needs and loals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) ~ ~ - ATTACHMENT 2 OBJECTIVES/INTENT The objectives of this report are to summarize in written form primary objections and concerns to the MacDonald's Corporation application/ File # Nl-473800-008l0. Actions to remediate these objections will also be suggested. Since part of the remedial actions can be carried out by the Southold Town Planning Board, the designated lead agency in this inquiry, this report will be submitted to them as well as to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. It is sincerely intended that these observations and remarks will be viewed as productive and helpful to those who are charged with the duties of deciding of Southold Town. both the long and short range future MOIl". FORK EMVIROUWDn'AL cquMCIL SUBMITTED TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD AND BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 26, 1991 a nonprofit organizatio" fortbe preserr'ation of land, sea. air and qua/it)' of life Routt' 2S at uJn! Lane PO BtJ.,. 799 .\laltiruc.:k, N\' 1/9i.J S/6-.]cJH-HHHO ~ , 1. Regarding the precedent setting nature of the application: Attached is a copy of part of the LEAF as required by SEQRA. Note that the response to question 1/48 is negative "No". The question asks if "The proposed action will affect the character of the existing community?". It is obvious from the public attention to this matter that, as far as participating Southold residents are concerned, the answer to this question is "Yes". In fact, the listings below the question 1118 offer the example below: * Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. There follows to the right of this entry categories by which an evaluation to this statrnent can be made. By answering "No" to the main question none of the following examples need apply. Such is not the case as was demonstrated and raised as a major issue time and again at the public hearings, public rallies and in the press. In that there presently exists in the Town of Southold no fast-food restaurant connected to a major chain such as MacDonald's (where a customer can eat in or take out the food) the construction of such a fast food restaurant would be precedent setting. Why? No one has ever seen just one restaurant of this sort (except perhaps in Moscow:). A chain of chain drive-in restaurants follows the birth of one. Open the phone book yellow pages - look up MacDonald's. Note the addresses. Look up Burger King - Note the addresses. Look up Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Roy Rogers, etc., etc., etc. The potential future of Southold Town is on display as you let your fingers do the walking. The identical address for these operations is obvious and legend. Information demonstrating the concentration of this type of operation as well as the potential for development in Southold Town was provided at the public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals on April 5, 1991. To correct this obvious error in response to question 1/18 a meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development should be required. ~ , 2. Regarding public controversy concerning this application: Refer to question #19 on the attached copy of the LEAF. The answer given to the question is "Yes". The question asks if there is public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. This answer is absolutely on target and the controversy continues. It remains to be resolved on several major topics as far as the public is concerned. These topics include traffic (both present and future), waste disposal, litter, noise, and loitering. The above list is not meant to be exclusive. The controversy referred to in the question needs to be addressed and resolved. The SEQRA process provides for public input and debate. The answer on the form acknowledges the controverSY4 This point requires a more in-depth investigation. Adverse environmental impacts need to be identified and reversed before proceeding. Public controversy demands resolution. ~ , 3. Regarding New York State Case Law - Suffolk County 1980-81: Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation v Cohalan 78 AD 2d 522 432 NYS 2d 25 (1980 2d Dept) aff 54 NY 2d 643, 442 NYS 2d, 506, 425 NE 2d 895 The facts of the case are these: The plaintiff, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation brought an Article 78 action against the defendant, Cohalan (Town of Islip Supervisor at the time). The defendant had denied a special permit to the plaintiff for a fast food restaurant (a MacDonald's). At the lower court the defendant lost the case but decided to appeal. At appeal the judgement was reversed and the defendant won. This judgement has also been affirmed. Below is a direct quotation taken from the memorandum by the Court of Appeals - (54 NY 2d 643 - New York Reports). "a severe traffic safety problem would be created by the unreasonable amount of turning movements that the facility would generate; the traffic carrying efficiency of the highway which was already one of the town's most congested roadways would be impaired; the facility would be among the most intensive commercial uses in terms of traffic using residential streets, noise, litter and loitering, and consequently would constitute a potential blight on adjacent residences thereby adversely affecting the neighbor's quality of life: the proximity of'the restaurant to residences would adversely affect their property values." There are many obvious similarities between this case and the situation on Route 25 in Mattituck. Route 25 is, indeed, one of the town's most congested roadways and its traffic carrying efficiency would be impaired. The proposed use would generate intensive use of residential streets for commercial purposes. Here too there would certainly be noise, litter and loitering resulting in a potential blight on adjacent residences and adversely affecting their quality of life as well as their property values. The proposed fast food restaurant is not compatible with the adjacent residential use. It is clear then that the courts have addressed this very issue in Suffolk County and that the decision has held thereby establishing a legal precedent which can be applied to the situation before you. - - CONCLUSION In conclusion we are asking for a more comprehensive review of key issues mentioned in this report. We also ask~that the present process be suspended until these areas of concern have been adequately addressed and resolved. We thank you for your consideration of these remarks and recommendations. Should you wish further clarification of this material please feel free to call us at your convenience. Submitted by, The North Fork Environmental Council 298-8880 Contact person: Linda Fletcher 323-3563 '. . ~ {- ,.", IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Will proposed action affect the character of the existin; communityl 'liNo DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 /' . The permanent population of the city. town or villaae in which the project is located is likely to arow by more than S%. . . The municipal budaet for capital expenditures or operatina services will increase by more than S% per year as a result of this project. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or aeals. . . Proposed action will cause a chanae in the density of land use. . Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existina facilities. structures or areas of historic importance to the community. . Development will create a demand for additional community services (e.ll. schools. police and fire. etc.) . Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. . Other impacts: 111 19. Is there. or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environ menta I impactsl It 1 2 3 8mallto Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large MItigated By Impact Impact Project Change I I i D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D D DYes DNo D 0 DYes DNo D D DYes DNo controversy related to DNO ~ES C'. 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 . . R~nslbility of lead Acency Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impac(s) is considered to be potentially Iarce. even if the impact(s) may ~, mltlcaled. . Instructions Discuss the followina for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitiaated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by proje<:t chanae( 3. Based on the information available. decide if il is reasonable to conclude that this impact is importanl. To answer the question of importance. consider: . The probability of the impact occurrine . The duration of the impact . Its irreversibility. including permanently lost resources of value . Whether the impact can or will be controlled . The reaional consequence of the impact . Its potential divereence from local needs and aoals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) " ',7, "1' ~ ':;., ," . ' ~ '1,.", Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 ta S.1fJ6FIGb- V5 SCOTT L. HARRIS j(JZRNtI tv Supervisor .~ _.P::"'FO"""~"" oy<,>"olr c,r,I''"' ,y.~'v ," -t'...~ I..,,,," ~ l> ,>.~~ '?\\ (! ,-7::? "1, :-:-" . ,- ,~,,~- Ir~ rA '-:'f{~: ~ (1 S:\~~, i .1,'..... h-rl,' .' c::> C:)., ,', .~^ ,', " " '_ ... ' .V ", ,~"'" ~"'i1Y ''c -.l!)" 'l'~j/ -';~~~'''~_;!cj-;j;[.l-l Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF sournOLD October 3, 1991 , Mr. Thomas J. Jor1ing, Commissioner N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12233 Re: Pending Applications. by McDonald's Corporation Location of Site: 'Main Road, Mattituck Dear Mr. Jorling: We request your intervention in the above matter which concerns applications that were filed with the Southold Town Planning Board (for site plan approval) and Town Board of Appeals (for Special Exception approval) for a fast-food restaurant with drive-in facility. The Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency under SEQRA, made a Conditional Negative Declaration (CND) in February 1991, and on March 8, 1991, the first of two public hearings was held by the Board of Appeals on the Special Exception application. Since the filing of the applications, much public interest became involved as well as public opposition to this project. At the Board of Appeals' March 8th and April 5, 1991 public hearing dates, concerns were raised by residents and the ZBA as to inconsistencies with the information provided by the applicant. Information which has not been factually submitted for the record, includes those areas of solid waste generation and disposal, and ~ts possible impacts on the locale. Immediately following the hearings, the Board of Appeals sent a written request to the Planning Board, as Lead Agency, for reconsideration of the Conditional Negative Declaration since the data in the Planning Board's SEQRA file shows inconsistencies and also lacks data which is necessary for an appropriate determination. Also, the issues of solid waste and its impact have not been adequately answered in the Long Environmental Assessment Form or addressed in the CND. (The areas addressed in the Lead Agency SEQRA file appears to provide only information about recycling of products and discontinuance or reduction of polystyrene, and not the tonnage, or comparables to adjacent townships, such as Riverhead Town or Southampton Town, both of which have McDonald's Restaurants.) J'age To: Re: 2 - Octo~3, "91 " Mr. ThO~ J. ~rling, Commissione:, McDonald's Project at Mattituck . ''--. ....... .. I.'a'<l.' 'rs,c{ , '. .'a 1.it.. . - ----atta:Che "reading a attached) . It was our belief under Part 6l7.6(3)(i) of 6 NYCRR, that if there are changed circumstances (or facts) that are revealed during the application process, that the Lead Agency could rescind the Conditional Negati~e Declaration and proceed with , particularly when the Long Environmental did not properly answer the solid waste " , ' anning Board's "reconsideration" of the CND, the s acquired information from the Town of Riverhead hip) showing inadequacies (print outs are sequently, the Planning Board respdnded by statement at its September 30, 1991" (copies Before arranging for a final hearing and determination on the Special Exception application 'and process, we are requesting your assistance and review as to whether or not it is proper to request that the SEQRA be corrected as to those inconsistencies, and whether or not the Lead Agency is required to do so (rather than the same being discretionary). Thank you for your expertise and assistance in this regard. Very truly yours, //~y;?gL GERARD P. GOEHRINGE~ CHAIRMAN / lk Enclosures Certifi ed Mail Return Receipt Requested cc: Mr. Robert Green, Regional Director NYS DEC - Region I at Stony Brook ~ .f. ~8 :f~t;elf-~)otc~ ~ ~ c;LLL- ~ 5t:-~RA-- ~~~. /~ ~ .At' ;?'e~c::C , t2J-jJi-I" ~;;;~~~ ~1 /J /.7./~~/~~ ~ ~ ~ /-~/-. '/ ~ ~~_ ~.d~ 26.fil. ~'. - /' 10/1"/4/ Pi JNING BOARD MEMBERS ett Orlowski, Jr., Chainnan ~orge Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ,. ~dL/~Uf'FO!.t"'" , I;i ~~ t'a y~ /)..ss ~. e. /i'~ -r'j (,:.::, ~\, ',)Q - ~i en i"~ r:i (::) ..--.' Ol:" c,.~ :- \ ~O.'I'''ll. ~~/ ':~,r ' r"~//'/j:; .. SCOTI L. HA Supervisol 'Iephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 ~. P.O. Box I I Southold, New YOi 'Fax (516) 765- MEMORANDUM TO: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman r;.o.o/lt17 McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, New York SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 FROM: RE: DATE: October 1, 1991 In response to your Memorandum of October 1, 1991, enclosed please find all correspondence that has been received in this office pertaining to this application since September 20, 1991. For your information, all coordinating agencies listed on the October 1, 1991 letter to Mr. Mineo were sent a copy of Mr. Mineo's correspondence dated September 23, 1991 and September 26, 1991 with their copy of the October 1, 1991 letter. ~ . 'S(.(e:FILC f8 SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN ClF SOUrnOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Office Attn: V. Scopaz, Planner FROM: Board of Appeals October 1, 1991 DATE: RE: McDonald's Project at Mattituck Request for PB File Update In reviewing the Planning Board file today, it is noted that additional communications has been received by the Planning Board Office which is in response to our previous requests to the Planning Board for reconsideration of SEQRA. since a copy of this response has not been furnished to us by the attorneys for the applicant or otherwise, we ask that you provide copies to us for our file and update. , GG:lk l.\ SERVI,) ~, , 1 .. j j . ,.J ., _'::'D-.cF7L6~ r~ . /5 ------.-.--------___~J._ ...__ '.j S'2tyt. 26, 1991 To: southol~ ~own Planning Board 7rcm: 33nry rn~nor TIE: McDonald's Site Plan lOnO-l~2-.7-3.2 ~ Enclosed herewith one co~y o~ the SuEfolk '28unty Dspt. o~ 3ealth S2rvices st~nn Jf?ixed to tha ameDded site plan f~r your c8nsid~raticn. I realize \<Je are still ~';".c-1i.::i.,:1,g th2 ~31~ (~:3t2rr\15_n?ti~n on the ~)r):::C ia 1 eXc2Dt.i:::J.n 1 ~Jut ~,fOU l,~~ 1 i~<:2 ~C() ,":.'::'')2(; .:L t:2! t~1.i3 ;-1.t)~li~2tion nnDn :0i11!')12b3 o~ S2~n-2. ShoulC ,\,,0\.1 ~ave any C'U8S\::.on~_-1, ':)l<~~se [10 :-lot h2Si t.Vt'2 in cont~cting m~ at ?93-84~O. Than}~ you. ..,; ,...,.."".-.....,. ."- -",,0 ~ 1I&{}OW{}f"J '/ II! ....11"'" ' ,1/ '~p 2 1/' v'- 7 109/ lu..' ,...., !I J '-..I "-~~~~Z~DB'&~~ -'-~-.---_. -- ------ --,---. -_._-~ .' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, k Richard G, Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards '/>;:\jffDl ;'~ >- ~.) _ "I/), "~I" ."~~ ,........ ... ,', ..~ t" ~.. ."." '" ,', ~t' ~'~r~:c ~. - <:) (~ '" ,,: ~ <<~ i~~.." ".i"_, ..,~'t- .., .f), '1. "'0. ..J' .... ~-7 ; LV' SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 1, 1991 Peter R. Mineo, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwarz, Mineo, Laurino & Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Restaurant Mattituck, New York SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Mineo: The Planning Board read the following statement into the record at its September 30, 1991 meeting. "On July 22, 1991, the Zoning Board of Appeals sent this Board a memorandum asking that we rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration that was filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation on February 12, 1991. Copies of this memo were sent to the applicant, as well as to all coordinating and interested agencies that had participated in the initial environmental review. The Planning Board has reviewed all the correspondence that has been generated by the Zoning Board's request, including the written responses received by the general public. In addition, the Town's Solid Waste Task Force, which has been working with the Town Board to develop and implement a Solid Waste Management Plan, was asked to review and comment on the responses. Upon review of the information that was submitted, and a review of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan, the Planning Board has decided not to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration. The reasons for not rescinding the Conditional Negative Declaration are noted here for the record: { . First, in our review of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan which was adopted on March 12, 1991, we noted that the plan specifically calls for 'a "resource recovery system" that could effectively dispose 70% to 75% of the total waste stream through elements of reduction, reuse, recycling, household hazardous waste removal, and yard waste composting.' (Page S-6 in Solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement). However, the plan does not mandate limits to the amount of garbage that may be generated by any commercial, industrial and institutional operation. Rather, the plan emphasizes the need for legislation and education, specifically in the area of waste reduction. "Reduction of the volume of waste could be achieved through Town support of legislation and other initiatives that aim to encourage residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments to reduce waste generation at the source or point of packaging. This would effectively reduce the volume of waste that the Town would need to make provisions for with regard to collection, processing, disposal, administration, and financing.' (Page S-7) "In addition to legislative actions, all sectors of the Town (public, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments) would be encouraged by the Town to reduce the generation of waste which would ultimately become the responsibility of the Town to handle and dispose. This can be accomplished through local and regional public education programs coordinated by the State." (Page S-8). These proposals are repeated in more detail in Section 5 of the Plan. Second, there is insufficient data upon which to decree that McDonald's Restaurant would pose any more or less of a burden on the Town's landfill than any other business. Since the Management Plan lacks a detailed inventory of the volume of waste generated monthly by commercial operations within the Town, it was not possible to compare whether McDonald's projected monthly volume was excessive. The information presented in Table 2.2.2-2 was applicable to institutions only. Third, the discussion in Section 4 of the Plan emphasized the need for national and State initiatives. While there is mention of a two-tier fee system that would encourage recycling by creating a financial incentive for commercial, industrial and institutional sectors to recycle and reduce the volume of waste (Page 4-5), there are no proposals to place caps on the volume of garbage generated by commercial operations. Given that there are no specific guidelines or standards in the Town's Management plan against which to judge whether the McDonald's Corporation has mitigated the . . potential environmental impact of its Board finds that it cannot substitute place of the Plan itself. waste stream, this its own judgement in If and when the Town decides to impose a mandatory waste reduction program on all existing commercial and industrial operations, this Board will address this during the environmental review:of all proposed commercial and industrial projects." Copies of this letter are being transmitted to those noted below for their information. If there are any questions about content or procedure, please contact Valerie Scopaz. Sincerely, ~ ~/;7/"s Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Thomas Wickham, Chairman, Solid Waste Task Force Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Victor Lessard, Building Department Vito Minei, Director, Office of Ecology, S. C. Dept. of Health Services Arthur Kunz, Director, Suffolk County Dept. of Planning Commissioner, New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation Roger Evans, Regional Administrator, NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Transportation - f~ __.1. SERVI,'TIIH@ t ~, ~c..c- ~-- Sept. 26, 1991 To: southold ~own Planning Board From: Henry Raynor RE: McDonald's Site Plan 1000-122-7-3.2 ~ Enclosed herewith one copy of the Suffolk county Dept. of Health Services stamp affixed to the amended site plan for your consideration. I realize we are still awaiting the ZBA determination on the special exception, but would like to expedite this auplication upon complete of same. Should yo~ have any questions, please do not hesitate in contacting me at 298-8420. Thank you. ., .- .'~' "'.-", ,. " ::,t.,L_' _'=' :~ l;_:'~,,::, L".....i:,--il'_', .~I_'r-_Ni._c..'-_ ~ A . (suiF, <r .po 2M ... ~ . D';\\iATO, FORCHELLi. LiBERT, SCHWA,RTZ, MiNEO, LAURiNO 13 CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOU",VMl,D p, O. BOX 31 ".l\MAI\:O P tl'AMAT'C i~F-Flt!Y ~. f'OFtCHHt.: LOUIS l;:l. l.,...WrtINO JACK L LIUR.'-' DON^l.b !A,'t SChWA!'.,!':: P!.iI:1\ !to 1\'I!NeO JOSEPH F. CAil.l.iNO PE.TER. ALP!!!\T' ANTON J. BOltoviNA !AMun rEDID W^kl\lN S, ^,lTHUR. M^~Ol\iE E. SOR.NB ROJI~T M. OPRiJl,NO WI,LLJ^M A. DrCONl^ THOMAS Y. PANTELIS VII'CENT), PIZZLlL.i..:, Jfi.. i\1J?\E-Ol.l\. :"':tW 'YORK 115(11 (516) 2~b~1700 nLE.COPlt.t..:t!,,s) 24a~:1.20 Of COUN51l. LEntk. COOPER. .",u,:) ~lt"'llE~ Of ~^ '<:0 B...M September 26, 1991 VIA TELECOPIER Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Boa.rd Town of Southold 53095 /olain ROad P . 0 . Box 11 7 9 Southold, New York 11971 ~ SEP 26 1991 "' ~'~.....i l5 1',. li'l !li'l ~jl rn@~ow REI McDonald's Restaurant SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York SOUTHOLD TOWN PlANNING BOARD Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: With reference to my letter of September 23, it should be pointed out that the Rlverhead McDonald's, which the Board of p.ppeals stated generated 794 pounds of solid waste per day, does llQ.!; recycle its corrugated cardbclard. The Psrseco study - calculated that approximately 34% of the solid waste stream of a typical McDona.ld's restaurant consists of that material. Assuming the Board of Appeals prOjection that: the proposed McDonald's ~ill generate 794 pounds of solid waste per day is accurate, McDo~ald's proposal to recycle the corrugated cardboard will reduce the solid waste stream to 560 pounds per day. Very truly yours, ~~~ ~- \'f.Jv'IJD( C} PETER R. MINEO PR..1'i!! cg t . . S<<e"Pcf D'AMATO. FORCHELLI. LIBERT. SCHWARTZ. MINEO. LAURINO 11 CARLINO ARMAND P. D'AMATO JEFFREY D. FOR-CHELL! LOUIS D. LAURINO JACK. L L1BERT* DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLINO PETER ALPERT ANTON J. BOROVtNA SAMUEl HOlD WARR.EN S. ARTHUR MAR.JORIE E. BORNES ROBERT M. CIPR.IANO WILLIAM A. DICONZA THOMAS V. PANTELlS VINCENT j. PIZZULLI, JR. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. 0, BOX 31 MINEOLA. NEW YORK 11501 (516) 248-1700 TELECOPIER: (516) 248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER. COOPER. September 23, 1991 "'^L50 MEMBER OF PA Il co BARS RE: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM No. 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: The following are McDonald's final responses to the Board of Appeals' request that the Planning Board rescind the Conditioned Neg'ative Declaration ("CND") and reopen the environmental review of the above-described application. By inter-departmental memorandum dated July 22, 1991, (Exhibit A) the Board of Appeals requested a rescission of the CND on the ground that the issue of McDonald's solid waste generation and disposal "was not sufficiently addressed" by the Planning Board before it made its determination of environmental significance. In support of that claim, it stated that "the Town is attempting to reduce its municipal solid waste to 40 tons or less per day". Based upon its own calculation that McDonald's would produce 3,332 pounds of solid waste per day, the Board of Appeals concluded that "the amount of MSW (municipal solid waste) produced by McDonald's would be more than four percent of the Town's waste stream". The memorandum also noted that the solid waste generated by McDonald's "cannot be landfilled according to the NYSDEC". While the July 22 memorandum makes no direct connection between McDonald's solid waste and a specific environmental concern, it appears from its reference to the prohibition of landfilling and the moo " . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, liBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, LAURINO I!l CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Town of Southold Page Two September 24, 1991 Town's attempt to reduce the solid waste stream to 40 tons per day that the Board of Appeals was claiming that McDonald's would contribute a disproportionate amount of solid waste to the Town's landfill, thereby taxing that facility beyond its capacity. This explanation of the Board of Appeals' concern is corroborated by its April 10, 1991 memorandum to the Planning Board requesting additional information regarding "garbage and its impact on governmental facilities - tonnage, its location and frequency of removal and shipping to Southold Town facilities and outside townships." (Exhibit "B"). Any consideration of the impact of McDonald's solid waste upon the Town's landfill must begin by recognizing that pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law S27-0704(S), also known as the "Long Island Landfill Law", as of December 19, 1990, the Town's landfill had to be permanently closed and could not continue to accept solid waste for disposal. The Town has continued to operate its landfill at Cutchogue notwithstanding this State law. On September 4, 1991, the Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation issued a Decision and Order (DEC No. 1-4020) (Exhibit "C") directing, among other things: I. The Town of Southold is found to have violated the LILL. * * * III. The Town shall cease receiving solid waste at the Cutchogue Landfill within ninety (90) days after the service of this Decision and Order. This date shall not be extended except by an explicit written modification to this Decision and Order. (Exhibit "C", p. 2) (emphasis supplied) The Decision and Order was based upon the Hearing Report of Administrative Law Judge Edward Buhrmaster (Exhibit "D"), which made the following findings: The Town has posted no financial guarantee with regard to this landfill's operation. (Exhibit "D", p.S) , . . D'AMATO, FOR.CHELLI, LIBER.T. SCHWAR.TZ, MINEO, LAUR.INO 11 CAR.L1NO COUNSELOR.S AT LAW Town of Southold Page Three September 24, 1991 * * * No authorization has been asserted by the Respondent and the Department asserts no authorization or approval has been granted by the Commissioner which would allow the disposal of solid waste at the Cutchogue Landfill. (Exhibit "D", p.6) * * * Based upon the proceeding conclusions, it is clear that the Respondent [Town of Southold] has operated the Cutchogue Landfill in violation of ECL S27-0704(S). The operation of the landfill became illegal on December 19, 1990. The violation of ECL S27-0704(S) has continued since that date. (Exhibit "D", p.6) * * * As previously noted, there is no question that the Respondent was in violation of the Long Island Landfill Law by continuing to operate the Cutchogue landfill after December 18, 1990. The Respondent's papers do not allege compliance with this Law. . . (Exhibit "D", p.8) * * * It is acknowledged that the Respondent is not arguing that the landfill should remain open indefinitely, but is arguing instead that it should continue operation pending an orderly transition to other waste disposal processes. (Exhibit "D", p.9) * * * Based upon a reading of the Long Island Landfill Law, it would appear the Commissioner has no discretion to allow for the landfill's continued operation. (Exhibit "D", p.ll) . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, LAURINO & CARLINO COUNSELOR.S AT LAW Town of Southold Page Four September 24, 1991 * * * In enacting the LILL, the legislature found that 'the land burial and disposal of domestic, municipal and industrial solid waste poses a significant threat to the quality of groundwater and therefore the quality of drinking water in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk.' (Exhibit "D", p.11) * * * The Respondent should be ordered to cease operation of this landfill immediately, or as soon as possible within the time limit set by the Commissioner. (Exhibit "D", p.12) * * * The recommendation to immediately cease landfill operations is based on conclusions that the Commissioner has no discretion to authorize a continuing' violation of the Long Island Landfill Law and that, even if he had such discretion, no issue of fact is raised pertaining to the relief of landfill closure. (Exhibit "D", p.12) * * * At any rate, there is no reason to continue the landfill's operation while the issue of civil penalties is ajudicated. (Exhibit "D", p.13) Since the landfill will shortly cease to exist and the Town, should it wish to continue to provide solid waste disposal services, will have to develop another method of disposing of solid waste, the Board of Appeals' request to reopen the SEQRA process to study the impact of McDonald's solid waste upon the landfill is moot. The Long Island Landfill Law and the Decision and Order also render inoperative a portion of the solid waste management plan adopted by the Town Board . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, LAURINO 11 CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Town of Southold Page Five September 24, 1991 earlier this year, entitled "Solid Waste Manaqement Plan/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement", prepared by Dvirka and Bartilucci, dated September, 1990 ("SWMP").* The SWMP set a goal of recycling 70 to 75% of the Town's solid waste (Exhibit "E", p.5-l9) (estimated at 123 tons per day in 1989 [Exhibit "E", p.2-l8] and increasing annually) and landfilling the balance (Exhibit "E", pp.5-l9, 5-20). This SWMP, however, is predicated on not only the continued operation of the existing landfill, but its expansion by the addition of a number of new 5 acre landfill cells to the year 2015 (Exhibit "E", pp. 5-19, 5-20). The Landfill Law and the Decision and Order make such a plan impossible and illegal. It is not the purpose of this letter to speculate how the Town will address the need to dispose of approximately 123 plus tons of solid waste per day, except to point out that McDonald's contribution to the waste stream will be miniscule. Even if the Planning Board accepts the latest claim by the Board of Appeals in its September 17, 1991 memorandum that the proposed McDonald's will generate 794 pounds of solid waste per day (Exhibit "F"), which McDonald's hereby disputes, this would still amount to only 1/3 of 1% of the Town's total daily waste stream, based upon the 1989 estimate of 123 tons per day. Since the proposed McDonald's would not open until after the Town's landfill has been permanently closed, it cannot be claimed that it will ever have any impact upon this facility. It is respectfully submitted that due to the Long Island Landfill Law and the Decision and Order, there is no issue of the impact of McDonald's generation and disposal of solid waste upon the Town's landfill. If the Town chooses to continue to provide solid waste disposal services, it must develop a solid waste management plan that does not involve the landfilling of solid waste generated within its borders. Under such plan, McDonald's must be treated no differently than any other commercial solid waste generator. It is reasonable to assume that all commercial operations will be required to pay to the Town a per ton fee for the disposal of their solid waste under any plan developed by it. Under the circumstances, the question of how many pounds of solid waste are generated by McDonald's on a daily basis does not constitute the type of significant environmental issue which warrants the rescission of the eND. * The relevant pages of the SWMP are annexed hereto as Exhibit "E". . . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO, LAURINO 11 CARLINO COUNSELOR.S AT LAW Town of Southold Page Six September 24, 1991 McDonald's has submitted a study of the solid waste generated by comparable McDonald's restaurants for the Planning Board to consider. It is McDonald's position that this is the only authoritative study and that the original calculation of the Board of Appeals of 3,332 pounds per day and the subsequent claim that 794 less per day will be generated must be rejected as conjecture. After considering the Perseco study and the various estimates by the Board of Appeals of the amount of solid waste that will be generated by the proposed McDonald's, even if the Planning Board or the Board of Appeals believed that the solid waste generated by McDonald's was quantitatively or qualitatively different than other solid waste, this would still not be a proper basis to deny the application; either board would be entitled to impose conditions reasonably related to mitigating the adverse impacts of solid waste. Based upon the foregoing, I respectfully request that the eND not be rescinded by the Planning Board. v~p:rm~ PETER R. MINEO PRM:cg r-'_''; ,:'2. . -" -..-. -. J.."_" "_,_ . ,., _. _. T_ _ ~ :'._ I :-,:,-__ ~ = . . . SCOTI L HARRIS Supervisor " . , ,APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerare P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen. Jr. James DinizlO, Jr. Robert A. Villa Tdc?hone ~5l6) 7654~809 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11i9 Sourhold, New York 1::'71 Fa.~ (516) 765.1S2S T el.phone (516) 765.1500 ~ N':'ER - !)EP ;'.RT!-!ENT;..: :Sut3P/et= 1'6 i/:S v'/ Pj; BOARD OF APPEALS TOW~ OF SOCTHOLD D~."",!:,. .-.--. July 22, Board An-cealsl\CiGtjf, ;) - - ~ I j~ , 1991 TC: Pl2.:lnir:g F?O:'l: Eoa::-c. of SUBJECT: SEQR;. - McDonald's Corporation Project Please accept this as a continuation of our April 10, 1991 written request in order to, in writincr, ~s suggested after conversations between board members within both depart~en~ clarify reasons for urging the Planning Ecard, as lead agency, to reconsider and re-open the SEQR~ Conditional Negative Declaration in the following areas, which are new under the SEQa~ reviews, and to obtain further studies and provide the appl~cant with o~port~~ities to sub~it the same anc provide possible mitigation measures. It is our undcrstan~ing that t~is a~ea is new, having not been previously addressed in this project under SEQ~\ (Environmental Conservation Law). We are a~taching for your convenience a copy of Section 617.6(i) which permits the C~D by law to be reopened where there is significant new information which was no~ addressed previously. Some concerns which branched ~~estions throughout the hearings were: SOLID WASTE Gm,ERATIC~ AND DISPOSAL: This area was not sufficiently addressed. Also, in the LEAF, the amount of solid wastes generated was grossly uncerstated. In one of the ZBA hearings, McDonald's representative{s) stated each of the Riverhead stores generates a ton of solid waste per day. This is generated by the customers who eat at the establishment. It was also stated bv McDonald's that 40% of their business is generated by the drive-thru window. This results in another 1332 lbs. of solid waste per day that must be disposed of. McDonald's also stated that the recylcing program that was initiated to recycle plastics has been terminated since they were going back to paper products and no other recycling program is in effect. This means that the Town would face an increase of 3332 Ibs. per day of municipal solid wastes that cannot be 1andfilled according to the ~IS ~EC. Sin~e the Town is a~tempting to reduce its muniCipal solid waste (MSW) to ~Q tons ",",_\,: CZ "=1. ~~=': .J-L "I ':~,~; ~ ' i- -~. - - - =..~- . - = . P:l.ge 2- To: F=om: F-e: July 22, 1991 PLmning Boare. Board of Appeals MC~Gnalc's Ccr~or~~i~n P~oj~ct -~ "'-'- :';c.c.':::" :::Jck or lE::sS pe.= c.ay I the a...T'Oot!.r...t I~= 115;&1 ~~ad.u.ced by ~!cDonalds '...,c~ld C~ ~cre ~~~n 4% ci t~e e~ti=e Town's was~e strea~~ This coulc be a major incre~sa and ca~noc go anad~essed. ,-" -,' - ~'l.~' - = ,:i_', I:' = , . '.. " " wnjc~ ~ay Oe liKeiy t: rec~lre preoarat;on of an E!S. rurther. U~listed actions c:~:r1se t~e majc~itJ of ae:~ons s~atew'ce, ar.~ ~,us CNQls could =e ~se~ for a S:~!~ many ac:ions. ihe exc1~sion of TJ~e I ac~~ons will ~el~ ensure t~at t~is ~~~:~~:: Cl:e~:r~ of 4c:~ons i: given :~e he~g~:~ne~ e~vir:nme~~al $cr~~iny :~ey c:eserve. r c:~~~:: At.:::,,:,:~~tJ t; ':ISsue C~:C's ~hcul:: ~e e;r,::i:~t1y s~a-:e~ fer !.~!n:~es 1 .. .........,........ a '''-''II'S acJ;.::-:; eX;l"'!SS ::cwers ..:I '............ ......r: ~,.,.... al . ~e!::~se: 7he ~r=~isic~ ~:1:es t~a: a C~: ~ay ~a iss~e~ i~ HS~~~ ,:~~~:~ons 'i':":::zac :"i.ave e1~::,:ir.at;c a;1 $~.;r.ii1:2n: ':!":vil'":i.~~~=~i ir.'\ca:-:s.u ~.ls::: €:j.3~:) n:n ~:arif~es t~e a~~li:J of agene~~s t: im;esa ~~:s:~n~~ve e:~:~~~or.s o~ ~~ a'~~:r. if ne:essary. c:~~~~~: C~CIS shou1d be availao1e for ex~e~i~e~~11 ha:lr:~us was:e ~rea~;.a~~ tes~s. "es::~se: Hazar~ous was~e trea~~ent has been s~e:ifically cite: in 617.14(g) as ar. exam;ie of a to;;c potentialiy subject to unavailacle information :isclcsure ar.: 1S alsc a likely tc~ie t: fali uncer one of t~e c~ita~;a for d~:gr~;n~r.9 si;r.ificance (617.11(a)(7)) as a potential hazard to h~T.an hea1th. It wouid see~ u~reaso~ab'e to proeeed witn any as~ee~ of su,~ a g~~jee~ wit~Qut ;r:vidin; o:::r~~n~tJ fo~ review and findings t~rou;~ an ;m;J:~ sta::~en~. ihe iac: ~h~: t~~ ac::c~ is la~ele~ as a test aniy reia:es :0 ~he e~r~:io~ of tte im~a:: "n1C~ s~11; cc~i, oe s19~ific~n: anc subjec~ t: review. A ee~~i:ie~ea negative ~e~lara~icn ap~ears te ~e inap;ro?riata. ,- . E:7.5;i~ (was 61i.S(jj in Jan. 19:5 draf~) ~e!:~~~iC~ o~ N~cativ@ Dec1ara~~:~s ~~::1am: ihe re9uiat~~s-a~:~ted in Septem~er 197$ de r.et ad=~ess e1rc~ms~anees "i.e:e, af~e~ a r.e;a:ive cec1ara;ior. has oeen ~reparec and fi1ed, there is ~l"'e$ar.:ad sign;fic~n~ new lnfo~a~iont a ~r;je~: ~c:~1iC2:~cn, C~ a chan;e in c1r:~~s~~nces "r.ic~ may res~i: in i s19nif~can~ adverse anvircr.~crtta1 effec:. Rev;sior.: 617.6(i) estaol;shes a ~ro~~d~re fc~ the lead a.ency t: rlsc;nc a nega;,ve de~laration. Cc~ent: Stat~te of limitations issue sho~ld be c~arified with resoect to resc'ssic~ procedures proposed in S17.5(j) of the January 1986 draft. Res:cnses: The wording has been changed t: clarify that rescissio~ of a ne~at,ve oeclaration may cc;~r prior to the agency's decision to f~nc. a;or:ve cr directly underta~e an action. This dces not establish a statUte of limitations, but allows each provision of law regarding limits to f~nctic~ running frcm the date of agency decision. Clearly. however, if an agency's dec;sion is rescinded or nullified, the supporting negative declaration wcu;d be deemed nullified as well. Co~~ent; Rescission undermines finality of a decision. -21- { '- . ':'UG 02'=1 :\]:~'.:. ;I:l,,;r; CF '='~ilJ:.1 . p,:: c . . ~e~=~~~e: ihe a~oo:ed r~v':~cns ae:~aj1y ac~ f1na~i~1 ~o ~~e pr~c~ss ~ecause t'~~j ai lew an agency t: cor~ec: an ove:"'s~g~~ or-it ;.;nti1 ;: ~~(es a fir:al ~e~1sic~ :: ac~~ !f age~c1eS ex:r::se t~e~~ S:~~ re:=c~~~~i1it~~s in a :"'eascr.a~ly :~C~:~gh manr&~t reSC~~S10n snc~!~ no: ne2~ :: ~C=~i cf~!~. nor s~cuic i: ~e a cecisicn un~er:a~en ltg~:li~ ,i C:~~~~: The res:~ss10~ cr:cess r.eecs a t~~e =e~~od :or :~~ a;;~i:ln: :: res:cnd a~c a n;:~:e to involvec a~enc~es. ~es=onse: The c~ovision has been rev;~ec :: a~c to af~::"': a:;li:3n~s a ureasona:le~ ti~e ...........; "'Co I _..._ ~. .. no:.:: t: 1r.veive~ a;e~c~e~ ;~ w~;c~ :: -es;o~c. C:~ent: ~esciSS1o~ should ~e tr;g;ere~ only :y s~o~sor-:l~:e~ :~anges. _.soense: Agenc:es have a continuing resoonsi=ility unce~ Article 8 to oons;ee~ slgnlficant environmental imgaet:. New information or cnanges concerning sionifican: acverse impacts, from whatever so~rce, must be considerec. - ~;~.~. .. . 61i.7 seoc PiG (No:e: Section 617.7 of e:~:~nea int: new 617.5. previously inclu:ea.) t~e reguiati:~s ac::ted Seo~ion 617.7 has ceen Seo:em:e~ 1, lSia has been revisaa t: address scccin;. n~- -" P;e:le~: A process of idantifying the relevant issues which must be a~:jessed in a craft E!S ;s knewn as sec;ing. Ea~iie~ regulatiens have provide~ incire~:ly fer SCO=7"; as a rec:~~en~ed pro:a~~~e but have no: s~eeif;e~l:y ;~cv~c~c a prcce~s. Sc;~~ng ~ay tJ~e ~iac= wi~~ or W;t~:~: d;re~~ion. If C~e cr~ar.i:at~on or incivic~al res~ons;Qie f~r the initial pre;araticn or an 4~:iicstion has ceen provide~ no direc~i:M oy t~e leac cr invQive~ agencies, tYP1cally a bes~ judgment will be made rrem t~e a~:li'antJs ;erspective of t~e ;ss~es to oe ad~jessed. C'ea~ly, t~e most aC~ic~~iite ider.:~fiea:~Qn of issues should come from an a;~eemen~ between tne a~olie~nt an~ ~~e leae agency. in ccnjune~ion with g~idance frem the other involved agencies. Guicance frem the ~u=1ic and other in:ares:ad agencies m~y aiso be a~;~op~ii~a. Revision; A voluntary for~al seocing crocess has been grcviced in ti17.7 an~ the te~m "seocing" is defined in sOlesec:;on 617.Z(ff). Checklist is provided as a model in Appendix 0 of Section 617.21. !'Ie'" Seo:ien A S CO;l1 ng Section 617.7 provides that a formal seecing process can occ~r either a: the initiation of the lead agency or at the reoues~ of the acplicant, prior to the accectanoe of any draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written seece of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provided Dy tne lead agency to tne ao;l;cant and all invo1ve~ agencies, wi~nin 30 calendar ~ays following the filing of the positive deolaration, or an applicant may initiate th~ process by providing the lead agenoy with a draft see;. of issues. If the leac agency fails to previde a written scace within 30 cays, an acplioant may suDmlt a draft E!S. -22- f (f 1 j I { I r ! I \' f 1. ( , l { l r L ~ L e L lHUG 02 "~1 :.J:J~ !(~i~ :)1="' sour;-oe ( . p.>:: ~ " . : -19- 99P.6 ~b" 7 . 7 , a C~D has ba~n 1ssued, states ~hat co~cition5 have been ~mccsea !nC a:lows ~:r a m;~:mu~ 3C~~ay p~b1:c CJ~mer.t ;e~icci a~j (v) the ::10 has ~een ;=l"';car-;.j ~r.d f~ 1 ec i ~ aC:';~::J.nc:: .i~" se~:iO"s 517.5:9) .ne 5:7.10Ca)(Z) of ~o;s Part. (2) ~ d~aft EIS m~st be l~:rra~ar~~ 'f ":O~~.:!1:S ~~: ~2-::::' led ~sgarc~n5 :~e proposed eND w~ich ~ould s~p;~rt a pos~:iv~ j~~1ar!ticn concerning: (i) the ,revicus1y identif'ed or r.s.ly r.ised sign1fic!nt ~nvironrnental imQacts; or (iil the neea for the exa~~naticn of the adequacy of .~~ -'" - proposed mitigation measures. (3) ihe lead ager.cy must require an E!S if requested by the applicant. (i) Rescission of Negative Oeclarations: At anj time prior to its decisi~n to ur.der~ake, rur.d or ap=r~ve an ac:ion1 a 1eac agency ~ust resci~d a n~g~tive de~1arat~on 1f it ca:ar- ~1neS t~a~ a si;nificant er.viron~en:a1 effect may ~esult frc~ J ~~o5ect .I"" , " mod~ficl~ion or ~hat there ex~s:s a chang: ~f circ~~s~a~ces ~hic~ was pr~vicus1y ~d~r~ssed."_frlor tc any rescission, the le~d agency must . . . . ... ~ .' -' "," '. ..". , ~"-. ..... ." . " inf~r~ Qt~er involved a;s~cies 3nd the !~p~icant and mus: p~:~ice a ........:>..3.0. '.'- ;eascnab1~ opportu~!ty fer t~e app1icant t~ re$pond. not ". 6:7.7 SCOP~NG. (a) rorma! scc?ing is optional. It may occur eith~~ at tha ~ri- tiation of the 1ead agency or at the request of the applicant. prior to the ac=eptanc~ of ~ craft E!S. If the action inv~ives an !op1icant1 eith~r a writt~~ s~ope of issues to be addressed in the draft E!~ must =e proyide~ oy the lead age~cy to :he a?p1icant and all involved aganc'es, within 30 calendar days follow~cg tne fl1ing of the pOSitive dec1aration, or an a?p1icant may initiate the process by ?ro"idlng the lead agency with a draft scop~ of issues. Scoplng may be accomplis:-ed through meetingCs), exchanges of written materia1, or other methods that win a1low the lead agency. the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written scope of issues In a timely manner. In the event :ha~ tn~ lead agency falls to provl~e a writ:en" scope of issues withl; 30 c ~ ~. . "', 4t: 5u 6f'; Lit Gcnrd fl. G,lot.hr.:~~'..'r, f "::.rlr.;:.:1I .' ..... .'" . ,.~.)<'~. . J.... ....~ ,.l '.~.:- . . .... . - , .. II /,1:) r f.. ,),/ /I...}_ .. ~ APPE.ALS nO.-\;'~D '.1J''.lllERS SCOTT L HARRIS ~')\: ~ -....ro- J ~~tlr :...... 1..;,,1,:1 lL:11i. ~J095 ~hm Re."'::l ?O. go, 1179 SouthctJ, ~cw York 11971. r:lx,l5 L6) 765-1823 Td~?r.one (516) i65-1?'i:O Ch~!':,.... (ir~'."'!l:';. Jr S(.'::.!r..' Ii, ;:.'~':1. 1:. L.I1H..... I) 1:1' .'lol. 1 ~ BOARD OF APPEALS TOW~ OF SOCTHOLD Rebe!'o: .:... ','illa Tdepnonc (:; If\l ~'\:;~1~09 !:N':'ER-OF=IC::: HE:'~C:?';'.Nr;t"11 TO: Southold Town Planning Board (I t- Appeals rllJc:Z 1991 FRC:~: Boa!"d of DATE: April 10, SUBJECT: Your File - McDonald's Site plan Project at Matti~uck , During the course of review by our Depart~ent, as well as t.o leng~hy hearings in the above matter, several issues on public safety, health and welfare in the proposed site plan layou~ were disc~ssed; and as directed at:our AprilS, 1991 meeting, consideration of the site plan is hereby referred back to the planning Board for more thorough studies and, if necessary, additional reports or modifications. The drive-through facility as laid ou~ negatively ;mpaccs on-site circulation, aocess and pedestrian safety. Pedestrian access to the building should not cress drive-through lanes. The effects of pedestrian accessibility to the building during maxim~~ stacking of cars should be evaluated in depth. Also, multiple access points presently exist at the Riverhead (C.R. 58) building -- and the floor plan layout of this proposed building has not yet been confirmed in the record as relates to the proposed site plan layout. Personal expe!"iences have shown that stacking of cars on-site have created traffic jams and other on-site hazards. Under this referral, the planning Board must consider (or reconsider) these and other safety, health and welfare issues. The planning Board, as Lead Agency, may need to consider the possibility of requescing a Draft ~~vironmental Impacc Statement as a supplement to the Conditional Negative Declaration to include these and other environmental areas and a need for mitigation measures including but not limited to: (1) interior circulation and pedestrian safety between all parking areas and all building entrances; (2) stacking of cars -- particularly with truck loading in progress, etc. -:-~ .- (e <e ,r (3) garbage and i~s impact on governmental facilit~es -- tonnage, its location and frequency of removal and shipping to Southold TOwn facilities and outside townships, proposed method of accessibility and paths used by employees and cruck loading areas to outdcor on-site garbage recepcacles; the extenc of odcrs which ~ay attracc vermin, etc. Anocher issue is that since for~y percenc (40%) of vehicles entering the site are expected to be drive-through customers as projected by Dunn Engineering Associates for McDonald's, and Table 1 of its Report furnished to the Planning Board 1/9/91, the n~~ber of vehicles on a Saturday during mid-day expected for drive-through facility use would be 46 vehicles per hour (40% of 115 vehicles on Table 1). Sixty-Nine (69) additional vehicles per hour would then have pedestrians entering the building. With 115 vehicles, more or less, passing along the building entries, either to the west or to the east of the building, 69 or more of those are expected to be passengers, per hour, entering the building by walking across the drive-thru lanes. The hearing concerning the Special Exception by the ZBA will continue at a future meeting once the above and other relevant site plan issues required by Article ~xv - Site Plan, have been thoroughly reviewed and adequately addressed, necessary planning repor"(s) prepared, and site plan modified with the mitigation recommendations. These and other safety and health concerns, as a supplement to the ?lanning Eoard's first review, mus~ be thoroughly and properly studied, and reports be prepared. Arrangements may be made for an informal conference between both PB/ZBA chairpersons {or a formal meeting with a quorum of both Boards, with posting of publiC notices}. If you prefer to me~~ formally with a quorum of both boards, an early Friday evening in the meeting hall is available. GG:lk " " il . . !_------------------------------------------------------...-------- i , S':'ATE Of' NE"'R :tOR!: DEl'.".RT/'IENT Of' ENVIRONMENTAL CONSZ:WATION In t~e Matter of t~e Alleced Violations of Article 27 of t~e New Yo:k state Envi=on~ental Cc~se~vation Law (EeL) and ?art 360 cf Title 6 of t~e o::icial C~moila~~cn of C~des, Rules a~ci Regulations of ~he Sta:e c: New Yock DECISION .\ND ORD!!:R by DEC No. 1-:02.0 TOWN or SOUTHOLD !'.es;;onde:lt -------------------------------------------------------.--------- WHEREAS: This Decision and Order is issued in reference to :he Mction fo: Summary Orde: filed by the Depa:~rnent Staff in t~e .:apti=ned P-Oc..~l'nc The -t' .a~~.~ '.00" suo' -l...~ by A4:n1n1s..'.'ve L-~ .. ___.._ ..... ... _...__ ........... l.u....__... ......._._ ....,....._ l;iW Judge ("ALJ") Edward Buhr:naster with respect to that mo~ion is accepted as my decision s~l::ject to the remarks below. _ A m~tion for su:::mary. c::rder ~hou~d ~e granted i~. u',on review 0: all tne pape:s and proc: subrn~::ec, It is co~c~uced :ha~ :he ca~se of ac,:icn or a de:ense :~et'eto is established as ,1 mat':er 0: law (6 NYC?!'. 622.10(c) ad :::?c.;( 53212(0)). The grantin; of a s~~mary order d~es net deny :he Respor.dent its right to a hearing where t~e ~eco:d demc~s::a~es :~at there is no t:iable ~ssu~ =: fact relevant to the ou~:o~e of the case. Additionally. the use of the summary order procedure :ogether with the t:adit..onal ~:::.i::e 0: hearing and com::::aint as a backuc does not vil)late any 0: Respondent'S due p=ocess :igh~s. Issues that a:e de:ided i~ t~e context of the metier. :or s~~~ary c:der will not be reheard at the hearing on the comclaint and there will be no ducli~ate awards of relief due to the f~ct that identical causes of a~ti~n are alleged in the motion for summary and the complaint. With respect to the question of compliance with th~ provisions of ECL 527-0704 (hereafter the "Long Island ~andfill ,Law" or "LILL"), based on the record, it can be conclud~d that as 'a matter of law the Town of 50uthold (the "Town") is in violation. , While the report of ALJ Buhr~aster points out that the:e are fact issues relating to the factors t~at might be conside:ed in the determination of what relief is appropriate (i.e. the environmental impact of co~tinued landfilling~e envi:onmental impact of immediate landfill closure, alleged inaction ;md "malfeasance of the Department and the economic impact o! closure on the Town), for the reaSO:lS stated below, I conclude :hat these factors should only be considered, if at all, in a dete:mination related to civil cenalties and should not be taken into account in determining a sc~edule for closing the Cutchogue landfill. ,. . - 2 - As a threshold issue, there is a legal question c! whether the statute a~~ords anv discretion to allow the continu.~d :operation of a land:ili t~a: is not in comcliance with ~ts te~~s. :t is obvious that a~v discretion that is available mus~ be exe~cised in a ~anne:.cons:s~ent wit~ the s:atute and i:s in:endec purposes. 'I Unlike ot~e: sta~~tes t~a~ p:ohib~t ce:~ain activi:ies 0: !p:ohibit ~hem unless ;:cpe:ly pe:rni~:ed, the L!L~ p~Qhi:Jits landfilling but only af~er a seven year phaseout of exilting activities. Where, as here, the s:a:ute itself provide:; for a ,le~s~h~ t:~nsition period, ~ny 5~q~i~icant deviation f:'J~ that 's--~~"'= s.ou'd nc. be --a--~~ acm'-'s--a.~"='y ~e-aus. lt w-u'd . "'.: - -... ~ - ,~ - . ... .?" ....... -.... _.j, '7' ..... .... - ~ - 7.. -....... - - unce:m~ne a clear lec~s~a::ve d::ec::ve. S:rn~~a:lv, thl~ :!LL specifically sets fc~:~ t~e cir=ums:ances under whl:h c'~n~inued land~illing would be pe~~itte~ af~er the statutory dead:ine (see EC: SS27-070~(5) and (6)). Where such specificity is p70vided by legislative ac:ion, additional excep~ions created by ad:inist:ative action cannot be authorized as t~ey waul,! be i~cons:stent wit~ the s~a:u~e (McKi~ney's statu~es 52401. The Town is arguing fer an addi~ional t:ansition p'!riod based on fac:ors that are no: cec=c~ized i~ the s:atute itsel:. I conclude that no allcwance for con:i~ued landfilling fo: any substantial period of t:~e, ex:e;t as per~i::ec in :he statu:e, wculd be c~nsisten: with :~e le~isla:ive di:ectiona A~ extended a"owanc~ wou'd bg ~~-t-a~.. ~~ o.~e ~~ ~~e s.a~"~e's .u~'~am~n-a' .._ .. ...... .......a _ :'t l.,.... a. --:.;. '~.. ... :....~ J. ':'''' . 7' - .. pu-"o~es the p~ase ou. 0- ""'~""t :r"a"':"~''''''a ":11"'-=." a,....1..~-.es ."r.- , . . .,. ..- .. - ,.,",:,~.-,:... "-:-::-". --......--- ...7..1....... w:.':.n:.n a s;:ec:'~l:a~ly ~.:csC:l=eQ pe::.~d c: time. I fl:1!i t.'1a: cnly '~-l'.~d dl'S~-~~~o~ ~~ .x-Q-~ ~~e l~~.s'~~~ve'y m'-~a-ec' a'~ac'~'n~ _....:. __ .............- .. ."'" 7' ...-......., ...~4 ---:... .--"'- - '""'~-"'.." --:.... ex:.s~S and that s~c~ :~sc~etlon :ou~d =e oroly exe::isec In or~e~ to avcid the dis:uption o~ essential government se:vice,i. No o',:.he:: exe::ise 0: dis::etior:. wculd ::e c=ns:.s:en: wi~h t:1e s-:at."Jte and its i~:ended pur~~ses. However, I do c:ncuc wi~h the Town in its asser':.io:l that .under present oircums~ance5 :here is no authori:y for t~e oecar:ment to order the cons:ruc:ion of a transfer stat~on or the exportation of solid waste. :herefore, I conclude that this Oecision and Order must reflect alternative forms of re~ief. I . NOW, ! , TEEaEFoa~, having considered this mat~er, it is OR~EaED that: I. The Town of Southold is found to have violated the ~I:L. II. The Town shall cease receiving solid waste at ~he Cutohoaue landfill within ninety (90) days after the se:vice of . this D~cision and Order. :his aate shall not be extend~d except .by an explicit writ:en modification to this Oecision an~ Order. III. Within ten (10) davs a:tec the service of this Decision and Order, the Town shall (i) provide an approvable pla~ for the closure of the C~tchogue Landfill which shall be subjec~ to the review and approval o~ the Department and (2) present p~an which .1 :1 . . - 3 - :identi:ies i~ de~ail t~e ste~s to be taken in crde: to .~ole~ent 'an orderly transition to a !;r~ of solid waste manage=e~t'whi:h is :consistent w:th the L:~L. The clan shall, amon~ other:hincs, 'specify the cia~es for im;lementlng eec~ step and shall .dent~:y 'the entity responsible for impler.lentetion. Suoh plan s:\all be subject to t~e review a~d appr:val c: the Department. IV. I f the Town ;::-0;:ose5 1:1 its plan to i:::;le~ent ,1 'ccmpliance schedule which differs from the one proposed by Cecart~ent S~a!!, the Oe:art:ent sh~ll advise the Town !]f its aco:-cvabilitv within ten" (10) c.av& after its su:::n:.t':.al. If t;,e p~~n 1s net ~pproved, the Tcw~ shall i~plement the comp..lance schedule proposed by Oe~a~t~ent Sta::. v. If the :own i~;leme~ts t~e c=~pliance schedule p:c~csed by t~e De~ar:ment Sta::, the ca:es fo: co~~liance shall begin when adopted by the Town 0: when :he Cepa:t=ent disapproves ;In elternative compliance schedule pursuant to paragraph I~ above. VI. This matter is remanded to ALJ Buhrmaster for :urther p:oceedings t: ::onsider whether a clv:l penalty shall b1! awa==ed in t~is ac:ion ~nd, if se, :n whac amcun~. VII. The terms of th~s Cecision and Order shall be .it:ictly adhered to. x:::ti YO?::: S':'A~:: O:::?ARTME;';T DE' ENV!R:NM:::~TAL CONSERVA'~ION E=~AR~ O. SULL!VAN DS2UTY Co~~!SSrONE~ Albeny, ~ew Yorx September 4, 1991 cz~~ G~ 1....1 . . STATE OF Nc~ YORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 50 wolf Road Albany, New York 12233-1550 In the ('Iatter - of - Alleged Violations of Article 27 of the Environmental Conse~vation Law ("EeL") of the Stat~ of New York and Part 360 of Title 6 ~f the Official Comoilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) - by - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RESPONDENT DEC No. 1-4020 HEARING REPORT - by - ~'t~ ~VM~ Edward Buhrmaster Administrative Law Judge " . . . PROC~EJI~G3 On May 2, 1991, the Depart~ent of Environmental Conservation (the "Deoartment" or 'IDEC") ser"fed unon the Town of Southald (:he r'ResDond~ntr') a Notice of Motion fo~ Partial Summarv Order. T~is was done pursuant to Section 622.l0(a) of Title 6 of " the Official compilati;n of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations ("6 NYCRR"I, which provides that "in lieu of a complaint, the department may ser'le, with [aJ noeice of hearing, a motion for summary order, toaether with suoocrtina affidavi:s recit~na all the material fa~ts and other a~~ilabl~ evidence.'1 ~ The Department broucht its motion on alleaations that the Respondent had violated "Environmental ConservatIon Law ("Ee:") Sec~ion 27-0704 (commonlv known as the "Lona Island Landfill Law", or "LILL") and its impl~mentina reaulation~ [at 6 NYCRR Subpart 360-8J. These same aliegacions; with others, were also addressed in a complaint that was served contemporaneously with the mocion for summary order. The motion for summarv order consisted of an affirmation bv Mary E. Carpentiere, Assistant Region 1 Attorney, and affidavits by Gerald p, Brezner, Region 1 solid and hazardous waste engineer, and Pappachan Daniel, an environmental engineer with Region l's Division of Solid Waste. A memorandum of law was also submitted in support of the Department's motion. The notice of motion provided the Respondent 20 days from its receipt to submit answering papers, as is allowed under 6 NYCRR Secti;n 622.l0(bl. The notice also set a hearing date of May 30, 1991, for any oral argument deemed necessary by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") assigned to the motion. upon receipt of the motion by the Office of Hearings such motion was assigned to ALJ Robert O'Connor. By a memorandum dated June 12, 1991, the parties were informed by Robert Feller, assistant commissioner for hearings, that the motion for summary order was being reassigned to ALJ Edward Buhrmaster. ALJ Buhrmaster was at that time already assigned to handle the complaint against the Respondent; the reassignment was made for the sake of administrative efficiency. ALJ O'Connor granted the Respondent additional time to submit answering papers, which were received on June 6, 1991, at the Office of Hearings. For purposes of the instant motion, these . papers consisted of an affirmation of Frank A. Isler, special counsel to the Respondent, and an affidavit from Scott Louis Harris, supervisor of the Town of Southold. This motion is hereby addressed on the papers submitted by the parties, it being decided that no oral argument is necessa~y. , . " - ~ - tt Position of the Deoartment The Deoartment alleGes tha~ the ResDondent owns and tHo landfilis, one in Cutc~oaue and the other on Fisher's both within the Town of Sout~old, Suffolk County. These are alleced to be in violation of EC~ Sec~ion 2i-Oi04! NYCRR Se~tion 360.8 in that the v have cDntinued to ooera Decembe= 18, 1990, without permits or other authorization. ope a:es Is a:1o, and ills i and 6 := si:1ce Relief Reauested The Deoartment seeks an order of the Commissioner reauirina the Resoondent to cease aoeration of the aforecited landfili$ and to stao-their acceptance of was~e, in accordance with a ccmolia~ce scheduie that is attached to its mo~ion, and which is also attached to this Recort as Aooendix I'A'I. Accordinc to t~is schedule, the Resocndent would~ have to build a solic -~aste transfer station and 'contract for off-Island or out-oE-town long-hauling of all s;lid waste. The schedule would give the Department authority to review and approve bid specifications and public notices for the long-haul contract. Deadlines would also be set for the submission of Part 360 applications Eor the construction and operation of emergency and per~anent solid waste transfer stations. Additionally, the Deoartment seeks an order assessing penalties of up to $2500 plus $1,000 per day during which the Rescondent violated ECL Section 2i-Oi04(SI or, in the alternative, res~rving the right to seek "appropriate" penalties after hearing; as well as reservation of the right to seek other aCDro~riate relief after hearing. Finally, Staff seeks such other and further relief as may be found just and proper based Dn its motion, although the nature of this relief is not specified. position of the ResDondent The Respondent opposes the Depart~ent's motion for summary order. In an affirmation submitted in ODDosition to the motion, counsel for the Respondent makes the follo~ing allegations: (11 The Department has no jurisdiction to maintain its motion, in part because its allegations are repeated in a notice of hearing and complaint, served contemporaneously, and seeking the same relief. (21 The motion constitutes selective prosecution on the part of the Department, which is alleged to be punishing the Respondent while deliberately and failing to enforce the LILL against other -municipalities known to be in violation. (3) The Respondent cannot get a a fair and impartial hearing given the Commissioner's alleged bias, prejudice and pr~determination of the motion. (4) The Department lacks authority to order long-hauling of the town's municipal waste, to approve the town's public' notices, or to pass on its bid documents. . . - 3 - . (5) The Department's compliance sc~edule violates the State Environmental Quality Revie',..r ,,;;'ct. (IISEQF,AII) since it makes no provision for SEQRA review of the proposed tcans~er stations. (6) The Respondent does noe operate the Fisher's Island landfill and the Department did noe ser'le the garbage district which is authorized to ogera~e that landfill pursuant to a special act of the State Legislature. Additionallv, the Respondent accues t~at issues of fac~ exist whic~ preclude summary disposition of the alleged violations. These issues of fac~ are alleged to include the app~opriateness of. t~e Depar~m~nt~s. re~e~ies, ~rcm. fi~cal an~ envlconmental stanaOOlnCSi oercelvea lnc~n5~5te~=~es l~ t~e use a: civil penalties, as. between-different tONns; allegations thae t~e Respondent is being punished foe seeking couet eevie~ of the LISL; perceived disc~epancies bet~een the Department's was~e haul~ng policy and the complia~ce sc~edule proposed by t~e Depart~ent; the alleged impossibility( of compliance with that schedule; the Department's conduct, which is alleged to have made it imposs:ble for towns to comelv with the LILL; and the Commissioner's exercise of discretion permitting other towns, including Smithtown, to operate non-complying landfills during the period resource recovery facilities corne on line. Apart from the affirmation made by counsel for the Respondent, Respondent's papers in opposition to the Department's motion include affidavits from Scott Louis Harris, sueervisor of the "Town of Southold; Josech Janoski, sueervisor of ~he Town of Riverhead; and Tony Bullock, supervisor" of the Town of East Hampton. (Similar motions were made by the Depart~ent against the towns of Riverhead and East Hampton, and the papers submitted for the Rescondent in this matter are ident:cal to those submitted on behalf of these other towns.) DISCUSSION Department regulation provides that a motion for summary order shall be denied if any party shall show facts sufficient to require a hearing on any issue of fact. The motion shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of act~on shall be established sufficiently to warrant the granting of summary judgment under the Civil Practice Law and Rules ("CPLR"). (See 6 NYCRR Section 622.10(c),(d).] CPLR 3212(b) states that a motion for summary judgment "shall be granted if, upon all the papers and proof submitted, the cause of action shall be established sufficiently to warrant the court as a matter of law i~ directing judgment in favor of any party." summary judgment is granted spari~gly and is inappropriate if . there is any doubt regarding the existence of a triable issue. Summary judgment should be denied if the court finds genuinely controverted any fact on which liability depends. . - 4 - . In this matter the motion for summar~ order alleges violation of the Long Island Landfill La'. ("ULL") (ECL Section 2i-Oi04). The ansNering papers raise various grounds for opposition to the motion but do not allege or suggest that either the Cutchogue or Fisher's Island landfills are in compliance with the LILL. The Deoartment's affidavits detail tNQ insoec~ions of Cutchague landfill, one on Dece~ber 19, 1990, and-the other on 2, 1991. These insoectians and ather statements made in a=:;o'a"l'.s c'e-"ly l'~O';c-to t~;s '-no~:~l' pas OOQr--l'~O .-.....:.. ,,'"' _ 0._ .~ _ c. _ _~_ _c.. .:.....__ N .__..0.1.. 1.1.. December 18, 1990, in violation of the LILL. The Deoartmenc's affidavits make no accarent reference to inscecticns of th~ :isher's Island land=lil. Ma~v of the affidavit's stateme~ts refer only to "the landfill" (pr~sumably, the Cutchogue landfill), and it is noe clear to what extent these statements are also meant to apply to the landfill on Fisher's.Island. the i'lav th~ af:e~ Finallv, the Deoa~tment alleoes that the Fisher's Island landfill is' operated by the Town of Southold, whereas the town's papers state that it does not own, operate or maintain that landfill. The affidavit of Suoervisor Harris states the Fisher's Island landfill is operated by'a separate and distinct garbage and refuse district created by act of the State Legislature (Chapter 69 of the Laws of 1952). According to that act, the SoutholdtowQ,_ board was authorized a~d empowered to establ~~h a garbage and refuse district for that part o~ the town known'as Fisher's Island and to vest the operation, management and control of that district to a board of commissioners. There is no indication that the refuse district was ser~ed and the parties' papers raise an issue of fact as to who owns and ooerates the Fisher's Island landfill. This issue is contested and, for that reason alone, the summary order cannot be granced as to the Fisher's Island landfill. This does not preclude granting the summary order as to the Cutchogue landfili, based on the followino findincrs and conclusions. The motion as reoards the Fisher's Isl~nd landfill is addressed in a separate ruling denying the motion and referring it to hearing. fINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Respondent has operated Cutchogue, Suffolk County, since 1954. acres in size. a municipal landfill The landfill site is in 41 2. On December 19, 1990, the Cutchogue landfill was visited by Gerald P. Brezner, regional solid and hazardous waste engineer, and pappachan Daniel, an environmental engineer I, both with the .Department's Region 1 office in Stony Brook, New York. ,,3. On that date the landfill was open and accepting solid -waste. Refuse was delivered, deposited and compacted. Three machines were operated, one to spread waste and one to place cover over the waste. Dumping of waste occurred from pickup trucks and litter was observed to be blowing about. .. . 5 . 4 landf: accept. On January 1, at which ng municipal 15, 1991, l1r:. Daniel ret.:Jcned to ti~e it was also ooeracina solid waste for disposal. - the Cutchogue nor::1.ally and 5. landfill , operating On Hay 2, accompanied on that date 1991, Hz:-. Daniel returned aoain to t::e by t1r. Sre:ner. The landfill re!Tlai:1ed and waste was still being accepted. 6. The Cutchogue landf:ll is not natural or synthetic liners. It has collection and no leachate treat~ent and by the Commissioner. underlain by two no system far disposal system, or mc:re leachate a9pco~:ed i. The Cutchoaue flow recharge area, established pursuant Treatment Management 2i-Oi04(2). landf:ll is outside the boundary of the deep accordina to the hvdroaeolocrical zones to the -Lana Island" Comorehensiye Waste P~an, which Is referenced-at EeL Section , , 8. Groundwater levels at the landfill vary from three to five feet above mean sea level. 9. The Resoondent has no permit allowing th~ disoosal of clean fill material and no authorization or aooroval" of the Commissioner which would allow the disposal of solid waste at its Cutchogue landfill. 10. The town has posted no financial guarantee with regard to this landfill's operation. 11. On December 19,1990, and May 2, 1991, .....aste bei.ng accented and disoosed of at the Cutchoaue landfill was other than concrete, steel," wood, sand, dirt, soil, class, or other inert material commonly known as clean f:ll. Such waste was also not the product of resource recovery, incinecation oc composting. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. ECL Section 2i-Oi04(5) provides that "within seven years of the effective date of this section [i.e., after December 18, 1990] no person shall operate a landfill existing on the effective date of this section in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk" unless specified requirements are met. 2. The Cutchogue landfill is operated by the Respondent in Suffolk County (Finding of Fact ["FF"] No.1). This landfill was in ooeration when the above-referenced section became effective in December, 1983 IFF No.1). Its operation is therefore subject to ECL-2i04 (5). ., 3. The December 18, 1990, January Cutchogue landfill has continued to operate 1990, as evidenced by inspections on December 15, 1991, and May 2, 1991 IFF No. 2-5). since 19, ~ - 6 - . 4. For 0geration after December 18, 1990, the landfill owner ane operator would have had to Dost a financial guara~cee suc~ as, but not limited to, pollution liability i~sucance, sureties, oerfor~ance bonds and/or trust funds ac~eDtable to the commissioner securing the cost of corrective treat~en~, or the develocment of alternative water sources, should such land~ill become-a source of groundwater, surface water or air pollu~ion [ECL Section 27-0704(5)(a)]. As evidenced by the Findings of Fact (No. 10), the Respondent has posted no financial guarantee for the landfill's continued operation. 5. For ooeration aftec December 18, 1990, the landfill 'rlculd have had to be"underlain by tNo or more natural andlcr s"lnthetic liners eac~ with provisions far leachate collec~i~n, and wculd need a treatillent and disDosal svs~e~, all of whic~ would req~ire the Commissioner's aooroval [~CL Sec~ion 27-0704(5)(b)]. As evidenced bv the Findincrs of Fact (No.6), the Cutc~ocrue land=ill lacks the ~equisite l~~ers, has no leachate collecfion sys~em, and has no system for leachate treatment and disposal, a99roved by the Commissioner. 6. ECL Sec~ion 27-0704(5)(f) provides a special allowance to operate for landfills accepting only--material which is the product of resource recovery, incineration or com90sting. This exce9tion does not a99ly to the Cutchogue landfill, as evidenced by the Findings of Fact (No. 11). 7. ECL Section 27-0704(5)(f) also provides that it the landfill is located outside of the deep fiow rec~arge area (as this one is), it mav accent wastes other than au~hori=ed acove where suc~ dis90sal 1s authorized by t~e Commissioner based u90n sgecified findings. No authorization has been asserted by th~ Res90ndent and the Department asserts no authorizacion or a9proval has been granted by the Commissioner which Nculd allow the dis90sal of solid waste at the Cutc~ogue landfill (FF No. 91. 8. ECL Section 27-0704(6) states that notNithstanding the other provisions of ECL Section 27-0704, the commissioner may allow, by permit, the disposal of clean fill material in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. In this matter the material disposed of at the landfill is not "clean fill" as defined by ECL Section 27-0704(1)(a) (Le., it is not material consisting of concrete, steel, wood, sand, dirt, sarr, glass, or other inert material designated by the Commissioner) (FF No. 11). Furthermore, the Respondent has no permit to dispose of clean fill material (Finding of Fact No.9). 9. Based on the preceding conclusions, it is clear that the Respondent has operated the Cutchogue landfill in violation of ECL Section 27.-0704(5). The operation of the landfill became ill:egal on December 19, 1990. The violation of ECL Section 27-0704(S) has continued since that date. .' - 7 - . DISCUSSION The Respondent has made no acoarenc clai~ that its landfill comolies with the LILL, althouch it has raised various objections to the mocion for summary order, as noted in the precedi~g section titled Position of the Resoondent. The Respondent objects to the mot~on on the ground t~at t~e Depar:~ent has no jurisdiction to proceed. According to the ResDondent, the Deoartment is foreclosed from ~oving for a summar~ ord~r since the allecred violation of the LILL 1$ also encamoassea within a complaint served contemporaneously with that motion: De9art~ent regulation [6 NYC?-R Section 622.10(a)J states that "in lieu of a comolaint, the decar~ment may serve. . a motion for summarv oreer" (emohasis added). The"DeDartment has not in -,- . this case complied witn this regulation since it has proceeded by summary order and comolaint on the same allegations. This does not invalidate either or boeh actions although the Department is, of course, foreclosed from securing a "double" relief. Should the Commissioner grant the motion for summary o~der, the issue of liability could not -be -relitigated in the c~ntext of the comolaint. This issue would in essence droa out of the c~molaint action, having already been decided, and the decision of the Commissioner being governed by the doctrine or res judicata. The Respondent objects ta the motion for summary order on the ground that the C~mmissioner is biased and has predetermined t~e motion. This cannot be recognized as an objection to the moei~n, althoucrh it mav be construed as a request that the motion be decided by an irnpareial official. The Resoondent objects to the Commissioner's deciding t~e motion on the basis of alleged public statements by him that t~e Respondent is to be ltpunishedll fer seeking relief against the LILL, whereas other municipalities will not be "punished" despite their also being in violation of the law. It is not specified in the Respondent's papers where or when the Commissioner made these statements. The Resoondent's contention of bias is viewed bv me as a request that the Commissioner recuse himself in this matter. Since receipt of the parties' papers this recusal has occurred. By a memorandum issued July 26, 1991, Robert H. Feller, assistant commissioner for hearings, told me and the parties' counsel that ,the Commissioner had decided to recuse himself in this action and that decisions in this matter would be made instead by Deputy Commissioner Edward O. Sullivan of the Office of Environmental Remediation. The Commissioner's rec.usal resolves the objection based upon his- alleged personal bias and predetermination of the motion for summary order. Even had this recusal not occurred, the Respondent's motion for discovery on this issue would be denied . - 8 - . since the motion is basad on alleged public statements as to ~h~ch discovery would be unnecessary. Finally, the Respondent objects to the motion for summary order an the basis that it constit~tes unlawful selective enforcement of the LILL. This is a constitutional issue that is not before me as an administrative officer and must be submitted to a court. [See Hatter- of 303 Nest 42nd Street v. Klein, 46 NY.2d 686, 693 n. 5 (1979), clting Matter of D1Maaaio v. Brown, 19 NY2d 283, 291-292 (1967). J The issue oi selec-:.~~/e entor-cement is not. addressed in this ceport and no conclusions are made wit~ cesare to it. As creviouslv ncted, there is no question that the Respondent was in ~ialation. of the LILL by continuina to operate t~e Cutchocue landfill after Dece~ber 18, 1990. The Res~onden~rs papers'do not allege compliance with this law although they raise various issues related ,to the relief souaht bv the Department. t' ....._ I The Department is seeking in this case to cease acceptance of wastes at the Cutchocrue landfill. This would be done bv a compliance schedule ~hich sets parameters under which "the Respondent would have to begin the long-hauling of waste from the town to other-~ocatio~s outside Long Island. The Resoondent contends this compliance schedule (Appendix "A" to this rep;rt) is outside the Department's authority to"establish or enforce. Eased on a review of the papers I agree with ResDondent1s counsel that the Deoartment cannot close the Cutchocrue landfill under terms of its comotiance sc~edule since the DeDact~ent has no authority to compel town governments to provide sol~d waste disDosal services. Whether to cravicle such services is a decis:on that can be made only by local, elec~ed town boards, and a compliance schedule mandating t~e provision of such services must be considered beyond the Depart~ent's authority. Having violated the LILL, the Respondent is liable to have its Cutchogue landfill closed, although there is some question as to whether the Commissioner has discretion to phase out its operation. The Respondent contends that rather than being shut down immediately, the Cutchogue landfill should be phased out pursuant to a reasonable schedule, sufficient to enable the town to implement its solid waste management plan. The Respondent submits that continued operation of the landfill would pose no threat to the public water supply, whereas an immediate halt to . operations would hurt both the environment and the town's fiscal 'health, with no compensating gain. Ordinarily the Commissioner would be deemed to have broad discretion in shaping remedies fo~ violation of the Environmental ,Conservation Law. ,On the other. hand, this discretion, if it exists at all, must in this case be considered limited given the language of the LILL, as enacted by the state legislature. . 9 - . According to the LILL, the Cutchogue land:ill could not ooerate after December 18, 1990, exceot under soe~lI~ed c~naltions not met bv the Resoondenc in this matter. The leaislat~re made cectain exceptions .to the closuce requirement [see EeL Section 27-0704( 5) (f) ] but sucl1 exce;n:ions are clearly dra'.-n, '.-hich SUGcests that outside these excEotions, there is no discretion bv which the Commissioner could sanc~ion this land:ill's continued ooeration. It is acknowledGed that the ResDoncenc is not arguing t' t th 1 df"l . l' "i ,,' '"~i-i",,, b" i . na . e an 1_ snou a rema.n op_n lnc.c.n.___y, Ue.S argulng instead that it ~hould continue c~eration pen=ing an orde:ly transition to other waste disoosal orocesses. This arau~ent has some acneal, but it must also -be noted that the LILL was enac~ed in 19~~, and municioalities have lona been aware of ,-- provisions, and the need to sto~ landfill ope~ations prior to December 18, 1990, or meet st=icter ooeratina reauirements. F:cm a revie',.; of the LILL, it is clear that -t;"e leaislat'Jre contemolated a transition to other waste disoosal methods; but it is also aocarent this ~transition was to occur before December, .. .. , 1990, and not after' that date, and in the concex'C of an enforcement action. Given the language of the LILL it would be hard to conclude the Commissioner has discretion to allow for its continued '-violation~ Even so, it might be unrealistic to expect operations to stop immediately upon issuance of an order: An immediate halt of operations would potentially result in at least a shor~ period durincr which waste would accumulate \vithout an assured means of disposal. Assuming this to be true, anv order in this mat~er should provide some minimal time before landfill ocerations must cease, although it is not clear from the papers aione what: that period should be. This may be considered as presenting an issue of fact related to relief but not to the Resoondent's liabilitv. Should the Commissioner find suc~ an issue exists, this rnattec.should be remanded for its development by the parties. Absent this .issue, the Commissioner should order that landfill ooerations stoo immediately or after some very short period of time~after service of an order directing that the Respondent cease its violation of the LILL. Any decision allowing for the landfill's continued operation can only be made after the Commissioner determines what, if any, discretion he has with regard to the relief requested, and what factors should control that discretion, if it exists. It is __;..,-,._.apparently the Department's position that there is some discretion .,-..,~~...to authorize what would in effect be a continuing violation of the LILL, based upon a review of the Department's consent order ,involving violation of the LILL by the Town of Shelter Island. That town was also charged 'with violation of ECL Section 27-0704(5) but resolved the charge by settlement with the Department rather than by administrative hearing. In its consent order (File No. 1-4561-91-05), dated July 1, 1991, the Department allowed the town's landfill to continue operations for the . - 10 - . landfilling of solid waste until Oc~ober 1, 1991, providing three months for impleme~tation by the town of another specif:ed ~asce disposal 09tion. Assuming the same discretion would apply in this mac:er, t~e Commissioner should consider t~e folloNina oaints as potential issues of fact, raised by the Respondent, bearing upon continued ooeration of the Cutchoaue landfill. - - (1) Harm from continued landfi~l opera:ion. The afficavi: of Town SUDervisor Scott Louis Harris cites studies by the Suf:Jlk County -Deoartment of Health Services in support of t~e Resoondent~s contention t~at t~ere is no threat to the oublic water sUDolv and minimal environmental risk from the continued operation-of its land:i11 during the period while it implements a solid waste management plan. (See also affidavit of Dr.. Lee Koooelman, executive director of the Lona Island Recrional Plannina Board; Exhibit 6 to Re~pondent's ans~ering papers.]- - , (2) Harm from immediate landfill closure. As a corollary to the first point, the Respondent contends that immediate landfill closure, absent a solid waste management plan, would potentially pose an environmental risk far greater than that posed by the landfill's continued operation. Should this be the case, it would have to weighed against what benefits would accrue from an immediate landfill closure. . - 12. - . the andfill OL to close it immediacely. We:e suc~ an issue cons dered, it might also be necessary to consider the eccr.cmic bene it accrued to the town bv its use or the landfill past the date on wn~cn its oaeeation became illecal. This ~ould onlv be rair given that that-any future hardship.would be c8untercalanced by this past benerit to the town and its residents. Prior to developing a record on any of the fau: points c~~~~ above the Commissione~ must first decide which poin~s, if any, are relevant to the issue of relief, and Nha: d:sc:etic~ he has a~~ is willina to exercise over the Cutc~ocue landfill's closure. Eased ucon aJreadina of the LILL, it wauid aooea: the Co~~issicner has no a~sc:etion~ to allow for the landflil's c~ntinued ocerat:on. Th~s is because the LILL states clearly t~at "no cers~n shall ooer-t=ll - landf~ll af~=r De~a-D. or 18- lCCO un~o~s cor--~n _ a __ Cl _ _ _ ...... _ _ _ ~.. ... _ _, "'"', .. _"_ ... _ . 1..::::' _. reouirements are met or unless certain exce~cions aoclv {see ~~~ Section 27-0704 (5), (6) J. The stat:ute's allo."ance'for continued ooerations under soecific conditions would aooear t~ exhaust any discretion the CommissLoner would otherwise have. - Even if the Commissioner does have discretion, the Resoondent has raised no issue of fact bearing on landfill closure.' Such relief is certainly contemplated by the legislature and must be - .granted upon any finding of violation. Even if the Respondent were successful on any or the four issues cited above, this would not justify ,any period of continued ogeration~ beyond what has alreadvoccurred. For that reason it would be wasterul and irrele~ant to hear any of these issues, and an oeder should issue halting landfill operations immediately (or as soon as possible, on a date to be set by the Commissioner), and reserving consideration of these issues with regard to civil penalties, as to which the Commissioner has the disc=ecion to assess no oenalt'l,. or to assess penalties ranging up to the maximum per day, based on the amount and tvoe of harm and on the culoabilitv or the Resooncent's c~nduc~, amona other factors. (See Commissioner'S civIl penalty policy, e;forcemenc direc~ive no. II, issued 6/20/90). The recommendation stated above is made recognizing that the Commissioner may disagree and remand this matter to hearing on all aspects of relief. Should the Commissioner do this, he should narrow the hearing issues as much as possible so as to avoid a protracted hearing. He should also be careful not to re-open issues that were previously decided by the legislature. In enacting the LILL, the legislature found that "the land burial and _.disposal of domestic, municipal and industrial solid waste poses a significant threat to the quality of groundwater and therefore the quality of drinking water in the counties of Nassau ~nd Suffolk" (Section 1 of L.1983, c.299). This finding is not open to challenge in this proceeding, although the Commissioner may want to consider the extent of the threat Or to .weigh the threa~ to groundwater against the harm that might be engendered by an immediate landfill shutdown. . - 12 - . On the question of civil penalties, tje Department's paoers request relief under EeL S~c~ion 71-2703(1), which provides that !'any pe;son who violates the provisions of ti~le 7 of article 2i. . shall be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand five hundred dollars for each such violation and an additional oenaltv of not more than one thousand dollars for each day durina ~hich .such violation continues.11 In this macter the De9art~e~t has established that as of December 19, 1990, the Respondent was in violation of EeL Section 2i-Oi04(Si, and that this violation continued up to and including May 2, 1991. The Deoart~ent has net soecified what cenaltv it is seekinG but has indicated that such penalty would be up to the maximum allowed bv law. Based upon a $2500 penalt~ for the violation on De~ember 19: 1990, and an additional $1,000 penal tv for violations on each of 134 succeeding calendar days up to and-inCluding May 2, 1991, the maximum civil penalty would be $136,500. The Denattment's ~motion provides a basis by whic~ one may calculate a- maximum penalty; the motion does not indicate what Staf: would cons~aer an aoproociate penalty, or wnat factors Staff would consider relevant to penalty assessment. What penalty should actually be assessed is subject to points of apparent contest (cited above) which the Commissioner mav also find relate to the timltable for landfill closure. These points are referred-- to the Commissioner for his. consideration as. to all relief requested by the Depactment~ RECOi11-!ENDAT~ONS 1. The Commissioner should conclude that the Resoondent has operated its Cutchocrue landfill in violation of ECL Section 27-0i04(5) from Dece;ber 19, 1990, until May 2, 1991. 2. The Respondent should be ordered to cease operation of this landfill immediatelv, or as soon as possible wi~hin a time limit set by the Commissioner. This should be done pursuant to ECL Section 71-2703(1), which provides authority for the Commissioner to enjoin continuation of a violation of ECL Section 27-0i04. The R~spondent should also be recruired to submit a closure plan for the landfill, such plan to be implemented upon approval by the Department's Region 1 Staff. 3. The recommendation to immediately cease landfill operations is based on conclusions that the Commissioner has no discretion to authorize a continuing violation of the LILL and .._.__;.._...that, even if he had such discretion, no issue of fact is raised .--'--_.__:~,.' pertaining to the relief of landfill closure. Needless to say, no. the Commissioner must make his own determination as to' what, if any, discretion he has related to continuing the landfill's operation. If he finds he has no discretion, he should order an immediate halt to the landfill's operations. If he finds discretion to exist, he should consider and articulate what factors would govern that discretion and then remand the matter for hearing on the issue of relief. . - 13 - . 4. T~e De9art~ent/s request f~r ceas:~g landfill operati0ns pursuant to its c8moliance schedule (Acoendix "All, attached) should be denied in~ that the Depactment- has no authcritv t:::l dictate what, if any, me~hod the Respondent may provide fo~ ~alid waste disposal. 5. Dec:sion should be rese:1ed on the De9art~enc's mction for civil penalties in that it is not apparent Nnat Staff c~nsiders tQ be an aoc:ooriate oenalt"; and because the re~orj lacks adecuate information for- me -to make an i~ce~endent assessment: Should the Commissioner re~and this rnat~er to h~ar:na on the auestion of relief, tha~ hearing may also co~side= what, i~ any, penalty would be appropriate. OtherNise, this issue can be addressed within t~e context of t~e De9art~ent's csm91aint, wh c~ incoroorates alleaations iden~:c~~ t~ these in t~e moc:on or summa~v order. AE any rate, there is no reason t~ continue he landfiil's ooeracion 4while the issue of civil penalties is adjudicated. - /' .. _.~.-.;. \\ , . . " :"!':~:CN FC?~ :?;:~':':.:'.L S7..J"':.!!.!.:'.B.Y C:;~E?~ CC:~!:?:I.:'.NC=: SC:-::::~ULE i! ,i !i Wi~~in se~le!: (I) c.a~l's: !; aft.er t:;.e ca.t.e of t::e 'I Ccrr.miss:..cne='s Cr~e=: .. . " ., i! :1 , , Within three (3) business ! days a=~er Depa=tme~t )! approval. of t~e notices I i and bid specifications: ,; " :1 Within t~en~y (20) days: after t~e date of t~e C~rrmiss~o~e~'s Creer: i1 " " ~ ; q il II ., !I ; I I i Immediately upon receipt from the Depart"ent of written authorization for construction and operation of the emergency solid waste transfer station: TOIYN OF SOUTHOLD APPENDIX A DEC No. 1-4020 Res;cnc~n~ shall subm:..t to t~e Cepa:-~~e:-.:.~ for its revier,.; and a~nroval a nor:co ~~- ~u~i;~=~;~~ __ -_ .... _...JJ.. ::' .....___....__""._ for a c=ntrac~ far off-Island or cut-af-town lang-haul of all soli~ waste ~=esently beinc dis~ased a~ Respcnc.e~~ls landfili and. a notice of publication for a cont=ac~ fer co~st=uc~icn of an emergency sal~d was~e t=ansfer station. Res~cnden~ shall also sut~it to the Deoa~~~e~~ for it review and approval bid specifications fer the long-haul cont=ac~ and for the emergency transte= station construc~ion contrac-=. Responden~ shall publish such no~ices as rec~ired bv law. P=oposals in response-to the requests, shall be requi=ed to be s~Jl::mi tted. no later t~an fwur~een (14) calendar days af~e= publica. ~ion. Res~ande~t shall s~~i~ to t~e De~ar~-nent for its revie',.; and approval an ap~lication far cons~=~c~ion and o;eratian of an e~ergency scli~ waste transfer station, whic~ plan shall include but is not limited to a complete conceptual design including all site preparation issues such as grading, excavation, drainage and runoff control, a traffic impact analysis, subsurface investigation for load-bearing capacities, a site selection and construction and implementation schedule. Respondent shall open the bids for construction of the transfer station and shall, within two (2) business days thereafter award the contract for construction of the transfer station. construction shall commence immediately thereafter. () pI ~ :1; a 0 01 rJ Ili ~ rl a 0 p. M 01 .~ <, a Ii, ....... pI t"h 0 j:: (j) t"h 1-1. 11 I-h 0 ~ ro I-h I'" a rl rt III ;:J rlIl1 rl" rt 0' ;:J rt '(1 rl' rt aID:S rl rtl/l tJ'fll (;l :J' :J rtlll p' JlI ID ;.J' 1.....f1 1-" lU :J" (I' 0 't 11 I..... III :J' (I a ." 11 I..... III ;:J ro Ii 11 [I' :.J 1-" co Ii 11 [I :J III rt rt ~ "'::1 11 ID j:: I"' d 11 t-~.~' P I" roo n ro lD " 11 ro 0 Nfl) lD H, oro I"' pI :'I " pI :1 n P' ,] rt pI :1 n u P P P ro I..... rt rt ID I"~ <n ro ,-.. (1- (I LD r:: ro P,ro III 11 01" '....'-1 ,I 11 0 I" 1.....11 11 0' rt thlil ;::l 0 O'U " III In :1 0 a 'll rl - rt ,< lD ro :J '-h (t'~ rl CD ;:J 111 (1 0> IIlID 11 ;:J O' -1-" :.:1 PI ID 0 :J 111 :t: H,-. 0 0 ~J t"h :f. 1-11:.1 00 LD (/)1"": p.o '1 I, l.' ::JI"": p.o 11 Ii 11 ....h Cl rl 'i I-"() 0 11 .-"0 ........ p. 0' III 0 ,I a -. III a rl a ,~ <P rl rt 0 '[J <I Dlfl " J. . 11 :J' p. I"l--~ ~ 1Il (t n. I~ ro ID rt -- ro PI a I." 1 :1 :J' pi '.....11 :.1 ~. 1<: :J P.ll! lD I....~ fl. III ro p. UI rt .. ,I 0' I." .~ I" ,<: 0 0' () u. :J III :J ,I lD : "thO ~ ....:1; <A 0 ~l1 0 p... " ::0 II a 0 ro pi pI 'I 0 IP 0 0' ::J"::J'CU III t1 El (J) :j III III :J .. :1''''': pI ro <I, :.1 'd '[1 n. (I (I" (J) I(J " In ,~ Irf. IIlJll ....0 1-" W 1-" (t 0 '1 I--It-' () Ih lD P ""1Il 0 Ii :1 p. rl - () ;:J lD'Cl rl p. ,~ P r; P, 0 :)' :J p. 11 ro ID ro 1-' p. 0 LD II ID :1; U) ID ~' :.J " JU " :r 11 ...... I :,. UI Idrt .. :1 I h rt 11\ 10 (f :Y rl" rt" pI III :-J'rt- n. 0 (J I" :J' r1l 11I,P 11 III ,n p' :J III 11 '-h 1-" r:: u. rtro rt ::r' 1-' ID pI rj' ri' :.J 1-' rJ' I"'~ pI 1--' 0 0 p, '_...4 ({I pI a rt w,...... ~J () HI 1--' 0 Ii ,10 I~ P 0\ 1......1 0 ID ID ,~ :J .: 0 I~ . III 0 10 (I) 1(1 rt 'f) O' 0 :J 0 III IIII(J rI ~J' ::t I >: " 0 J-' PI f~. III 0 III CD pI :,J'I"II .- 11'[1 1-..I.llJ CD :J :J <: p. I( h) JU (Jl p.IO 8 (1.0 rt ro ~:::: p.......... n :.1 t-~ t... co ID If ,~, ,I .:1; ...... rt 11 pi () rt b' IT nl 0 (I' 0 l1 (l :_J"r.: 0' I"' .. I" pI - I-h (I) ~I co In :1 (l, ,I ,.' III '"h'(J I.'. f). (J) CO I"' 10 I~ l1 0 11 ID ID H, P 11 UI 0 iii III 11 n. ../ ",' . ~ . ," ,'/ ,/~I .~")/',.- ;", _ /iJ;. ., h.~ <:-1"",..// . .C-_/ . I , 1//>" /.......J / ' ,-_/", IJ/ /'--..-- ~/ ~c..v '//'-..J ,-/?-7 :f ,,,,,, ~...,........ ;~-.... ",..~,.......;.":."- . .". ," .'''' /' ., .' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, .-,. " ,}"~ ,<~~:"0-",<..<'-"~' ."~, ;,,1, . --' '. " . .' . . '. { ...... >~.~<:: :->\._--,,'.. SolId Waste Management PJan.1 Draft Generic EnvironmentalJmpact statement .-:::v, '<.'_.\ ,"~:"'" I ,.-':,~~' ' . ., ,.~ ',",' September 1990 ,'" . . ..', .". .~ / .. __'i :: .,'.... ...._.,.;;.o?,r' ". '". i '"" r . -..:...., ~: ~~ ,. . ..;..,. ".'.,' '- ~ , . . '~ ..., , "l , ..',! , J . -"", ~-...-....' ".'--~~i',,,_, ....~.._... DVIRKA and BARTILUCCI Consulting Engineers Syosset. New York . . 3,500 in July and August. Monthly population estimates for the Island are presented on Table 2.2.1-1. Precise quantification of the waste generated on Fishers Island is not available primarily because the waste is delivered to five different areas on Fishers Island and there are no provisions or facilities currently available to weigh or record the waste. Based on recently conducted field studies at the Riverhead, Southold, and Shelter Island landfills, the average daily residential waste generation rate for these towns has been estimated to be 4.25 lbs/capita/day. This rate can be considered representative of a rural community with a large influx of summer residents. Based on a weighted average population on Fishers Island of 1,417 (Table 2.2.1-1), and using the estimated average daily generation rate of 4.25 lbs/capita/day for Southold, Riverhead, and Shelter Island, the residential portion of waste stream on Fishers Island is estimated to be 1,099 tons per year, or 3.01 tons per day. As a result of the relatively small proportion of commercial activities on Fishers Island, it is assumed that the residential portion of the waste stream comprises 75% of the total. The total waste stream on Fishers Island, including C&D, land clearing, bulky materials, and commercial waste, is therefore estimated to be 1,465 tons per year, or 4.01 tons per day. Table 2.2.1-2 presents the methodology used to estima te waste genera tion for Fishers Island. 2.2.2 Current Solid Waste Generation and Generation Rates It is estimated that approximately 123 tons per day of municipal solid waste was delivered to the Town landfill complex on a daily basis in 1989. This estimate is based on scale house tonnage data. Summaries of landfill scale data for 1989 are presented on Table 2.2.2-1 and shown graphically on Figure 2.2.2-1. As shown on Table 2.2.2-1, the municipal solid waste delivered to the landfill is visually classified by dominant component, by the scale house operator, into 17 waste categories. Some of these waste categories are identified as outgoing. These outgoing categories are materials which are brought to the landfill complex as source separated materials and are recycled. Therefore, the total net waste brought to the landfill complex, which was actually Iandfilled in 1989, is estimated to be 120 tons per day, or 97% of the total waste stream. 2022/1/10 2-18 J PRlNTED ON RECYCLED PI4PER . . a double composite liner system, a leachate collection and removal system, and a groundwater monitoring system that only a short time ago became the state--<>f-the-art standard for toxic waste landfilling systems. The Part 360 regulations concerning landfills also present requirements for groundwater monitoring and gas venting and collection, as well as daily cover requirements and final capping of the landfill after closure. Long Island Landfill Law: This section of the Part 360 regulations is in addition to the regulations found as 360-2. The purpose of this legislation (ECL 027-0704) is to phase out landfilling of municipal solid waste in deep flow groundwater recharge areas (208 Plan Zones I, II, III) in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and to promote resource recovery as an alternative method of solid waste disposal. This was incorporated into the Part 360 regulations as 360-8. Differentiation of the types of landfills that can be permitted for construction and operation are defined. In deep flow recharge areas, only clean fills may be permitted to be constructed and operated for construction and demolition and land clearing debris. These materials must meet the definition of clean fill found in 360-1.2(b)(22). Landfills are allowed outside of the deep recharge areas in the interim while resource recovery systems are being constructed, and ultimately only for bypass waste, untreatable waste, and the products of resource and materials recovery. Landfill Closure Criteria for closing a landfill after its useful life, as outlined in Part 360-2.15 regulations, call for monitoring of the site and annual reporting to NYSDEC for at least 30 years. A hydrogeological investigation must be performed, including the installation of a long-term monitoring well network in the upper aquifer. In addition, any other wells that the NYSDEC may decide are necessary to monitor deeper aquifers must be installed. An explosive gas investigation must be performed, and a landfill gas control system designed to prevent the migration of concentrated amounts of gases is to be installed. If the landfill gas is to be captured for commercial use, the operator of such a system must receive a permit and produce an engineering plan for the operation. A post closure monitoring and maintenance/operations manual must be developed which details the proper testing and maintenance to be carried out for at least 30 years. The 30 year period may be extended in five-year intervals if the NYSDEC determines it is necessary. 2022M/l0 2-61 PRINTED ON RECYCUD PAPER 1 I J J . . Table 5.4.1-1 Town of Southo1d Solid Waste Management Plan Proposed Implementation Timetable I I J I I Activities Estimated Time Interim Period o Town implements elements of proposed resource recovery Late 1990 system to achieve 70% to 75% goal by end of 1995 o Existing landfill phased out over two years to La te 1990-1992 facilitate closure and capping, and to provide interim disposal until new 5 acre landfill is completed. I to 2 year continuation of existing landfilling procedures on Fishers Island. o Conduct hydrogeologic investigation to support closure Late 1990-1991 and capping plan for existing landfill and preparation of new 5 acre landfill I o Prepare and submit, for NYSDEC approval, closure and capping plan for implementation beginning in 1994 1991 Short-term Phase . "'" 'II ~ o Complete new Interim 5 acre landfill sufficient for disposal of 25% to 30% of the waste stream for approximately 3 to 4 years 1993-1995 :! o Conduct continuous evaluation of alternative energy recovery options including: -Top ranked: Year-round ERF/CERF processing with reciprocal yard waste composting arrangement -2nd ranked: Seasonal ERF/CERF processing with landfilling of 25% to 30% residual waste during periods when capacity is unavailable 1992-1995 iii = o Continuously monitor private sector ventures in the area. If a cost-effective private sector facility is permitted, hold folIowing stage(s) in abeyance, accordingly. If no feasible alternative processing! disposal options are identified, begin development of a second 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for subsequent 6 to 7 year stage ongoing '" OOZORt'3 5-19 PRINTED ON RECYClLD PAPER . . Table 5.4.1-1 (continued) Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Proposed Implementation Timetable Activi ties Lone-term Phase o Use second 5 acre landfill cell for disposal of 25% to 30% of the waste stream for 6 to 7 years. Continue evaluation of alternative energy recovery options and private sector ventures. If no feasible al terna tive processing/disposal options are identified, develop a third 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for an addi tional 6 to 7 year stage o Use third 5 acre landfill cell for disposal of 25% to 30% of waste stream for approximately 6 to 7 years. Continue evaluation of alternative energy recovery options and private sector ventures. If no feasible alternative processing/disposal options are identified, develop a fourth 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for final stage through the end of the planning period o Use fourth 5 acre landfill cell for disposal of 25% to 30% residuals through end of planning period OOZOR/13 5-20 Estimated Time ]996-2002 2003-2009 20]0-20]5 PRINTED ON RECYClED PA.Pf1I . . Append I x B Table 4 Town ot Southold Solid Wate Management Plan Surrmary ot Landtl II Scalehouse Data (January 1 Through June 30. 1990) .. Percent ot Total Waste Received Waste Category Total Weight (Ibs. Average Tons/Day Total Weight (Tons) Carbage 15.082. 140 7.541.1 41.7 34.5% Construction Debris 5.974.580 2.987.3 16.5 13.7% Sand/Sod 5.026.460 2.513.2 13.9 11.5% Landclearlng Debris 4.581.740 2.290. 9 12.7 10.5% Rubb i sh 3.313.400 1.656.7 9.2 7.6% Brush 3.878.140 1.939.1 10.7 8.9% Leaves/Crass/Mulch 2.872.220 1.436.1 7.9 6.6% Concrete 927.780 463.9 2.6 2.1% Meta I' 621.260 310.6 1.7 1.4% Agr Icul tural Debris 143.920 72.0 0.4 0.3% Sludge 318.680 159.3 0.9 0.7% T I res' 230.700 115.4 0.6 0.5% Wood Chips 59.160 29.6 0.2 0.1% Shelltish Debris 29.660 14.8 0.1 0.1% Recyclables' 651.340 325.7 1.8 1.5% Total Waste Received at Landt I II 43.711.180 21.855.6 120.7 100.0% Total Waste Recycled 1.503.300 751.7 4.2 3.4% Net Waste Landtl I led 42.207.880 21.103.9 116.6 96.6% . Materials Recycled .. Based on 181 days (January 1 through June 30. 1990) [ i f j . f I > r ~ ( ( r I-- ~ ~ l I ,. . . . I . I . t----- . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 . SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N ew York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning and Planning Board Membe~s--- ...-/ ./2-J Board of Appeal~_ / //2' September 17.. Board Chairman DATE: II ft W m D\ .. I 8 199\ FROM: RE: MCDonald's Project at Mattituck Reply to Your Communications of 9/6/91 SQUTHOLO TOWN PlANNING 80~?O Your recent communications with attachments was reviewed by the Z.B.A. members at our Special Meeting held on Thursday, September 12, 1991. We transmitted the following facts for your file: 1. The Town of Riverhead Landfill receives 3.97 tons of mixed trash from the Route 58 McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead. Attached is a copy of Riverhead Town Landf~ll Ticket No. 41958 issued on September 10, 1991 by Operator #470343. The tonnage of 3.97 tons every 10 days amounts to an average of 794 lbs. per day, or two tons every five days. 2. The calculation previously submitted in our memorandum to you of July 22, 1991 resulting in a ton per day was obtained from the statements made during the hearings (which are still pending) on the Special Exception. 3. In reviewing the entire record to date we find there is insufficient evidence submitted by the applicant certifying any daily, weekly or monthly accummulations of waste and garbage for any McDonald's Restaurant that would be compatible, either socioeconomically or by population of a town, City, county or village in this U.S. There is, however, some material in the Planning Board file that relates to pOlystyrene and conversion to cardboard, but there doe~ not appear to be any other relevance to these issues. '~ . "'- ./iJ . . c No. e No. if 1 '358 1 TOWN OF RIVERHERD SRNITRTION 201Zl HOI.JELL RVE RIVERHERD NEW YORK 11901 516-727-7346 TinlF"? Date Opet....=:\t.:.'r... 171?:.3/, IZl9.-1 0-'" 1 1.7!713(~3 ~EHICLE 10 LR7499 Time In 09:28 Date In 09-10-91 MRTERIAL 10 7 MIXED TRRSH ACCOUNT . 10 003 DETRIL CRRTING CO. INC. 1770 FEUEREISEN AVE. RONKONKOMR,N.Y.11779 Pl'"'ice / T,:,n Net Chat'ge 1; 40.00 $ 158.80 G....,:.ss l-Jt. Tat"'e tAJt. N..t [,It. t'let Ton5 47561Z1 Ib 395c:'Zl 1 b 791HZ! 1 b 3. '37 tl', T,....a!'"!sact i (:.r, Type - Ct"~d i t. /(i.. (',OJ/ /1) de<.<{ 5 (y tl~ 1/ , . '''Ou' .I " -T C&'.J. 1.?c"ICT.!tt l./ ;0- f '. - -- .-.--:-~.__-::-:-.:....==.:-~==--:.=.:~=--~---- TOWN OF RIVERHEAD LANDFILL (2 Com~any Name Address Phone # Cuslomers Name Address Phone # .GarbaQP. UC Demo. Time Yards R 0 ~ ~Z~~ Occupants Signature Drivers Signalure ".-. \\'-_.. ~I-:""r-n/. ~ '''I'i''~.li\;/' ':'~" .": " _:.:.~ '---:"7 t._~; :..J....:..... ."::' '1.\: ':ll;~-'------ j I.' i;LI), t. '~'\ i ....t:EP I 2 ' :: . , I' . .. ':,'~\' ,. .u ' I -- lZ~.-~~ '_" / {! . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards <1 r'..m..:..~ .1')" ..,~ if C\.'1>\\fFOL,r ... .~ y ~."Q. .. ,) ~ J: ~- \ .Ir~ or, .!J'::' ~' ''2 ' ~\,<::l ',",,'" " ....1 en r 1 ' ;;,: ::. ~ -,:,,' "7'7..., .. (:>. Q; . .:0::'.. ,) Ai -.... ~ '''', 'YA. ~ "'.. ", "1::'\ ~ rh'Q ....:-~ I'~ .~>?:c!- i:~'1' -'~-<:<Z;:3i.f~ .~r , scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 September 20, 1991 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchel1i, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O. Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM * 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. DiConza: For your information, I am including a copy of the Zoning Board's memorandum, dated September 17th, and received by the Planning Board office on September 18th. The Planning Board understands that you will be responding on behalf of your client within the next week. Very truly yours, ~l~~r/~ Chairman VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Coordinating Agencies: Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Town Board Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force Suffolk County Dept. Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook & Albany New York State Dept. Transportation .' ., dO> APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 TO: oo-l< "_.Jt~i L-'- . . P6 /5 SCOTT L. HARRIS tlIti~f'11~ .. Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning Board Chairman and Planning Board Memb~rs___ Board of Appeals, September 17 McDonald's Project at Mattituck Reply to Your Communications of 9/ FROM: DATE: RE: ?/:f .,/ Your recent communications with attachments was reviewed by the Z.B.A. members at our Special Meeting held on Thursday, September 12, 1991. We transmitted the following facts for your ffle: 1. The Town of Riverhead Landfill receives 3.97 tons of mixed trash from the Route 58 McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead. Attached is a copy of Riverhead Town Landf~ll Ticket No. 41958 issued on September 10, 1991 by Operator #470343. The tonnage of 3.97 tons every 10 days amounts to an average of 794 Ibs. per day, or two tons every five days. 2. The calculation previously submitted in our memorandum to you of July 22, 1991 resulting in a ton per day was obtained from the statements made during the hearings (which are still pending) on the Special Exception. 3. In reviewing the entire record to date we find there is insufficient evidence submitted by the applicant certifying any daily, weekly or monthly accummulations of waste and garbage for any McDonald's Restaurant that would be compatible, either socioeconomically or by population of a town, City, county or village in this U.S. There is, however, some material in the Planning Board file that relates to polystyrene and conversion to cardboard, but there does not appear to be any other relevance to these issues. " '. '{. (1 "'- ,jI . . Ticl'et No. Scale No.. 'f1958 1 TOWN OF RIVERHEAO SRNITATION 2iZlIZl HOWELL IWE RIVERHEAO NEW YORK 11901 516-727-7346 Timn. Oate Opet....at()t... Ill':=!! .';1, IZl9'-II/l-"'1 1,7f7l3/t'::; VEHICLE 10 LR7499 Ti~e In 09:28 Date In 09-10-91 MATERIRL 10 7 MIXED TRRSH ACCOUNT . 10 003 DETAIL CARTING CO. INC. 1770 FEUEREISEN AVE. RONKONKOMA,N.Y.11779 Pt"ice / T':.n Net Charge 1; '+0. 00 1; 158.80 Gt"'055 t.Jt_ Tat'e t~t. Net t-Jt. Net T()ns i,756rz, 1 b ,39E.Z:IZl 1 b 79'fiZl 1 b 3.97 tn Tt''''~5aC't i CIl'"J Typ(7.) - Ct"ed i t (y tI~ /2- (',UJ-f / i) dCl<{ 5 Vi ../ "..,:17, ".", , -t CJtJ. ).?L.1C(ltl/ .;.- I .--- ."~----=::-:-':'==-=-:::'~~::..:.:=....:.=.....:..._--- TOWN OF RIVERHEAD lANDFill r2 ". Comliany Name Address Phone # Customers Name Address Phone # .GarbagE'! UC Demo. Time Yards ;;;<0 /7 /1 cLz &._<-~" Occupants Signature Drivers Signature . ~ ,'c' ('" i": 0'\\// -co 'r-': ,'i l:;-~~-.-!~~~--'~; 'I,':; 1:1.1)1 !; ,.:.\! t::EP f 2 '0"; .. .... .- -. . !. .; 1\\ 'u' \.\i .'/. I '--. lZ~._-Li, ___.; / J-. .. ..~ .- . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 e ;;,;u BFr LE" Pb vS SCOTTL. HARRIS ~A-M Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N ew York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning Board Chairman and Planning Board Membe FROM: Board of Appeals .0 DATE: September 17 1991 RE: McDonald's Project at Mattituck Reply to Your Communications of 9/ ,'" .,/.,,, . +1-- , ~ I , , Your recent communications with attachments was reviewed by the Z.B.A. members at our Special Meeting held on Thursday, September 12, 1991. We transmitted the fOllowing facts for your file: 1. The Town of Riverhead Landfill receives 3.97 tons of mixed trash from the Route 58 McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead. Attached is a copy of Riverhead Town Landfill Ticket No. 41958 issued on September 10, 1991 by Operator ~470343. The tonnage of 3.97 tons every 10 days amounts to an average of 794 lbs. per day, or two tons every five days. 2. The calculation previously submitted in our memorandum to you of July 22, 1991 resulting in a ton per day was obtained from the statements made during the hearings (which are still pending) on the Special Exception. 3. In reviewing the entire record to date we find there is insufficient evidence submitted by the applicant certifying any daily, weekly or monthly accummulations of waste and garbage for any McDonald's Restaurant that would be compatible, either socioeconomically or by population of a town, City, county or village in this U.S. There is, however, some material in the Planning Board file that relates to polystyrene and conversion to cardboard, but there does not appear to be any other relevance to these issues. . .~... ,,) . ,e cJoI Ticket No. Seal e No:). I, 1958 1. TOWN OF RIVERHEAD SANITATION 2121121 HOWELL AVE RIVERHEAD NEW YORK 11901 515-727-7345 Tirlle Date Opel''''atol'''' 09: 31, '219-10-"11 '.. 71713'~3 VEHICLE ID LR7499 TiMe In 09:28 Date In 09-10-91 MATERIAL ID 7 MIXED TRASH ACCOUNT . ID 12103 DETAIL CARTING CO. INC. 1770 FEUEREISEN AVE. RONKONKOMA,N.Y.11779 Pt"ice I Tc'n Net Charge 'I; 1,0.00 'I; 158.80 Gl'''C'55 t.Jt. Tcw'e Wt. Net Wt. Net T()n5 1,7550 1 b .3'3tS21Zl .1 b 79/,121 1 b 3.97 tn Tl'''cansoct i on Type - Cl'''pd i t: (y jZ i ~i_(! / D dcu.{ 5 i/ ./ '/0.1./ /, .J .' f, C~L..J. }"ll..-)Cl.('{ l./ ,~ / '. '-'--' .'-~.;.;.;.--=:::-:-':"'==';':':'==-..:o=.:::"';="':'=-..______ TOWN OF AIVEAHEAD lANDFilL r2 Date We,O$L~dA-- 7C'l-v1t .' ComHany Name Address Phone # Customers Name Address Phone # .GarbagA UC Demo. Time Yards P.. 0 /7 /J ~ &-_v~ Occupants Signature Drivers Signature . ;y io- \?' I:; 0\\17.." 'r-': :,jl1;~~-.!~:--=_:2..'II): "," , 'i /j I : I '\ I t::EP J 2' ," ,I, : ':' I I' in, "... 'i iU ~.,_- lZ~_-Lr, 0__ / u-.~. }, , '(. 5#JfiLt" ,oj!) August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Sou thold I Ll1l , Dear Bennett Orlowski, d,r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State.Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly -tmdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.... 617.1. Thank You, ~I , ~1i~~1i (~.P \ 6 \ga v" It . .s1.(.f;H~ f1~ /1'$ THOMAS A. TWOMEY, JR. STEPHEN B. LATHAM JOHN F. SHEA, III CHRISTOPHER O. KELLEY LAWRENCE M. STORM * MAUREEN T. LlcelONE DAVID M. DUBIN <) P. EOWARD REALE TWOMEY, LATHAM, SHEA & KELLEY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 33 WEST SECOND STREET P.O. BOX 398 RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 516-727-2180 TELEFAX: 516-727-1767 September 13, 1991 9 NORTH MAIN STREET EAST HAMPTON, N.Y. 11937 516-324-1200 PETER M. MOTT t HERMON J. BISHOP LISA C. KOMBRINK MARY C. CRONIN JOAN C. HATFIELDD MICHAEL A. SIRIGNANO . NY, CT & FL BARS <) NY & L,o. BARS t NY & MD BARS D NY " CT BARS HAND DELIVERED '} ,'" , l,~~l Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: A991ication of MacDonald's. MClttituck. NY Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: This office represents the North Fork Environmental Council. We have been asked to respond to the argument made by counsel for applicant in their August 26, 1991, letter regarding whether the Board has the power at this point, to rescind the conditional negative declaration previously issued on this application. As stated in 6 N.Y.C.R.R. g617.6(I) At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a ~ead agency mu..t rescind a negative dec~aration if it determines that a significant environmenta~ effect may resu~t from a project modification, or that there exists a chanae of circumstances which was not previous~y addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other invo~ved agencies and the applicant, and must . c provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. (Emphasis added.) Assuming that the amount of solid waste stated in the long form Environmental Assessment Form was grossly understated by the applicant, and/or that the recycling program previously indicated by the applicant to be in effect is not in effect, this would provide a sufficient change of circumstances on which to base a rescission of the negative declaration. Furthermore, if the agency felt that new information revealed at the public hearing on the special permi t appl ication was signi ficant ly incons istent, on the issue of solid waste, with information provided in the application process before the Planning Board, the Board would be justified in requesting a rescission of the conditional negative declaration and a reassessment of the solid waste issue. The applicant's protestations that solid waste will not be generated in the volumes projected by the ZBA are belied by the attached article from the September 5, 1991, Traveller Watchman. The applicant's citation of pospisil v Anderson, 136 Misc.2d 346 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1987) is not on point. That case involved the rescission of a negative declaration after a hearing on a final plot approval. Such is not the case in the instant application. Here, the conditional negative declaration is proposed to be rescinded prior to any formal approval, either preliminary or final, of the special permit which is a jurisdictional prerequisite for site plan approval. NFEC submits that the Board has, not only the power but the responsibility to rescind the negative declaration in this instance. CK: js cc: Betty Brown "':'~}~', ,,' ,. lteDooatds. rras_"ure "....t "". luestio' ,'. Veight and 8.ee n Town Review' SOUTHOLD - In a five-page let- -0 McDonald's claims that the Thwn o~ of Appeals grossly overestimated .e amount of garbage that would be onerated from the food-chain's pro- :>sed restaurant in Mattituck. But McDonald's estimates, based on survey of two mid-Western ::staurants, are far lower than actual :aste figures obtained by the 1\'aveler- ''stehman for the company's nearby :.iverhead restaurant. The amount of garbage generated by he franchise has become a key issue in he Appeals Board's request that the ;lanning Board reopen the project's en- ironmental review. Appeals Board .embers said that waste estimates pro- ided by the company last year in the nitial review are at odds with testimony ',ven by a McDonald's representative' luring a March 8 hearing. In an August 27 . response, v'lcDonald's attorney Peter Mineo said hat there His no reason" to reopen an nvironmental review of the project """,use the project has not been chang- _~ or modified, and waste generation -;gures were provided in the initial Mew. Mineo ~ed the Appeals Board's ~! :,,:-~lidll: estimate., of ,;3t33,~ -""'Dds per. day "highly inaccurate; <\ccording to the company's study, each 'urveyed restaurant "generat:,d. 238 oOunds of solid waste per daY. Mmeo 'Bid that the figure would drop by 34 ""reent to 160 pounds per day at the Mattituck site because corrugated card- :,oard would be recycled. 160 or 600 lbs.? - But in Riverhead, where the popula- Lion is almost identical to Southold's, lletween three and four tons of. (;on/inuedon Page 9 . McDonald's Questioned pon/inued from Page J McDonald's Route 58 restauranl gar- bage are weighed every 10 days at the .Iandfill, according to Sanitation Superintendent John Reeve." That translates into between 600 and 800 pounds of trash daily from the site- 'which also recycles cardboard- I compared to McDonald's estimate of , 160 pounds daily for Mattituck. . Attempts to obtain an explanation of , the disparity from McDonald's were unsuccessful. Mineo did not return I several calls. Figures provided by Reeve do not in- clude waste generated by the restaurant's drive-through window, which the company has testified ac- counts for 40 percent of its business. Nor did McDonald's include garbage disposal estimates for the drive-in win- dow at the Mattituck site; the study, however, calculated that 22 pereent- or 60 pounds-of trash daily is deriv- ed from McDonald's drive-through window. "Since the solid waste generated by the drive-through window is transported by car to destinations both within and without the Thwn of Southold, the entire 60 pounds per day cannot be considered as part of the solid waste stream that must be dispos- ed of within Southold;' Mineo said. The drive-in window has also been a source of strong opposition from residents who say McDonald's con- tainers are frequently discarded along the roadsides. Only one person spoke in favor of the food-chain's proposal during two packed hearings be. f1~r... e Appeals Board. '; jL~ fW,t .' . ~ 4~\ \\elf' \ tf~6) o Meanwhile, the Planning Board is ex- pected to review McDonald's latest response and then decide if it should reopen the environmental review pro- cess. And while Mineo maintains that the board is without legal grounds to reopen the process, Town Attorney Harvey Arnoff said he will issue an ad- visory opinion to the Planning Board after he has reviewed McDoRBld's' report. _ _ Discrepancies in McDonald's pro- jected waste figures remain unresolved, despite the study, said Appeals Board member Robert Villa. "A private firm did the study and came up with entirely different figures than what McDonald's told us at the hearing;' said Villa. "What do you believe1'" "The numbers are so far apart that I find it hard to reconcile;' said Villa. "I am not an adversary of McDonald's but we do have a respon- sibility to find out the truth, said Ap- peals Board Chairman Gerald Goehr- inger. "We will circulate the letter to . concerned people and private agencies I i to get their responses prior to the final hearingl' -Lydia Tortora . f . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, J r. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 SlI8FILt fJ-d INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM FROM: Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Planning Board Chairman Jerry Goehringer, Chairman~~ September 10, 1991 TO: DATE: RE: McDonald's Project at Mattituck Your Letter Dated 9/6/91 with Attachments This memorandum will confirm receipt of your recent transmittal letter coordinating correspondence/material from the attorneys for the applicant in the above matter. We will be furnishing input and factual data in this respect by next Friday, September 20th. Should additional correspondence or other material be received by you in the interim, we ask that you please notify either Linda Kowalski or me directly, or transmit photocopies (whichever is easi~r). Thank you for your consideration. GG:lk ~ ~ @['U W t5 &'11991 'II. L..-~ .' . .5l-If:Fi~ August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold ~'q~ ~ ;-'1- /1 Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA re~uires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct1y.\,U'i,dertake,. funCi or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effeet,'to prepare or re~uest an environmental impact statement .'" 617.1. .' '- / I .' I : -{ lj I \ t<; I ! I . ( ( t\- ~ Thank, 0]1 r ,_,._."., . , .. OO( @ f!l i/' _.,..- .'< L .( SOliTHflLD TC'.-'I~ , PJ. !J,I~.!fI'I(' f-": . I jn ) ;'lL' / ::' I '--- /. /.. I-I . .:' ~ ",-, '. (\' (. :' <'. ( / ( / ( ) '--. I ,( , . .f.' '_< / /" ( , v " (, /( '-. ~ , ''( I '" " . . .:5lAH=)~ August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly).1i'id.ertake,. fun4 or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. 4, {11I< . /~< U-zV 71< J, /JQ (" 4e~ G f'EQLz r-iJZ /'i! t;;l l< pi'ff2 l!i \!!J u; U ~. L. SEP . 1991 ;1J . Lf 12. (rt7C( SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BO"I.'.I2..._ '. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly-undertake" fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effeot, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ l L rc "~. .. ('\, I ov-c.X[A ~.. roJ~@llii IJI] SEP, L 19911 , ; I j i (V\ G.. . " . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the . actions they will directly -i.mdertake,. fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, . 1 ,/1/1 O///V{j-/ .'. ;-/l~ J~ ',-t; j/Y . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest pOSSible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.W5:dertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. ". 617.1. Thank You, v[lJO {i:.13n.J~o-C~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly .i.lndertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. T You, ~ ~.AC-l+t>~LlS ~. Y. 13L)-73e::,Z- 1/03S- . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly -undertake ,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.". 617.1. Thank You, C~ tl-IA.N ;/'1 c. Ie . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.i.mdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ . . . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actionf;l they will directly.UMertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, 1jw;PIt~ c: &~ K~( ~.f. /lfy[JY . . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly-i.tMertaker fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, J~~~ . . . . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to o~r Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~-~LV~- So~ rrDJ( @ fill', · lJDj , , 'J i L- SOUf~::,,).,< 7!'~~:: ;-,.~"J :(lLJ\fJi'Jir;!r B(j;;;:'i\ . . . '. August 2, 1991 P1annin~ Board Office Town of Southo1d Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#1000- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.UMertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~~ ~ . . '. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of.., Local gover~ent agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the action;! they will directly.\.tndertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~9=r$~e'...d- -z..~/~ Thank You, . . '. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, . . '. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, J,r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State,Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purpo~es of th& State / Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly .\.mdertake"fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, 1c/1kt( c;:~~1S1 (.Al~ '7 " . . '. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State.Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.imdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, {j '"'j ~~ 6rr . , '. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State.Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the action!,! they will directly.Undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, (j)~ 1-~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, d,r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impac~ granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.tmdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, -J " . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.undertake,. fun~ or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II. 617.1. Thank You, ~k~~ , 'f4Z---- (jU R -ii"IV'" UO .IE U t1 I.', jP~H~ SEP I jcnr , ... '.", ~ SOUTHOlOTOW~ PLANNING BOARD " . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.\.tfi9.ertake,. fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, c~ f.~j~ lJ~tJ{i. . " . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the a9tions they will directly.i.li'i-dertake,. fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank~ou, ~4 750 E~ f1~ " . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly-undertake,. fun4 or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, 4wfJ' t7!/>>~C~ ~ . " . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly-undertake" fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank SfP SOUTHOLD~~ PLANNING ao.:':o . _n'_.~:"-'...:.C:" . " . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly -i..Lndertake,. funci or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~T~O ~~~.-t I (n~ . " . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southo1d Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#1000- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they ~ill directly-undertake,. fung or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank "- . \1~J.lU~t \ \\\ {\l '"'!""'"" t r)JJ'!"~" -: ::- '>>,'- JJI o;,UHDl,r .~~ ,iP ~~ t'a ';\ "..ss ~ y, i/~' , ~\~ ',j 0 . ~ ~\;'(''''11>''( ';\ "/~ "":'''', ''\ -,:to ..~~ .:{ :]1 "",;,;'c/[;c]'l .. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1 179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: This notice is being sent to all the coordinating agencies who reviewed the Proposed Site Plan for the McDonald's Corporation in Mattituck, New York. In response to our last letter of August 13, 1991, a copy of which is enclosed, this office received one response from the McDonald's Corporation, which is enclosed also. Additional information was sought and received by the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, and that information is included. The Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the other reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. It would be appreciated if you would send this office your written comments on the enclosed material within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If any questions or concerns arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~~~~~M Bennett Orlowski, Jr. $ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Chairman Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement Letter from Mr. Mineo, Counsel, McDonald's Corporation September 26, 1990 letter from Mcdonald's Corporation VS/vs . le:,'.-' . ._,.., y!jJ)~~ffDl~'-'~;;, ,y ,...:,,'Y>., C'a ,\ .,~ C:<:', /i '" ", ~ \\. :::> . ' ~. co ,',I . =-' I en ~:::i!;~" \!,!', t; ~,.,ti,L r~_',', ~. (:::) f._~ ....~., \\ ''k~ '>-':....~ " '" 'i'n '?~;<f..{ ....Ie <' ~. . . . ';j/:<:r;,~/Lf;'JF' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM ~ 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. DiConza: In my last letter to you of August 13, 1991, I indicated that any factual information that was submitted by reviewing agencies, as well as the McDonald's Corporation would be distributed to all parties for review and comment. To date we have received three responses; your letter of August 26, 1991, the Zoning Board's memo of August 6th, which was sent to you on August 13th, and the enclosed response of the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, which was received on September 5th. The Task Force's response is in answer to the Planning Board's letter of August 13th, a copy of which is enclosed also. It would be appreciated if written comments on the enclosed memorandum from the Task Force, if any, could be returned within ten business days of receipt of this letter. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice that is being sent simultaneously to the coordinating agencies by certified mail. . . If any questions or concerns should arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~~~'r/tk. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Coordinating Agencies: Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Town Board Suffolk County Dept. Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook & Albany New York State Dept. Transportation . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor if ';T;:,'/:I Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: This notice is being sent to all the coordinating agencies who reviewed the Proposed Site Plan for the McDonald's Corporation in Mattituck, New York. In response to our last letter of August 13, 1991, a copy of which is enclosed, this office received one response from the McDonald's Corporation, which is enclosed also. Additional information was sought and received by the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, and that information is included. The Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the other reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. It would be appreciated if you would send this office your written comments on the enclosed material within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If any questions or concerns arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~~~~7/~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. $ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Chairman Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement Letter from Mr. Mineo, Counsel, McDonald's Corporation September 26, 1990 letter from Mcdonald's Corporation VS/vs . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chainnan George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS .Supervisor :,' /<:.r:.~.'/) .:.-- Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM * 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. DiConza: In my last letter to you of August 13, 1991, I indicated that any factual information that was submitted by reviewing agencies, as well as the McDonald's Corporation would be distributed to all parties for review and comment. To date we have received three responses; your letter of August 26, 1991, the Zoning Board's memo of August 6th, which was sent to you on August 13th, and the enclosed response of the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, which was received on September 5th. The Task Force's response is in answer to the planning BOard's letter of August 13th, a copy of which is enclosed also. It would be appreciated if written comments on the enclosed memorandum from the Task Force, if any, could be returned within ten business days of receipt of this letter. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice that is being sent simultaneously to the coordinating agencies by certified mail. . . If any questions or concerns should arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~ ~~fiZ:/P'E. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Coordinating Agencies: Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Town Board Suffolk County Dept. Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook & Albany New York State Dept. Transportation . . SL{ t3J::="1 t...k pe:, If, '\ COUNCILMEN Raymond W. Edwards George L. Penny IV Ruth D. Oliva Ellen M. Larsen Thomas H. Wickham COUNCILMEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1891 To: Planning Board, Town of Southold T. Wickbam(lJ 4 Sept 1991 From: Date: Re: Review of Pro'ected Solid Waste Generation fi I In its Aug 13 memo to me the Planning Board has asked the Solid Waste Task Force to address questions related to the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan and the volume of waste that individual businesses could generate according to the plan. This memo, prepared and discussed at the Sept 3 meeting of the Task Force, is our response to the three questi9ns posed by the Planning Board plus some additional comments. First, the Town does have a solid waste management plan that was adopted by formal vote of the Town Board earlier this year. Copies of it are available at the Town Clerk's office. It is our view that endorsement by New York State is not required, and the state has not challenged that view. The state legislation requires towns and counties to adopt solid waste plans, but there is no reference in the legislation to state approval or endorsement of those plans. The opportunity for state endorsements or rejections is when towns make permit applications pursuant to their plans. Second, the plan is being implemented; specifically, the Town is moving with all reasonable haste to achieve the recycling/reuse/composting goals set out in the plan. Those goals call for removing from the waste stream between 70 and 75 percent of materials brought to the landfill by recycling, reutilization and yard- waste composting. The plan refers to target tonnages of recycled materials and the residual materials which cannot be recycled, reused or composted. These figures are goals and not mandated caps. There is no provision in the state legislation as we understand it which would give the state authorization to cite towns which do not fully achieve their plan goals. Overall volume is limited, however, by capacity of the receiving landfill cells or other disposal options. Third, there is no provision in the Town's plan nor in state legislation placing caps or otherwise restricting the volume of waste generated by individual businesses. ..., . " , '. . . - 2 - The Task Force notes from the ZBA letter to the Planning Board dated Aug 6 that the proposed McDonalds restaurant could be expected to generate about 90 cubic yards of waste per month exclusive of drive-through window volume. The Town's Solid Waste Plan (Table 2.2.2-2) lists wastes collected from current institutions in the Town. We note that a business generating 90 cubic yards per month would rank as the sixth largest generator in the Town. Certainly every effort should be made to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste as called for in the Town's plan. The Task Force welcomes the fact that the Planning Board and ZBA are addressing the issue. ) I I I J . ! J J J I J J J I J :3 3 J . . Table 2.2.2-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF WASTE COLLECTED AT INSTITUTIONS Institution Container Size (cu. vds) Approximate Amount of Waste Picked Up Each Week - (cu. vdsl Hauler Mattituck Sanitation Mattituck HS Cutchogue School East Cutchogue School West 8 3 1.5 40 9 3 North Fork Sanitation Southold School 6 30 Peconic School 3 6 Greenport School 6 36 Oyster Ponds School 4 4 New Suffolk School I I Head Start (Greenport) 1.5 9 Sam Simeon Nursing Home 10 60 Southold Senior Citizen 1.5 9 Nutrition Center Oyster Ponds Manor 2 2 Retirement Home Eastern Long Island 10 60 Hospital Source: 1990. Town of Southold 2022/1/10 2-25 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PN>ER . . ARMAND P. O'AMATO JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JACK L. L1BERT* DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLINO PETER ALPERT ANTON J. BOROVINA SAMUEL YEDID D'AMATO. FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO 8 JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 M1NEOLA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 31 MINEOLA. NEWYORK 11501 StlN"tc.L: v.s f'~ (516) 248 -1700 TElECOPIER:(SI61248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER COOPER *AlSO MEMBER OF P^ I CO BAllS WARREN S. ARTHUR MARJORIE E. BORNES WILLIAM A. DICONZA WilLIAM J. FITZPATRICK THOMAS V. PANTELlS VINCENT J. PIZZULLI, JR. August 26, 1991 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Application of McDonald's Mattituck, New York Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: The following are McDonald's responses to the Board of Appeals request that the Planning Board rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration ("CND") and reopen the environmental review of the above- described application. The rescission of a Negative Declaration is governed by 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i), which states, in relevant part: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it determines that a significant environmental effect may result from a proiect modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed... (emphasis supplied) A review of the history of this application reveals that there was neither a project modification nor a change in circumstances subsequent to the Planning Board's determination of environmental significance that would affect the amount of solid waste generated. . .- D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, liBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPHF. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Two August 27, 1991 On February 5, 1991, the Planning Board issued a CND outlining in detail the reasons supporting its determination of non-significance and setting forth the conditions that it imposed as mitigating measures. That the Planning Board considered the issue of solid waste generation and disposal before issuing its determination is evidenced by a letter from McDonald's to Valerie Scopaz, dated September 26, 1990, which included fact sheets and brochures outlining McDonald's recycling program for the proposed restaurant. This letter was on file \~i th the Planning Board at least four months before the CND was issued. It appears, however, that the Board of Appeals is unaware of its existence since, in a letter to Henry Raynor, dated July 31, 1991, .it stated: In reviewing Town records, there appears to be little, if any, documentation from McDonald's Corporation or its experts concerning solid waste generation, disposal and any proposals to mitigate the tonnage of garbage. Also, in review the SEQRA record, very little, if anything, was offered by the applicant concerning this subject. Thus, no written documentation has been offered ~ McDonald's Corporation ~ this subject. (emphasis supplied) The fact that the Board of Appeals is unaware of the documentation submitted by McDonald's regarding recycling is further demonstrated by the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of it in the Board of Appeals' July 22, 1991 Inter-Departmental Memorandum to the Planning Board, the July 31, 1991 letter to Henry Raynor, or the August 6, 1991 Memorandum to the Planning Board; the only reference to information regarding solid waste is contained in the July 22, 1991 Memorandum where the Board of Appeals alluded to the Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") submitted by McDonald's. Since the issue of solid waste generation and disposal was addressed by McDonald's in both the LEAF and the September 26, 1990 submission, and considered by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of the CND, and since the Board of Appeals, as an involved agency, not .' . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Three August 27, 1991 * only had the opportunity, but the obligation to review and comment upon the solid waste documentation prior to the issuance of the CND, it cannot now be heard to argue that the determination of environmental significance should be rescinded. Furthermore, the above-cited correspondence from the Board of Appeals does not demonstrate there was either a project modification or change in circumstances within the meaning of 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i), which are the only two grounds for the rescission of a negative declaration. A recent case, Pospisil v. Anderson, 136 Misc.2d 346 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1987) illustrates the fact that a negative declaration cannot be rescinded at the very end of the approval process: The record is clear that at the first public hearing (Preliminary Plat Approval, July, 1985) there was no opposition indicated by any person to the granting of the certifiGate of non-significance (negative declaration) nor were there any changes or modifications made by petitioners prior to their request for final approval. It was not until the February, 1986, public meeting, at which time there was what petitioners infer was an orchestrated outcry, that the question of 'traffic impact' reared its head for the first time since the days the lead agency reviewed this matter and issued the negative declaration. The respondents now argue that even at the last moment the planning board has the authority to rescind the negative declaration, and declare the SEQR procedures 'incomplete'. There is no such provision in the law, either SEQR or the Town Law, and to imply that such an action is appropriate after a hearing for approval of the final plat is ludicrous. * see 6 NYCRR !;617.3(i) which states, in relevant part, that "Each agency involved in a proposed action has the responsibility to provide the lead agency with information it may have which may assist the lead agency in making its determination of significance..." (emphasis supplied) . . . D'AMATO. FORCHELLI. LIBERT. SCHWARTZ, MINEO S JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Four August 27, 1991 It would place every developer in the grasp of a vacillating public body which could not withstand the 'heat' of public outcry. (emphasis in original) In its August 6, 1991 Memorandum, the Board of Appeals finally identified the basis for its request. According to that Memorandum, at a March, 1991, public hearing, a McDonald'D representative stated that the proposed restaurant would "fill three 30-yard compactors per month". Based upon this single statement, the Board of Appeals proceeded to make a number of assumptions and ultimately calculate that the restaurant would generate 3,332 pounds of solid waste per day. The Board of Appeals' request that the eND be rescinded on the basis of this statement and the projections derived therefrom is incorrect for several reasons. As stated above, 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i) is not intended to permit a lead agency to rescind a negative declaration simply because additional information concerning a project is presented during the subsequent permitting process. Additional information is always presented during the course of the public hearings that are a part of the permit approval process, and to interpret this section to allow a determination of non-significance to be rescinded on that basis would render the SEQRA process never-ending. As stated by the Court of Appeals in Jackson v. UDC, 67 N.Y.2d 400 (19B6): A requirement of constant updating, followed by further review and comment periods, would render the administrative process perpetual and subvert its legitimate objectives. Another reason why the CND should not be rescinded is that the Board of Appeals' objection that the proposed restaurant would generate 3,332 pounds of solid waste daily is highly inaccurate. In November, 1990, Perseco, an independent consulting firm, studied the solid waste generated by two McDonald's restaurants that are comparable to the proposed restaurant. The findings of that study were set forth in a document entitled "McDonald's Waste Characterization Study", dated February 25, 1991, a copy of which is annexed hereto. . . D'AMATO. FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO S JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Five August 27, 1991 The study calculated that each restaurant generated approximately 238 pounds of solid waste per day. In addition, it calculated that 34 percent (34%) of the solid waste (approximately 80 pounds) was in the form of corrugated cardboard. Since McDonald's will recycle the corrugated cardboard from its Mattituck restaurant, the solid waste from it will be approximately 160 pounds per day. This figure does not include the amount of solid waste generated by the drive-thru window, which the study calculated as 22 percent (22%) of the total generated by the restaurant, or approximately 60 pounds per day. Since the solid waste generated by the drive-thru window is transported by car to destinations both within and without the Town of Southold, the entire 60 pounds per day cannot be considered as part of the solid waste stream that must be disposed of within Southold. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that there is no reason to.- rescind the eND and reopen the SEQRA process. McDonald's has supplied the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals with more than sufficient empirical data to answer any question concerning the quantity or component parts of the solid waste stream from the proposed restaurant and McDonald's proposal to mitigate the amount of it by the recycling of corrugated cardboard. V~~ouQ_ m~ PETER R. MINEO PRM:ren Enclosure cc: Wayne Bender, Esq. Hon. Scott L. Harris Ms. Judy Pascucci Mr. Henry Raynor Board of Appeals, Town of Southold 'CDONALD'S WASTE . CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The Waste Characterization Study was conducted at two McDonald's Restaurants simultaneously in Denver, CO, and Sycamore, IL The test ran the week of November 12th to November 18, 1990. The study was conducted by two different companies: Waste Disposal Specialist, Denver, CO, and Landfill Alternatives, Elburn, IL. illllECTIVE The purpose of this study is to obtain a current, detailed analysis of an average McDonald's Restaurant's waste stream. It is important to note that all waste calculated in this study is for "on premise" waste...or"what ends up going out the back door of a McDonald's Restaurant and the corral for either disposal or recycling. It does not take into account take-out packaging which is brought to the home, work, or elsewhere for disposal. This information will hopefully generate new questions and opportunities to learn more about McDonald's waste, and to use as a tool in assisting future recycling and source reduction programs. CATEGORIES McDonald's waste was put into three major categories: Over-The-Counter (OTC), Behind-The-Counter (BTC), and Miscellaneous Waste. Each category has sub-groups which include the following: OTC BTC MISe. WASTE Office Paper Polystyrene Uncoated Paper Coated Paper Condiment Packaging Non-McDonald's Waste Corrugated Organics DurableslEquipment Inner Packaging METHOD OF MEASURE The waste was categorized on a daily basis and totaled at the end of the week. All measurements are on a weight basis. Measurements were made of liquid retained in cups and other paper items. STORE VOLUME Both McDonald's restaurants do have drive-thru operations, and their yearly sales is just above the national average with 1.5 million in sales. The sales for that seven day period are $29,149.26 and $26,592.23 respectively which gives an average of $27,870.75. RESULTS The results indicate that 78% of the waste generated is Behind-The-Counter. The bulk of the waste is Corrugated and Organics. The Over-The-Counter waste accounts for the remaining 22%. Please keep in mind that the Over-The-Counter category does include the projections for conversions to the coated paper (paper-based wraps) from polystyrene (clamshell). MAB183/CEB -2- .- . MCDONALD'S WASTE CHARACl'ERIZATION STUDY The two restaurants averaged weight generated about 1,660 Ibs. over a seven day period. ITEMS WEIGHT PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL (OTC) Polystyrene 79 Lbs. 5% Uncoated Paper 62 Lbs. 4% Coated Paper 99 Lbs. * 6% .. Condiment Packaging 51 Lbs. 3% Non-McDonald's Waste 75 Lbs. 4% (BTC) Corrugated Coated 78 Lbs. 5% Uncoated 488 Lbs. 29% 566 Lbs. 34% Organics Complete (Waste Menu 166 Lbs. 10% Board Items) Putrescibles 395 Lbs. 24% 561 Lbs. 34% Durables/Equipment 1 Lb. LDPE (Inner Packaging) 25 Lbs. 1% HDPE (Inner Packaging) 14 Lbs. 1% Mise. (Inner Packaging) 101 Lbs. 6% 140 Lbs. 8% Liquids 26 Lbs. 2% Total 1,660 Lbs. 100% (Based on two restaurant study: 11112-11118; Denver, CO, Sycamore, IL) * Includes conversion of paper based wraps. MABI83/CEB -3- M.CDO.:'iAl.I."\STE CII,\IUCmRIZA'nON 8.Y\ !,yg}J!Jlg"Slm:!;',Lh1LJ~r;:!I~J)Jt:IJ' Silk:; " Polystyn"nc 2.S#,"\t l:n(,nate,1 P'jP<'1' ~.~#/\[ CGah)(l I\l["~r J,3'#/\1 {'~oHdjiu,ent _P',acl~:l,.g,in:~~ \.S#/:\I :Corn~gll:h~d ;:(U#,'\I Organics 10. 7..;i/~''l .lllll er'Pack~ig.fHf:,; 5JJ#:'.\! NI\n,\1cDl)'mld'~ \Y'I';it: 2.7#/\I r 'qrnds .UI#,.\! 'IOnl. (ji}.oti':\l \~ l'hlte-; This: is i'rtt~hl([t~d hi nJ,'th'r to U~',l: l:1;<; ;;'1 ~(JOJ to proJi,~,,~*, 'w,n.ste d,ata tbr ~Hl) !llcDnnald'$ rest:W..':llll.. i\~:!'r[lg,L'i!~!E)Jcb",J~"r/Sl,91!!!,5;1!!,:~ ,.:"l '~,::n~::"," {\ <J:':Xl':,:~\ 151-' , .~ , \ "I , .I --':'(11 , ::,; 'ilr,+:-~,j <l<i '>C':-' ; ,.:, :;'~t I <Iq/"d.li n"',Y:;lllr~ill!'~t'd~!', [1.: I:~ I I: I~. ))I'Il', I', {',O >";,\ 1;1'''1\1 t )1t -. . WASTE CATEGORIES . OTC - Waste in the lobby/sit-down area and parking lot. EXAMPLES Polystyrene Foam Clamshells, Hot CupslLids, Cutlery, Salad Containers Uncoated Paper Straw Wrappers, Napkins, Trayliners Coated Paper Fry Cartons, Wraps, Cold Cups Condiment Packaging Salad Dressing, Creamers, Nugget Sauces, and Jellies. This group includes both unopened and opened packaging. Non-McDonald's Waste Waste from parking lot and lobby which consist of newspapers, aluminum cans, and glass bottles. BTC - Waste in back of the register counter including the kitchen, employee break area, and storage rooms_ Corrugated Coated, Uncoated Organics Out of code sandwiches, and all other putrescible waste from Behind-the-Counter (egg shells, coffee grounds, etc.). DurableslEquipment Trays LDPE & HOPE LDPE (i.e. Hot Cup Sleeves), HDPE (i.e. Plastic Jugs) Miscellaneous Packaging Chipboard Dividers, Kraft Paper Miscellaneous Waste Office Paper MABIB3/CEB -5- " " .. ~ ;----r-: ........ , l~""'~_"'" ) ~- --T' :.-- ,'-'-'" 1""! .- . -~, ",i! .. ~ C) o "~'''. .- \ ;'\j c~; ....-.., ....... -..-.I -.... . , (~ '.,...; '._m\___.._____..."._____ ,~ .:<1 ......... ",':;". .~ '-' p"",, ~.'------_.,----~.-... \ . "-'\ ,. /~ ':J '.'l6 ('l " ~, ..c. ..; ;-~ tj :;:, ij ..'. '-' _~ 0:<: ..J~ '" :.' ..... '~ " r \ Vi ~ .~ J:;" {f) --j n n :r: > ::::0' ~ ",..w C) --I ['1-1 ::U I'----l ):.>- ---i () .L en _..~ r""" " c'" " " ~ .OO'20~ ore CATEGORY ore ITEM OESCRIPTIDH . , EPS FOAH H;,,: non ,< 'v............. ... IHERH('FORilED PS lA HOI COPS IB CUTLERY + ST!RRERS Ie SALAD BASES / LIDS Ie SUNDAE CUPS lC SUNDAE LIDS Ie BEVERAGE LIDS lC JUICE COPS - LARGE ID CLAMSHELLS ID BREAKFAST BASES. LIDS ID SWEET ROLL TRAYS PAPER - OIICOA lED 2 CARRYOGT BAGS 2 STRAW W?APFE~S 2 PIE BOXES 2 NAPKHtS 2 PAPER TOWELS 2 BEVERAGE CARRIERS 2 COl.1UE BOXES 2 TRAY LINERS 2 FOOD INFO. SHEErS 2 FRY EAGS 2 HUFFIN PAPERS 2 SUGAR/EQUAL PAC~ITS 2 SALI/PEfPER - CARRYOU! 2 XMAS ORHAHEtn BOjES .... TEA BAG WRAPS 2 PARTY HA IS 2 NUTRITI1)N INFO SHEETS 2 CUS10HER ORDER SLIPS 2 HALOWEEI, CERTIFICAIES 2 TOWLETTES PAPER-CLAY COAlED 3A HASH BROWN SLEEVES 3A NUGGET BOXES (20-pc) 3A FRY BOXES imed ! 19) 3A HAPPY MEAL BOXES PAPER-POLY COATED 3B SANDWICH + CONE WRAPS PAPER-WAX COAlED 3C COLD CUPS (, sizes) 3C SUNDAE CUPS (sm,ll) 4A STRAWS 4A CEREAL BOWLS LOPE FILM 4B UTENSIL WRAPS ILL. -PLASTIC 4C BUTTER PAT H.L. -ALUM/PLASTIC 40 KETCHUP 40 MUSIARD 40 HOI HUSTARD 4D CROUTONS 4D BACO!J Bm 40 JELLY 4D HOIJEY 4D SWEEI /SOUR SAUCE 4D BBO SAUCE 4D SYRUP 4D SALAD DRESSING 4D IOWLETTE WRAPPER Y HcBALLOONS Y MemS Y HePOPPETS Y MeBALLS Y HAPPY HEAL TOY WRAP Y HAPPY ~E,\l conKlES WRA1 -, PS SHEET FOAM ~~~W~iiiiil~ ;~ POL mOPYLENE NOll-SPECIFIED rr VNi'> UHIT HO.HOll. NEIGHT WEIGHT 11-1.... 11-12 HJ GRAM ItI LBS COUNT lBS. 3.89 .0086 90 .77 2.85 .0063 246 1.55 lG .10 .0223 44 . :~:3 6 -''1 .0150 10 .IS 1.30 on':\I) 3 .01 2.1': .0048 302 l.4S S.30 .0117 4 .05 5.~5 .0127 219 2.78 7.30 .0161 176 2.33 4.05 .00:39 2S ,,? lUO .0320 .l:j .0004 6.30 .Ol3:l , .0066 655 3 .0066 31 .0683 15 .03jl 5.94 no-, . u~ Jl 1.30 .002') .004~ .00Q6 2.04 .25 10 .0220 ;; 7!1 ........ .0082 .0082 3.70 23 .0507 '!.67 35 2.03 00'- . dJ .0772 .0045 .0313 255 4 .0038 3 .80 .0013 210 14.21 6 .50 I 1 I I .SO .50 !.SO .0132 .0011 .0022 .0022 .0022 .0022 .001I .001I .0033 2 .0044 2 .0044 .D044 .OO?? .0110 .50 .001I 2 4.S0 5 3 .0066 5 .0IlO 27 1?7 11 ,) 4 223 2.92 o 73 , I 47 o D o o Ie. o o . 4t o 77 ij 1'0 n o 105 70 142 7 6 6 3 40 6 '/ 17 24 13 3 2 o S o 22 4 I!ON. TUE. 11-1211-13 _: COVNT 1. 13% 77 2.27% 197 l.44% 16 .22: 4 .01: ., 1~. 208 .07% 4.03: 4.16: ..}J. 22 .20 .36 Oc, " L27I 23 .90 .11: 112 .05 .15 .22: 4.33 6.36: .on 27 .10: .06 .07 .13 I'i' . .... 4 .,,-,... 195 2 .21 .03 .03 .31: 64 .18 .05: 6 .03 .04% 37 .02 o .03% 1 .02 o o .02 .02 .33 o .02% 3 .02 .49% 27 .00% 0 2.m 51 .?I: 7 1.13: 146 11.73% In .04% 7 .54: 123 .00% '2 .17% 7? 1.64 '0 .0.:. " .f. 7. ~'j .03 .37 o .12 .15 .31 .02 .01 .01 .00 .13 .OJ .04 .07 .24 .14 .00 .23% 55 .46: ll? .02: 6 .D2% S .01% S .00: 3 .1'): 33 .04% 5 .06% 1] .11% 14 .35% 20 .21% 12 .00: 2 D o S 2 .21: 10 .07 .Nt: 3 .03 .15 .04 .36 .0" .01 LOO .02 163 2.07 65 2 , I .10 468 3.10 .13 o D 1 o . 3 ^ L TUE. ll-13 LBS. .66 1.24 TUE. WEe II-l3 ll-! Z _ COUI 1.33% Sf 2.59: 26~ .74% 2:: .13: . OIl 2.0n 13~ I. OS .os: 4.32% J4[ 2.m 71 .m I~ LE:7: .10% 31 .201 6.47% 39:: .37% 1: .00: .07% 5.33: 1" I' ,'. .03 US .33% 4f .06% .04: 1 ~ .05% 00 .L. I .05% "I .46.% 31 .OOI o 1.0:) .54 .65 5.99 .06 ? ?7"" ......,... 4: 1.13% 1.36% 10' l2.50% 15 .13: .45% .22 C.. (1L .03 .09 .12 .26 .01 .Ol .01 .00 .ll .02 .04 .06 .20 .13 .00 .06I t .18: IS, .25% 6 .55: 6: .03% .02% .01% .01% .23% 3' .05% .07% .m II .41% 2: .2B% .00% .14% .07: 4.73 WED. WED. THU. .1-14,11-14 11-15 L,S, .1. eOUNT .49 1.17% 80 ..67 ,49 .0'1 .01 3.99% 213 I.m 28 ]0 4 .:3'~ 2.12: 313 .02 .,'),- .01: i77 .06%. 4.25: 233 2.93% .32% 1.23: 1.22 .13 .51 .03 .06 ~.63 .0') o o .OS% 227 .13: 6.31: 63:3 .22: .00: .00: 5.55Z 21:3 :t ;') ....",.. .11 .01 .01 .27.; 'n .02% 5 .02% 1 o . DO: 4 .01 .2S o 1.02 .U2Z .61% 33 .00% 1 2.45: 86 .74: 16 1.17% 185 .Jl 4'~ .06 .15 o .17 .l3 .14 .00 .01 .00 .00 .11 .00 .04 .04 .23 .0'1 .00 11.33: 247 ,) 247 o .15% .36: . .00: .41% 31 .32% S2 .33% 191 19 1 14 8 35 10 11 6 13 25 3 o o o o .01% .02% .01% .('0: .27% .01: .03% .11% .67% ". ....... .01: .03 .01 .06% 25 .C3Z 2 70 17 14 'I 3 o o o ;or. ";0 o o 6 o THU. 11-15 LRS. .69 1.37 .62 .15 .01 THU. FRio 11-15 11-16 ..L . COUNT 1. 40: 72 2.30: 224 1.27% .31% .02% 3.12% 205 .05: 3 6.02: 143 2.30% n .3lZ 21 1. 53 .02 2.?5 1.13 .15 .45 .tW .13 .91Z 2'.! .18% 117 .25% 6 3.60: 364 .04% :1 .00: 1 .00% 1 5.82! 160 o .54: 45 .05: 10 .04% 52 4.22 .02 o o 2.35 .27 .02 .02 .09 .18% 1 1 o o 3 o .01 .27 .05 1.83 .02% 2 .55% 42 .101 0 3.74% 42 2.52% 7 1.69% 137 15.78% 142 .16% 3 .an 123 .00% l .18: 89 .23% 70 .86% 70 .0')% 3 .00% 3 .03% 2 .02% 1 .24% 35 .09% 5 .10% 5 .05% 13 .26% 26 .56% 6 .01: 2 o o 1 o .34% 9 .02: 1 1.23 .33 7.74 .08 .44 o .09 .11 .42 .04 .00 .02 .01 .12 .04 .05 .03 .13 .28 .00 .17 .01 15 . . , . FRI..1. SAC 11-16 11-16 11-17 LBS. I COUNT .62 1.33% 100 1.41 3.16% 250 .33 .75% 30 .06 .13: S .01 .01% 2 .99 2.21: 302 .04 .OS: 2 I.:H 4.(0: 213 2.70 1.43 3.32% 110 1.77 .1? .42: 3? .35 .93 2.0B% 30 2.56 .05 .10: I'n .03 , L .03 2.41 .06 .07 .03 2.10 .19: 5.41.: 611 .13: 17 .m 5 n" .,,1.. 4.701 181 , , o o 3 2 .34 .77% 47 .38 o .00% 1 .05 .')0 2.01% 70 1.4'! .54 1.21: 19 1.47 .61 1. 3:::: 209 .94 4.45 9.991 253 8.03 .03 .061 14 .12 .22 .41% 209 .37 .13 .04 .03 .2n 101 .10: 9 .06: 40 1 .02 n,,'" .v... o .02 .04% 4 .03 .01 .10 .15 .15 .01 .01 .00 .00 .12 .02 .02 .06 .26 .07 .00 .OJ: o .22% 107 61 ,35% .35: 135 . OIl .01% 13 .00% 3 .00I 1 .26I 27 .05% 3 .05: 3 .m 26 .53% . 14 .15% 7 .00% 10 o 1 1 o .m h .02: 2 .06 .01 , . SAT. 11-17 LBS. SA T. SlI!C SUN. 1/-17 12-02 12-02 I COUNT LBS. 1.27% 60 .51 .36 1.57 ., .Of .n: 2.33: 135 .35 .12 1,,. . o. . Oil .01 1. 45 .02 2.15.: 203 .03% 4.00: 154 2.62% 56 .52: 10 3.7')% 20 .12% 160 .07 l(l~ 11 .15 5.?'.!: 3~7 2.63 .17% 4 .03 .51: 0 0 .OO! .03 3.51: 151 1. 'f~:; 4.04 .Il ,. --, o 2.37 .Z'? .m .06% .03. .04 .02 .02 .03: o o o 1 o .05% 5 .571 24 o OM . L'. 2.21: 48 2.17: 9 1.39% 11.9SZ I'~. . ':OM o .55% 1&5 .00! 4 .17% 59 .20% 31 98 .12 .n .30 .00 .03 .00 .00 .09 .01 .04 .11 .14 .03 .01 .44% .01% 3 .Ol .04% 2 .00 .001 2 .00 .00% 1 .00 .13% 25 .08 .02% 4 .02 .05% 5 0" .17% 10 .04 .21% 14 .14 .m 5 .06 .02% 7 .01 o 1 .09 .02 1 .14: 13 .o'! .03% .01 17 12 " , . o ", ,..) 6 34 . , , 132 .59 118 6.20 .06 0" ..' 7 2 SUN. ~AL 12-02 "DA Y % '. COUNT 1.01! 536 1.67: 1535 .74: 172 .38 .18 .03 'j'''\ . __0 1 G:or ".,'...," .02 1.:'5 ."0 .09 3.[:3: l.n: 1!~~ . ,--." 1.25: .64 .06 5.1S! .05: On,- . "'.. .06% 3.:::8: .22 .03 .02 .11 .04 .20 o 1.02 .69 2.01: 1. 36% 1.16% 12.17% .05 .07 .07 .22 .10% .13: .13% .42% .01% .01% .00% .00: .16% .03% .04: .09% ?'~ ....1. .11% .02% .35: .05: .05% '" .1':'.. .30: .44% .OS: .04t ?"... ......... .03% .33% .00% .12% .57.% 54 24 1722 17 1265 645 149 214 IIV)"1 --, .20 16.04 10.38 1.33 6.84 .44 .74 23.35 .55 .4:3 T(,.1.. 'TOTAL 7-DAl 7-DAY LBS. % 4.5:? 1.24: 9.66 2.61% 3.33 1.04: '-'f . t~... "'!..... ............ S3 3531 33 7 7 1305 4 17 .0'1 0, . ' .02% .,~ . 't.'t 1. 42 .20 .]4 8.2:3 2.24: 45 263 6 13 , . 3 4 32 2 18 245 2 2.00 .10 422 1.00 5.40 70 10:10 1442 50 1163 4.83 g HI .,....... ~ .44 2.05 .0:) .75 .05: 4.34: 2.31: .36: 1.35% .12% .20: 6.32% .15: .13: '" ..< .06: 7 h"" .!J 400 317 l.80 .O'! .07 .04 .02 .76 .15 .24 .42 1.38 .B4 .03 4.''''!'' 'f.b.:.;. .33% .05% .04: .2:~ .03% 41 33 35 IS 229 34 54 96 139 76 29 , . 2 .15. .04% .54% .031 .,... .:..4.).:. 1.46% 1. 32% 12.22: '0' .J.d. "" .00. .55: .03% .20% .24% .49% .02% .02: .01% .01% .20: .04% .06% .11% .37% .23% .01% 14 3 .17% 97 .64 .17% .02: 13 .14 .04: i: .lliifJ..;j"".;...... U','~;:ili;;ilfll. ~~lffl'!'l_..",~ ~ ;: I : ~. .'t" \. e: Y Y Y i)RGANIC~ LIQUIDS NON-McDONALDS ITEM IOI ALS ,..-:,-"..... ".'" PRu:~u 20-8L HDPE CUP JUICE CUPS - SHALL CHEESE SAUCE CUPS POLY COLD CliP 327:::001 COFFEE FILTER BAGS Y McPIZZA PLATES Y 1/2 PHH 1m!: CARTONS Y CREAMER Y IOULETTE (UNOPENEDi b (JRGMlICS (LBS.) ,) LI~UIDS (LBS.) ~s NON-~![:DONAlD2. (LBS.) SUMMARY DATA - SUS-CATES(iRrE~ EPS FnM~ LA MOLDED PS 16 THERMOFORHED PS lC PS SHEET FOAM 10 PAPER - UNCOATED 2 PAPER-CLAY COATED 3A PAPER-POLY COATED 38 PAPER-WAX COATED 3C POlYPROPYLENE 4A LDPE FIlM 48 M.L. -PLASTIC 4C M.L.-ALUM/PLASTIC 4D ORGANICS 6 LIQUIDS NON-!1(:DOtiALDS !lON-SPECIFIED SUMMARY DATA - CATEGDRIES POL YSTYREHE PAPER - UNCOATED 2 PAPER - COATED 3 MISCELLANEOUS 4 ORGANICS 6 LIQUIDS 9 NON-McDONALDS X NON-SPECIF~ ., XB Y '. , ,; : .;, ~ - \. ~ .07:31 15 .Jj}l 4 . GO::;;:: 12.70 .02~:O .50 .0011 4.20 .oan ~ 4t . :~4 1.3:;: .26 11j" ."d. .06 f1'~" .',J,'" D o o 9q 2.77 4.07: 23 .14 .2D: III 1"t, .01 .01: 0 16 23.4Q% 5 7.34: 10 14.&8: 68.10 100.00: Wl!j. ~nN. 11-12 1: -1 ':l ."" L:;,). .. "' .Ii , 1 ~.' ~.~...... 1. 55 ... '1"';- i..i.i... 2.04 "\ ,",",;11' ....Q/IIo 5.83 :5.56: I"" n'j"' J.,,_.. " ojl ,). ,~ 2.59 3.81: 1.13: " .;, 3.02 11.77% .J,' .54: .12 17" ,,"'.10 .23: i,48% .15 LO! 1 i.. 23. 4 '~: J 7.34% 10 14.&8: 4.37 6.42% 6~::.1 0 100.00: !'iON. ~!ON. l1-l2 !!-12 lES. . . 10.79 15.34Z. 8.9] 13.On 11.38 1&.71: 1.65 2.42% i6 2J.4'?% 5 7.34% 10 14.6:3: 4,37 6.42% 63.10 100.00: \. ., LO') .07 .16 '1 ')r," ':'...0).. " L .14% 1::: o o o .33: .64 1.35: '" .~.:. .26: o .00: 3 16.71% 3 6.27% 11 22.98: 47.87 100.00: ruE. ruE. 11-13 11-13 Las. % .66 1.3:3% 1.24 2.59t 1.45 3.02: 3.31 6.91: 7.1:3 14.'n: 1.85 .65 "\ '-'/"' ....00... 1.36.: 6.05 ]2.63% .51.: '1. .L." .09 .12 .86 .13% .25: 1. 79% :3 16.71% 3 1I 2.18 6.27% 22.18. 4.56% 4i.87 10G.00: ruE. WE. JI-l3 1l-13 lSS. % 6.65 13.90% 7.13 14.99% 3.55 17.86% 1.31 2.73% 8 16.71.t 3 6.27% 11 22.93% 2.18 4.56% 47.87 100.00% .31 .03 .11 . .5~ 1.27.: .12 o .OD! S 19.16: 5 1i.9C: ) 16.77: 4i.75 100.00: ~ri, "..... ",...,.. "''''1 ,..,....... 11-14 !ll<' .......... 11-14 .49 1.67 1.4'.) 3.13 5.73 1.17: 3.99: '\ c;,)~ ..........'" 7.50% 13.85Z 3 ';f1, .'-'...... 1.53 I T1~ ..!:... .1.i9 .15 11.m ...;t.; .41: .17 .13 .71 'Z"... .......\0 1.71: n 19.16.: 5 11.98: 7 i6.n: 1.15 2.74t ~L7S 100.00: ~[O. 11-14 lBS. 6.73 16.2~~ 5.73 13.35: ;.:)7 16.m 1.17 2.31% G 1'1.16: 5 11.98: 7 1~.77: 1.15 2.74% 41.75 100.00% WED. 11-14 . . .75% 5 1 34 1 o .08: 'P'" ...1. o 13 .22: 109 7 .39 .03 .30 ,-,..,... .ou... 07' . ,-. .61% '7 o o o .36 .74: 23 1'1 ?J'" Ic;'! .u:. ...'1.. "'''''' .06 .13: o 16.31% 4 8.16% 5 10.19: 49.05 100.00: : , ..,.., ...,;/ 2.34 4.23 3.16 3.39 ., ,-,? / .0.. .44 .00 .11 1.13 THLI. ll-IS 1"< ...D.... THU. 11-15 . . .6'j 1.40: .&3 2.30: 4.77% 8.63: 16.64: 6.91: I.6n 15.94% ,..,,~... .on, 1M . 0:' .23: ., 1T~ .:........ S 16.31.: 4 3.16: 5 10.19% US 2.95% 49.05 100.0DZ THU. 11-15 lBS. 3.63 17.59: 3.16 16.64% 12.04 24.54% 1.77 3.61% 3 16.31: 4 8.16% 5 10.m US 2.95% 4'7.0S 100.00: THLI. 11-15 % , , o . .55 .3: (' .07 .15: 5 .08 .64 .17 .01 '? 20.21: 3 6.74: 10 22.45: 44.54 100.00: FRI. 11-16 LBS. 11-16 .62 Ul 1.42 3.43 5.% I i'l~ ~. ...'J.. 3.16% 3.19: , "..,... I.OL. 13.39: 3. ~.~: I '0 ..../0 .61 1.3:i: 4.43 10.0S: .23 .52: .10 .22: .15 .35: .' .71 1.60: 'J 20.21% 3 ".74% 10 22.4S~ 1.53 3.56: 44.54 100.00: FRI. 11-16 lSS. FRL 11-1~ 6.9J 15.S5% 5.96 13.39% 6.S7 15.42% 1.20 2.69% 9 20.21: 3 6.74% 10 22.45% l.SS 3.56% 44.54 100.00: I,.,. . 'J. us: 54 .38: 114 I .02: FRI. . . . . .:30 1.27: .17 .24: 2~J .26 .3:i: o 1 o . 1.51 2.24: .13 .1 ~?: .Cl .01: 20 2'1.63: 8 11.35: 3 4,44: 67.51 100.00% - .. JAI. ll-I7 SA T. 11-17 I , "^ u:,). .;36 1.2.7: 2.3~: 1. 57 ., ,,':' .:..:! 3.36: 7.14Z 14.7::::% 4 "., .0': '.~. ~8 J.3~ 5.03: .~~4 1.3n 3.21 12.16% .37 .55! .12 .17% .13 .20~ .81 1.21% 20 29.~31 :3 l!.BS% .3 4.44.= 3.04 Ul% 67.51 IOO.OO! SAT. SAT. 11-17 11-17 les. . . 9.52 14.10.: 9.93 14.73% 12.54 18.57: 1.44 2.13% 20 29.63Z S 11.85% 3 4.44% 3.04 4.51% 67.51 100.00l J , .46:.50 .26: 23 3 n, ..:... 4 16 o o o .13 .1' .28%, 126 22 .62 .10 1.21.: .19% ",-, 'JO o C .00: 10 13 25.4'J% ~ 11.77.: 9 17 . 05: 50."9100.00: SUN. SUN. 12-02 12-02 . . Las. % .51 1.01: 1.67% 3.11Z 5.77% II.65: .,C' .0..; 1.5:) ., or. L..... 5.')4 , O' i...J. 3.75: .5~? 1.16: 6.27 12.29: .34 .67% .07 .m .07 .13: .60 1.17% 13 25.49: 6 11.77: ~~ 17.65': 1.32 2.5:3% 50.99 lOO.OO: SUN. 12-02 SUN. 12-02 LBS. % 5.89 11.55: 5.94 11.65: 8.77 17.20% 1.08 2.11% 13 25.4'1% 6 11.77% 9 17.65: 1.32 2.58% 50.9:) 100.001 ,- , \ ...J:3 . 1.1:::.% .76 .21t 1.11 .30: o . .,C, ':";..J 7.0:3 l.n! &04 .-"., ,,\J" . ,.1.~ . .:it.... .O:i .03! ~:3 22.44: 34 9.1n S4 14.60: r , 36'U:I 100.00: TOTAL 7-0AY TOTAL 7-DA'I ! ~ ~ L".... . . 4.59 1.24: 9.66 2.61: 13.1 ~i 3. 57! 27.7~ 7.50% 51.9l 14.04: 16.50 4.46: 4.88 1.32.: 45.63 12.34: 2.14 .58! .75 .20: ....., "\ ~... .00 ..:.'t... 5.84 1.53% (" "\'1..., ,-'.... ':':'.'f't.. 34 9.l9% 54 14.60: 15.0S' 4.03% j69.31 100.00: TOTAL 7-0AY lBS. TOTAL 7-DAY . . 55.19 14.92: sui 14.04% 67.00 18.12% 9.61 2.60% ,33 22.44% 34 9.19: 54 14.60: IS.O'} 4.08% 369.81 100.00% " j i:; /', olli'J!~llili."'";"'OU'"iJ ~~~..~~ _.' Lar:Gfd( 'ernat~~;.I(. B Te CA TEGORY CORRUGATED ORGANICS DURABLES !EQU I P11Eil T MISC, LDPE PACKAGING MISC. HDPE PACKAGING MISC. PAPER PAC!AG!!IG MISC. KRAFT PACKAGING MISC. PACrAGING - ~THEf. ;~GS te Cti2,t~f \. BTC ITEii DESCRIPfIOij SA COATED (L8S.) 5a UI~cnA rEn (LBS.) 6 ORGANICS ILSS.! fj ENG. MUF.-BAGS OF 4 .joz.t~BAGSl , SUNS - LOOSE o CHICKEN BREASTS (utji~RAPPEQ.i 6 McNUGGETS - LOOSE 6 HAMBURGER (UNWRAPPED) 6 BUNS-FULL LDFE SAGS (;SAGS) 6 HASH BROWNS - UNl~RAPPED i STEEL WHISK 7 -DO NOT... Hi"iT GRILL" WEIGHT 7 GLASS COFFEE CARAFE 7 IN-STORE TRAtS 7 IN-STORE SALT/PEPPER SHA,~ER~ 7 IN-~T!JRF ASHTRAYS 7 SPONGE SA MISC. LDPE - CLEAR GA BUN - LDPE - CLEAR GA LDPE UTENSIL ,AGS SA LDPE CUP SLEEVE~ SA HDPE CUP SLEEVES 38 MISC. HOPE BAGS - CLEAR 88 HDPE - SMALL. .jLID (PEPPEITS:j Be HOPE ~ LEE. (PICKlE~?.l SE DIVIDERS - CORRUGATED GE DIVIDERS - SLUE PAPER 8E EGG TRAYS (3 dol. eggs €land 8F KRAFT NAPKIN WRAPPER 8G FISH BOX - COATED CARDBOARD 8G BUTTER WRAP COAlED PAPER BG DIVIDERS - ",1ALL GG DIVIDERS - LARGE SG OJ CARTONS - 64 01. size DG COFFEE FILTERS - SMALL BG COFFEE FILTERS - LARGE GG HOT CAKE HIX SAG B6 FRY OIL FILTER~ DG FRY FILTER SAGS 3G SAUCe BAG . CLEAR DG WHITE SAG - WITH PULL-STRING GG CHEESE SAUCE SAG 8G LETTUCE SAG - CLEAR 8G PICKLE SLICE BAG - CLEAR DG ENGLISH MUFFIN BAG - CLEAR GG COFFEE BAG - flHITE OR RED 8G SLIVERED ONION SAG - CLEAR GG SUNDAE TOPPING BAG - CLEAR GG DEHYDRAIED ONIONS SAG - CLEAR 8G SALAD MIX SAG - CLEAR DG HOI CHOC. BAG - WHITE & CLEAR 8G HOT FUDGE TOFPING BAG - CLEAR 8G HISC. MULTI-LAYER SAG - CLEAR BG BACON SAG - CLEAR DG DILL PImE SAG . GG MULTI-LAYER 'LAtD' BAG - PIN! BG CHEESE SLICES WRAPPER 3G CELLOPHANE? ~R^FPE~ ')~. 1: ': r : on S t ij;~Y f '::1" : 'If-T aIT )(fW C,H,., ;,.". WEIGHT ~EIGHr 11-12 -G,~S. -Las. C(iUtH 6.1000 6 .0::: 150 .3307 18.67 .0412 6.1000 ~:.!O .1171 .5000 .7500 .0500 .0750 17 .D375 ii .037S 10.50 .0231 7.S0 .0165 2 .OO.t4 .014.3 .15'.~8 &.50 -UO 141.75 ''''Ie; ...11.:..... 76 .1~75 ':j3.50 .2061 3.90 .00:36 2 .0044 i .0154 175 .3:::5::: 4.02 .oo:n 7.03 .ms .1iOO 11 .0243 19.50 .0430 7.50 .0165 7 .0154 12.50 .0276 Ii .037S 12.50 .0276 19.50 .0430 12 .0265 19 .041:' 11 .0243 18 .03~7 14.50 .0320 ~.50 .0121 5.50 .0121 G a o , 3 o o u o o o o a 43 1. 61 .04 4 .09 10 .17 .t .D2 10 .14 4 .,4 .31 a 7 a 3 , " .04 42 .19 l'j5 3.01 a 0 L4 5 o I o 0:; a a 4 I 7 33 2 3 2 2 o a 3 2 a a 6 I THE PE~SEi NON. Him. WE. 11~12 11-12 11-13 Las. : COUNT o .00: 0 59 34.37: D 62 36.12.~ 0 a .00: 0 .03 .02: 21 rUt. 11-13 1 LBS. a 114 4i {} 0,' .':'0 " ..0 '0' ..1... 13 4.30 .12 .07: 33 1.36 o .00: a a a .00: a 0 o .00: G 0 o .00: 0 D a OM a 0 a o o .00: 2 .10 a .00: G o . ~?4l 31 .02: 0 .05Z 25 1.16 o ,,' ..'\1 .10: 13 2 .21 n:'" ....~ ,.. .01 .0:3: J .04 .1' '\7. .'....... .18! 0 a o u 1 l' .....1 .Ol.~t 5 .:34 '0 .t>.:. o .31;>% 3 .03: 5 .11: 32 1.75: 1S0 .00: 4 .07: 4 .05: I .62 .01 .14 2.31 l.S4 .04 .02 .12 n" ..0 o " .17 .1O! 0 o 2 00 ..:..:. .13% :) .19 o " o .17 .10: 2 .o~~ .12 .59 .06 .11 .06 .09 o o .07 .0:3 .07: 4 .34: 32 .03% 3 .or: a .03% 2 .05: 6 .00: I .00: I .04: 2 .07 .49 .0:3 o .06 .26 .03 .04 .05 .08 .05: 2 o .Oi .05 o .00: 0 .04: 2 .OJ: ~ .02 .11 o F A~~; ~ED. [1-14 COUNT IiI' \/"'''I[,,:II'-;',Ll , ,. .~rjLIl' j'~'~.~( :'Io"r '.;: .~Y(."~O"{J Ii 1'1"'01" .1 ."" -, .... c ..,~ 0;:" ,.. '" '" "4, _, oJ ,,,,,. <. . ~ " _ ,I,[D. liED. THU. [HI!. THe'. FRL FRL FRL SAT SAT. SAT. SUN. 11-14 11-14 II-IS II-IS 11-15 11-16 11-16 11-16 11-1 Ii-17 11-17 12-02 L~::'. : COUNT LSS. : COUNT LSS. : COUtl LSS. Z COUNT o ~ 2. 6S: 0 o 3t 19.05~ (\ , v S8 3Q.6'~Z 4 24.40 12.91: Q . OJ: o .01 o (In''' . \IV,," " " ., " ')t.1(1'" ..oJ......... 05 37.2lZ o .00: a .03 .02.: " .72: 0 27 19.55: 49 35.47: o .00: 0 .03 .02: .:. , .' n v o .00% 0 97 33.35% 0 [;) 34.40: 0 o .OD: 0 .03 .01: , , .1 '~% .33 ''1-' ....'\"i. .04 .D2: 3 .12 .07: 3 .12 .O'~Z 3 .12 .05% 2 .33 .1:: u o o o o o o '.4 2.02 o 0 J o i a o t. o 1 .21 o 0 ~1 .14 l~l 2.13 o 0 2 o o o o n o o 3 .13 o 10 .17 69 L06 1 .03 a 0 o 0 1 .04 o 0 o 0 13 .32 1 .04 o J 0 5 .06 .01 o .00: o .00: o .00: l.Sn 3 .75 .40: o On" . "" u l"ir,. .'.".;. 1. 07% 30 .00% .02 .OlZ 9 .03: 12 .OS ~} .00% .0; .02:: 3 .1~ .03% 2 .31 1'" ....Ii. ! i.\ ......., 71'" . , ~... .11: 2 .00: n? .", .07: 23 1.15: 109 .OO! 0 .01! 56 o .00: o o .00: 0 o .10: 3 o o .07: 1 o .09Z .]7 .56: 53 .01% 2 .00: 0 .00: 1 .19 .02% 2 .00: 0 .00: 0 .17: 9 .02: 3 o .00: I .03% 5 .01: 5 u o o o iJ o Q o o o o ') 1. S1 o .41 .01 .W I.6G o .50 .02 o o o .00: .00: .00: .L'V: U Q n ;.,.' .00: o Q .00: 0 .00: 0 11':1 ...~... .64: .::;; .04 .02: .21 .12~ 3 .20 .m 5 .CO: 1 .02: 4 .00 .04 -, ''- ,,-.'" ....0.. .31 .18: 0 D .86: 11 0'0 ..:.it.;. .00: \I .06.: 25 .%Z 115 .00: 0 .23: 6 .01% 1 o o .001 0 .07 o .04: 5 o o .04 .02% 2 .23 .90 .06 o .03 .09 o o o .16: 17 .51% 19 .03% 2 .00: 0 1 I .02! .05: .OO! 2 .00: 0 .m 3 .22 .12 .07: 6 .03 .06 ,06 o .02% 0 5 13 .03% n,. . V"". o 3 1:3.30 o D o 0 " v o o 1 '-1' ...'J'" i) .03 .11 1.77 o .OS .02 13.25: 0 .00: o .00: 0 .00: 0 .00: 0 o .00: C .00: 0 o . ~JO .65: IJO .04 .07 .03: .05l " Oc, " .06: 19 .00 .00 .00: .; .0.;% I) .16 .12: o 11M .U\I," , , 1.33% H .21 .15: 2 .02% 2 .0:::: 45 1",',,,, ':I'i ..:.\H. ..1" .00% Q .04% 10 .OJ: 1 o .00: l" o .09: 13 o 1 .06: 4 Q .20: 20 .09 ."'\.-. .':'0 .29 .21% 57 .06 o .03 .04 .05 o .07 .24 .04: 1 .00% 0 .02% 5 .03: 3 .04: 0 .00: 0 .05: 12 .I7! 6 o .06 .16 .00: 2 .04: 7 .Il: 13 o o o o " o 2.35 o i: ""J ........ 3 o o .QG~ Q .14% 0 .00: 1 .35 o o o .00: 0 .00% 0 o .00t 0 .00: o o 2. ~7 . ~~8: 27 .04 .01: .03: .31 .12% 16 .01 .01: 4 .03: 1 .c'? . ~rl .In 2 .25: 0 .b3 'H~ 13 .41 .02 .16% 3 .01: 3 .20 .0:3% 32 o 1.30: 151 .GOt 0 .09 .04~ G .01: o .07: 0 o U,., . . .17 .32 .l.::,~ 7 1 .17 .07% 2 o .m 19 .35% 42 .01: 3 .00: 0 .05: 0 .05: 4 .00: 1 .00: 0 .12: I) .09: H .33 M .0':' .03 o .14 .13 o o .29 .24 .06 .03 .It, 1 .03: 0 .03: 4 .Ct.: 13 BEHIliD THE C,r" ,ASTE SUN. SUN.~AL ';OTAl' TOTAL 12-02I2-02)-DAY 7-DAY .7~DA~' LSS. : COUNT LSS. % o .00: 0 30 2.30: o " o , o , 2.18 2 .14 2.33 52 34.43: 0 48 31. 78: .OO! o .01 .33 .08 .01% "!"... ..:..:.." .05.: 4~ o o .50 o .00: .00: .33: .00: .00: o .0:3 .00: .05: 1.01 .26 .OS .26 .67~ 275 .17: 11 .03: 47 .18% .02 .01.: .OlZ .01 .32 .21Z o .00: 1.44% .62 .41% 15 .03 .02: 19 .on 2,30 1.54: 1074 .00: 4 .05: 100 .OJ: 10 5 o .07 .02 o .00: .17 .Il! 53 .09 3 3 .06% 13 2 .31 .65 .o:~ o o .17 .03 o .15 .Sb .21% 94 .m 315 .05: 14 .00: 3 .00: II .m jQ .02: 4 .00: 1 .10: 48 .37! 34 o .05 .00: ' .03. 34 .H: 63 ':1':1 o 4 24.40 .41 5.';:5 I. ~J8 3l H~ 1 3 18.30 3 o " I 0,' {OJ 10.31 .41 1.u9 1.2? IS 30 14 5 ! o 0, .:...:... 1. S6 II .' r;.: 11.23 2 j. O~! .16 J.Ql 16.57 1.54 o " 2 1.29 1.55 4.86 .39 .11 .30 .82 .11 .04 1.16 l.35 ., ,; '""' 429 32.8:::: 416' 31.894 ,~. 1.37: .03! .46: .15: ,- (~I ie, ... 1. 40: .03. .04: .50 3 .23: .75 .06: .10 .01: .08 .01! .07 .79% .03% .0:3: .10: . OJ: .03: .m .43 '0' .~.:.... ,-,,-- .c.o.,," .24: .Olt \ll!lll!~ .03.: , ..,.,... ~....I Ie L"'" .ul .12% .07: .01: .15 .34 0...",. . J. .10% .77 .06% .12% .37: .03% .01: .02: .06: .01% .00: .09% .10: .lD .41 71) .01: .03: .O~: Olli';''''''llili'''-''"''''"U''_f'' 'iii/f'" ~l_,.."tljjj, Hl '. ( . :.~~,!,; ~f~A~ ;~'n~;F; nT! ;LG~:LC'",{p, 1 (I~ !;JJec 1 ..." .., "..' - , " ,'..,,,,,,"'.... 8G SAUCE CANS 8G PS FOAM TRAY 8G PORTION PACK 8G LAUNDRY PACKETTE SG SANITIZER PAC~ETTE 8G FL00P.CAF.t PAC~ETTE 3G GRILL CLEANER PACKETTE E:G TOILET Pt.FER C(iRES 3G TOILET PAPER WRAPS - PA~ER 3G NAPKIN WRAPS - PAPER 3G BLEACH PACKETT, 8G TOILET PAPER ROLLS [PA~TIAU 8G SANITIZE, PACKETTE SG TDILET PArER ROLLS (NH0L~) MENU ITEi1S IN 5VC. nG. VA erG IMC 'fA QUARTER p!'lUHDER VA Q-POUNDER WITH CHEESE VA ~cDU VA FILET-f)-FISH ~A !1cCHICKEii VA NUGGETS - S!L ~ HED. si :es VA HAMBURGER VA CHEESEBURGER VA BISCUIT VA BIG BREAKFAST VA HOTCAYES VA BACON! EGG! CHEESE BI,CUIT VA SAUSAGE ~ EGG BISCUiT VA Hem VA PIE VA HASH BRO,Ii VA SALAD - SMALL size VA SALAD - LARGE ,ize VA HOTCAKES! SAUSAGE VA SAUSAGE Hd1UFFW ~ EGG VA SAUSAGE Mf ~UFFHi TOPPINGS - UNOPENED VA EGG NcHU,FIN VA ENGLISH MUFFIN VA FRIES - S(1:~ VA FRIES - BAG VA HAPPY NEAL COO,IES .A KETCHUP .A HUSTARD WA HOT HUSTAIiD WA CROUTONS WA BACilli BITS WA BUTTER PArS WA JELL Y WA HONEY WA CREANER WA BBY SAUCE WA SWEET 'N SOUR SAUCE WA SUGAR/EQUAL WA SYRUP WA SALAD DRESS [IIG XA McSTORE OFFICE PAPER (L2S.) OFFICE PAPER Im~ TOIAlS .' 50 .~',. "', .0661 . O::;::~6 , , 1.7.50 2.50 . OQ~:5 " .0066 5.50 [ir')1 ...,~ ....'" 5,5C 01':'1 . ~'-.. 25 .0551 25 .0551 .3 .0066 21~j.7Q .~:jj~ 1::;3.9Q . ~054 20').10 .4544 2~:LJO .::"47~ 151.30 ..;,}.;t> '.-.. -,., l;;;o.t...;t; .~l}!,h.i 150 .3307 110.:30 .2~45 117.10 '1~.-...", ..:.....'J.;. :t..:..) ,); ...,.'.' 230.60 15~3. 4D 141.00 .50:3~ .34'j2 .3122 I t\::i. '~O -:.,..... ....!.:.... 225 .4%0 100.30 .2211 56.Be .1252 154. ~D . 3~04 2~~1.40 .6424 211.SD .4665 175.70 .3873 131.20 .2:?92 143 .3263 2 6~~ .1521 0 112 .246~~ 1 72.:::0 .1605 Q o 12.20 .026~ 50 I 31.30 .06~O 2 rD.30 .0227 3 3.50 .0077 2 10.30 .0227 10 15.90 ,035! 8 15.50 .0342 2 IS .0331 7 33.50 .073? 0 33.60 .074! 0 I .0022 4 65.30 .1451 0 75.60 .1667 0 o ': Hi .v , , 2 o 15 5 o L 5 5 14 4 " o j ij 9 6 ~, , , b " L , 5 1 '':' ~...'- , L , L o o 2 a o o 1.28 o 'r;, ~ .46 .,.,. ,', .':',:.. ,) , L , L 1.34 ,,' ...0 .07 .23 o o .01 o o !7U7 100.00: q,', .l," ,04: , o .ur: .05~ in .02.~ <+ .03 .Dto n.. ....-t. , , .02 .01;' 3 o ."., ...e' .16: .0,... .~ ..,., .......,.. 2 .09 .051 11 o o o 3.G: .., ~,. ....:.0. .2~: 0 1.36 . ;'~: , .oc: , 'i rl:'l ......." 1. 75: , , ') ,,; ':'.i.. 1';"" .......... 4 .bi .39.: 5.62 -: ':17.' 9 ! '-'1 ~.o)~ !.O5: 1.15 1.02 1.05 ..'..... .0/.. .59: 7 o .t'l.. 1. 56 .Q1: .' ~ '"' .1)..;,. " L 9,j .5(:,: 1 .26.: I) .00: 0 .44 .77 .s!:: .65 a " .i...J .00: 0 .75: 1 .00: C .45: 2 '4" . J ,~ .38.: 2 .00: 0 .14: o .00: o o .78.: 40 o 1 I .14 .07 .02 .23 n')" ....'"'." .04% .on 2 .m ro .16% 12 .04: I .13% 10 .00: 3 .00: 0 .01% 5 .00% 0 .00: 0 .58: 0 .1 .1 .l 202. ! HNL MOiL TU p-'~ 1l-!2 11- .'~ ~: .20: . .j .O~:~ 4 o .0:: .O!: 0 .03: :,,! .%: ,'rOo 11'''' .;..-+. :.<,~ ., .~,'.&, .'.'.... .0:': '0,1. . ~;;.;.. ,',.~.. .(';;'.. ...~.. .CJ. .16: !'Q')~ H: . 3:~:: 15 . '.'~'" 1111'" ....\.'. .li: .15: 10 .37: .~s: .&6: .00: .ao~ a ~"... .J.:... .00: 0 .3:3: l~ .14: .j2: 16 .00: .12: .DOt c~.. 17 .D3: .01: .OJ: .11% .21: .02: .h.: .11% .00: .01: .00: .00: .on: )0.00: TUE. 1'.'-;, . .. '. ., , o a 5 o D ., , , o .-, ,) o , , , o , I, 3 o o o o , 3 5 5 o ~ o o 3 o , o o 1:)".00 100.00: WED. U-I' .75 'n" .'1...... .60 .31.: 2 " .i" .08: 12 .01 .00.: .00: n u .01 .00: .01% 4 o .Db ("!-..' .0':;.. ',,-, . i.':' .m .00: .or -: ,.,- --: ".... .... '.''t.. ~ ~ o .ooz ~.09 1.~,4 2.16.: "," . ~..' . ,) -;'~ .... ~'.. 1.2~: l.07~ .~J 17' . ~, .. 4.40 2.33% 12 1: ,',., ....'): 2.0S: o .oc: o .35 3.12 .00.: , ,~.. . ~'-'.'" 1.6SZ 1.5:::: 2. 'j~:: . '~:j .52% 1.11 .5:~Z .07: .1] o .64 o .00% .34% .ooz 2.87: .15% 5.42 .29 , 00 .....:..:. .., "1..... i.. '0. .16% .7B! .30 1. 48 .43 .25: . 0 o .46 .24: 95 o .00': 1 .02: 4 .OJ: I .06% 15 '.09: 9 .00% 4 .16: :) .00% 0 .00% 0 .00: 9 .15% 1 .00% 0 .53% 0 o .05 .02 .11 .13 o .30 o o .01 .29 o 1 UED. 11 ~ 1.1 , o 3 1 3 2 o o o Li o , o 3 1 I 3 3 o , 3 7 o o 2 I] 3 3 2 o 2 2.56 .07 .o'.! .01 .34 .32 .14 .26 o o .02 .15 o 1 174.10 100.00: THO. THO. 11-!5 11-15 ./v .m .46 .08! .26% .02 .01 .01 .05 .01% .00% .01% .03% 2 o .06 .03! .D9% .17 .01 .on 5.3:; l: ne." .............. o nn~ ."...... .91 .52: n' o .00: 1.34: 2.33 .93: .jj ItJ~ . ~.'.. ':I .n .....,; Lt,S: 13 .77 .44: 7 1 ,~ 11'!' . ~ ..... .29% .51 LOS .60% .54% 9, " .i., .43% 5 1.49 1.55 o o 1.2:3 o .8~.: 2 .39, <1 .00: 0 .00% 0 .74% 4 .00% G .67: 5 .50% 4 .37t 5 .00: 0 1.1& .87 .65 o 4 ~j .23: 2 o .00% o o 1.46.: 23 o I .04% .05% .00: .m .13% .03% .15% .00% .00% .01% .08% 0 .00% 0 .57% 0 ....,;" ..tit o , 5 o , , 5 3 o v o 5 o 4 o 2.57 o 1.94 LU, 1.63 o .49 o , .07 .05 .02 .16 .18 .03 .10 o o .00 o , 7 5 1 3 o o o , 13:J.i3 100.00% FR1. 1!-16 ..'.'.. . ','0% .13 .12 .10% .0:3: .04 0" 0' .03: 14 .or: .on .02 .02.~ .06 .0, .02 .04: n,'" .,-,-!-.. .m "' ';'7 ....'.,. ;] ., "I'" 11 ':'.'.'J.. 11 . oo~ 0 iJ 2.27 o I.t,;: 15 ,-,n" .vv.. 2.00 1. t': 1.45: 1. H:: .33 0" ...:.'h 2.30: 18 1. 31: 14 .14: .37% 5 3.18 1.81 .19 .51 , 0' 1.';'...' ':Ie;" ....... .90: 1;' 1.St) '~9 1. 35: t, .72: 5 .8S .t.'I<+.. 6 .00: 0 .00: 0 LSt:: 5 .OO! 0 1.'0: ,1'" . ,~'~.. 1.!l)% .00% .3ot .00: .62 o 1 .45.: 31 I 12 .05% .03% .01% 3 .12% .16 .13% .02% o .07: .00: .00: .00: .00: .00% o I .72% FRI. 11-16 4 9 4 o , 2 o o , o , " o a 8 5 o L 3 3 1 o , 2.W 5 ., . 3 .10 .26 o .07 .01 o .17 o n . o 1 6 o I o 252.93 100.00% SAT. l! - ~ 7 1.;0 ~,-,~ ....?'" in .Uv .24: .15 .06t .08 .03% On' . v' .Ot .02 n," .v~. .02 .01% .11 .04: .11 .04% .01: .03 C; ,,- v........ 2.11~ .00% o /.'.('':' 2 .6';)~ n v .00: 1.06.: .[:0: ') --: ...or 2.31 4.,10 .92: 1.74: 3.e.! , ;-;'~ 'I ..'i-".. .:. . I ~:: .u:3! 1.0C% c,c;... ...."'. oJ ') C.. .......'t 1. ~D , .;~ ! "'- ., ')1" .74: 4 .gf:~ 12 2.4:3 1.33 '1'.'~ . .,0... .52: .00: 3 .00: l.m 15 .00: 1 o o 3.21 o n .3!: 10 15 .:37 .98 .15 .4:1 o .34: .3'i: .Of,: .20% .00: .86: 38 ," .':>"; .33% .07 .02 .03% .01% 2 .14% 3 .11% 4 .04% 0 .10% 7 .00% 1 .03% 2 .ou 2 .00% 0 .07: 0 .00% 0 .36 .28 SAT. !! -17 , 5 2 3 o '. , 2 o 2 5 o o o j o 2 o o L 3.:37 4.34 ., " 2.61 o 4 o o I. 02 I 151.02 100.00% SUi/. 12-02 1.12 .4:'15 .13 .12 .01 .01 .01 .02 ,. .11 .06 .02 1.45 o .91 .f)7 ~! .33 (/.1 ...1) .52 .19 .51 !.OS 1.25 4.47 .50 2. ')04 ':1':1 .3:3 .34 :3.35 .47 5.53: 2.56% ') ,-".,.- ... '~!.. o .99 o 1.73.: .00% .65% .00% 1 .63: 344 .07 .02 .02 .07 .14 o .05% .02% .01% .05% .09% .00% .15% .05% .10': .00% .00% .00% .66% .23 .07 .15 .00 o o 1 SUi/. 12-02 . O'~: .0:3: .01: .00t .01: .02l .07; .04: (11" .U.I.," .%: .ac: .60: 0," . v. .4';: .r: 00' .i..":'.. ," .1)....... ~ ." .,,'t.. 1,"- . ~ "... .34% h')~' .-.... .:::3: .33: .15: .1C'" ..:....... "Ii" ..:...... i'~ ....1.\0 " <'i v, 32 52 15 15 16 5 IS 15 39 o , 4 to3 30.51 3'? Ii -., ....1. , 44 '. ".; L-i-.i:Jo 11 . ?i~: l4 '~ ' ,.,~ ~.'j 51 15. i7 17 10 It. 5 "'J .".' lUO .jj 33 J4.15 7.94 16 31 4 0.85 .50 .34 17 'J'1 .,..--.' ')':" ..'.' 38 14.72 29 8.39 38 3 12.40 .46 4.44 .48 I" .'} 3 ".25 3 18 lh 15 66 51 11 1.24 .36 .12 1. SO 1.79 .33 1.72 .30 .22 '0 "' 4 3 31 3 I o .07 .44 .17 30 Ij04.04 100.00: TOTAL "_;",IV . ~.., ':' . '~, 4 e --:-~ ."",. r 1. 9'~ .92~ 'I e" i... ..;'~ '-.1 ':In" ...v... 1.23 .09% .29 -, .02.: .lD .01.: rqor . \;~... . it: l'j ." ('p't .u.... .83 .83 .26 .Q6: .06% ~...... L,' (1':1. .w...... " -...... i...J'L~ . -i ~ .03: L,:;t,.. I,,' ....... , -~. ..."... 1.121 . 90~ 4,63 .35: I.S2: 1 n!~' ~.V~'" 3.26 5.08 'ie... .':'v:" .39! .43: ~,1or ./71. 1.0St .61% .m .04% .0:: I. 1"-''' ~. ..;0.. .47 .04% 1.13: .64: no' .7.)'0 .03% .34% .04% .71% .10% .03% .01.% .m .m .03% .13% .02: .02% .01% .03% .01% 2.30: TOTAL 7-r,'!'y ~~~~Mtiiiij J ':::::"1,'., ~I;': " ""( ", "".. ~'-'''~.... ... .....' ~ . cc. r . \. CORRUGATED - 5A 0 .00: '") CORRUGATED - UNCOATED 55 59 34.37: _ ORGAlHCS_ (. ~,2 .4a 36.40: 52 DURABlES!EOUTPNENT 7 0 .00: ".~ MISC. LDPE PACKAGING .-.,. 1.92 1.12: ')11 HISC. HDPE P AmG ING :::6 1.10 .64: MISC. PAPER PACKAGING 8E I'" ^,." ....., __'J.. NISC. KRAFT PACKAGIIIG "< 0 OM 0, . u.., NISC. PACKAGING - OTHER 85 L2.5:::: 7.33: 11 MENU ITEMS III SVC. prG. VA 30.03 17.50% 1.J '-' TOPP WGS - UtWPENED WA 2.38 1.3n 2 OFFICE PAFER XA 1 5"'.' . ('." 17[,67 100.00: 202 WIN. MOr~ . 11-12 1'_1" 11 ~1 ...;, Sm1!1ARY DATA - CATEGORIES 1"- . l ....::.:.. . CORRUGATED 5 59 34.37: ORGANICS 6 'J2.48 36.40; 52. DURABLES!EQUIPHENT ; 0 01'1. , . lJ... MISC. PACKAGING 0 10.77 q 77~ 14. 0 ...,,. MENU ITENS ." $VC. P~:G . VA 38.03 17.50: II) j" 4~' . TOPPINGS - UNOPENED ~IA 2.38 1.39% 2. OFFICE PAPER XA I c,r,.. . ",Q.. 171.67 100.00: .,n", ..v... .00: t.3;3: .':'.13: .OS: 9'. ..r._ .10: .41: .00: 5.54: 'j.H: ! .20: nt,'" ........ 0.00: WE. 11-1: ; t>.38: f..n: .05; 7.02% 9.16: I ?Ii'" ......... .00: 0.00: 5 36 82.45 3.75 2.10 ;,., .;., 'to. 'i~' 2.65: 19.05: 43.63: 1 q'-'~ ..0.," 1.H: .52 I'\"l'ot .':'1.. 1.34 .71: .00: b. :~Q 3.6:5: 1.41 25.05: ". .i""... .s.),. 1:)9.00 100.00: n.45 3.75 10.91 48.48 1. 41 ;~ED. ll-H ucn ......"'. 11-14 LBS. 41 21.09: 43.63: 1. 9:3: 5.77% 25.65% ". ./",. I .53: 13~.OO 100.00: L-:'. 24 13.741 44 25.19: 65.4:3 37.4S! o .00: 1.57 .'_10: . 68 \O~ 1.51 .86.: o .00: 7.36 4.21: 25.16 14.40: .57: 174.70 100.00: 3.94 2.26: 65.48 o 11.12 ,,~ " ...... ..0 3.94 1 THU. Il-iS Ll:S. T"" l! -15 68 3S.n~ ..., .4:3: .OO! 6.36% 14.40: 174.70 100.00% 2.26% .57: eI { 1,7,7:;: "I,'" '~1 ':'0..'" .72: 27 1 '.~ . 55: 4'.71 f17! ...",. o .00: 1. o'~ .7n .1Q~ L:j4 i. jj~ o .OD: :LCb 5.:34% 20.93: , 00 1..:..:. .-".," ,0<)", .72: 138.13 100.00: ,., -',-, !"I'.I') o 11.21 28 .',~l 1.22 FRI. 11 - 16 FRI. 11-1b . . ~:~ 2G.2.:~ "'~ 117'" .....'...... Oll~ . v. 3.12: 20.9.1: 138.13 lUll. Q! :37.83 o 11.60 45.b9 o .00, 'p 3t:.3S: o 34.73: .00t 2. '.~1 1.i5.: 1.19 .F: ., ie, ........... .93: .00: 4 r:;,,~' ......7... 4.36 H:.D7: 1 ''J~ ./..... o .00: 252.n 100.00: Co' 0.4 1:?D4 45.6'1' 4.36 2: SA 1. 11-17 SA 1. 11-17 LES. 97 3:L3S2 ':0, .'.'... "1 "'7\"' .;'i.,..... o .00: 7.13% 18.07% r .72: .00: ~~:. ';'3 100.00: 43.43 .5:3 1.6D ,; ..it) ....'1.1, ..;. o 52 34.43: 32 .07.~ .3S% 1.06: " ..v .,.,... ..:..:.... ., I" .:.. ~Q 1.44: .00: 5.S!: o ,j i" 'J......:. 23.03% 1.% 1.19Z 1 .66% 151.02 100.00.: ':'!W ..\.ill. SUN. 12-02 12-02 LES. 52 34.43: 48.43 32.07% .58 .38t 12.43 8.23: 34.79 23.03% 1..8Q loIn .66.= 151.02 100.00% . . lSS. 30 2.30% 421 32.f::3% 467.39 35.:33.: 4.43 .34% 13.16 1.01: 11.23 o 66.03 o , ~".. 4.23 .32':: .36: .00: 5.06% 17.75% r. o 30 2.30% 1304.64 100.00: TOTAL 7-0A1 459 467.39 4.43 94.6:; .", TOTAL 7-0AY Las. , 35.18% "'t: ,-.-...- ,).... ~,J'" .34: 7.26. 231.59 17.75% ~j7.~.34. 30 2.30% 1304.64 100.00. llIi . . []0;1 ~:d; C01lLJri1tion ~'4"itC:,CO~;]Jd'S OE. ~;(Inrise HlqllW<lV Suite 619 VailE'\' ,,\n~am, new York 11581 516,'872-0202 ,0;:' September 26, 1990 Valerie Seopaz Town Planner Town Hall of Southhold Main Road Southhold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Seopaz: Let me begin by saying we share your eoneerns about our environment and will always look for ways to improve it. I'm glad we have this opportunity to put MeDonald's Reeyeling Program into perspeetive. The faet is we aetually began using pOlystyrene for some of our produets in 1976 in direet response to the eoneerns of environmental groups. They noted that the use of paper paekaging required the destruetion of eountless trees and its manufaeture resulted in exeessive energy usage and the pollution of nearby water resourees, while polystyrene is made from petroleum by-produets that are already with us, and its manufaeture is. both elean and energy effieient. We asked the Stanford Researeh Institute to examine the issue; they reported that our polystyrene paekaging would have a less adverse environmental impaet than paper, and we made the ehange. We've made it a priority to diseuss this matter with experts in the paekaging industry as well as with environmental experts. These are faets upon whieh we've based our eurrent ehoiee of paekaging: The total amount of landfill spaee devoted to all quiek serviee restaurants, eonvenienee and groeery store polystyrene foam paekaging is less than one-quarter of one pereent (.14%). By eontrast, newspapers aeeount for over 14% of landfill spaee -- or approximately one hundred times more than all polystyrene. Disposable diapers, in faet, represent slightly over one pereent of landfill spaee or about seven times as mueh as polystyrene food paekaging. True, pOlystyrene doesn't degrade. But there are aspeets of biodegradability that must be kept in mind...one speeifie problem with landfills is the faet that they eontaminate soil and water through the leaehing of inks, dyes, and other toxie residuals, and also the air through the emission of methane. Polystyrene, on the other hand, remains inert and intaet, eausing none of these problems as it eompresses. as/26l5A Su &:::, lJ:;. -P6 -r0 zM September 26, 1990 Page 2 . . Further, the biodegrading of alternative packaging, such as paper, is misleading. Studies prove conclusively that paper may not degrade for forty or even sixty years. Dates are still clearly readable on the newspapers disposed of that long ago. (And, those newspapers weren't even coated with wax or plastic, as food wrapping paper would be.) And, even if the alternative packaging did eventually degrade, that wouldn't help the present shortage of landfill space. It would still take up space at the time of disposition and for some time thereafter. On August 5, 1987, McDonald's took the industry lead when we instructed our suppliers to begin prompt phase out of the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CYCs) in the manufacture of our foam packaging. The phase-out was completed as of December 31, 1988. Given the above, we at McDonald's believe that the best approach to the solid waste problem is to minimize rather than substitute what goes into landfills. McDonald's is already our industry'S largest user of recycled paper for non-food use, and we intend to expand that leadership even further. Effective this fall our "to go Bags" will be made from recycled paper! We are currently recycling in many of our restaurants. We plan to be recycling in all of our restaurants by April 1990. The Mattituck store will automatically be. placed on the recycle program when it opens. The Mattituck restaurant will have special trash bins designated for recyclable items only. We have asked our dining room customers to separate their plastic and non-plastic items after their meal. The recyclable plastics go to recycling plants to be made into such items as flower pots, coat hangers and building insulation. I'm enclosing several brochures fact sheet with information regarding McDonald's position related to the solid waste issue. I'm sure you will find these brochures very informative. If you would like a tour of the Brooklyn Recycling facility, please feel free to contact me. Please be assured McDonald's is a responsible company. We have. been continuously working towards solutions to the problems where we can make some meaningful impact. I Sure this letter and the enclosed brochures will convince you that such is the case. Very truly yours, 91f 1J:Jr'Ltee~ Judy Pascucci Real Estate Representative New York Region as/2615A Mc~nald's Recvclinq Proqram ~ ;~)(r~'I!d':; Co!()')r,:ti,;'11 ;~ Fact Sheet .:s E ,~;lllln.'3e HIGhway Suite 619 '..\lIie'l Stream, 1',Jew York 11581 516/872-0202 J'..;!C~,.)~")naHrs OBJECTIVE To improve the recycling of polystyrene and encourage the degree of customer separation in McDonald's restaurants. FOAM FACTS o Polystyrene foam is 100% recyclable. There is no reason to throw it away. o Poly packaging is safe for the environment. o McDonald's uses poly packaging for the same reason that schools, hospitals, and other restaurants do -- because it keeps our food fresh and hot for our customers and allows us to serve them in a portable, safe and sanitary manner. o Polystyrene packaging can be converted into useful, durable products, such as; McDonald's trays, office and kitchen supplies, videocassettes, building and insulation materials. CFC (CHLOROFLUOROCARBON) FACTS McDonald's pOlystyrene packaging contains no chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a material which is expected to affect the earth's ozone layer. We discontinued the use of any packaging containing CFC's in 1988. jpa/2611A . . Page 2 September 25, 1990 WHAT DO CUSTOMERS HAVE TO DO TO ASSIST IN RECYCLING? Customers are encourage to separate polystyrene from other trash after they have consumed their meal. McDonald's has provided special trash containers located at major exits in our restaurants to assist the customers in separation of their trash. On top of each waste container are posters explaining to the customers what items should be place in the particular containers. WHAT DO WE DO IN THE KITCHEN The Recycling programs includes kitchen waste. We have designated two separate waste containers, one for recyclable polystyrene only and one for food and other waste items collected in our kitchen area. The polystyrene is then recycled in the same manner as the polystyrene collected from our lobby area. WHAT HAPPENS TO THE RECYCLABLE MATERIAL? Trash bags containing the recyclable material are picked up from the stores by a hauler. The hauler on Long Island is Tri-State Recycling. Their responsibility is to inspect the trash bags for specific purity levels and haul the material to the recycling facility in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. jpa/26l1A . . September 25, 1990 Page 3 WHAT HAPPENS TO NON-RECYCLABLE TRASH? Each store contracts with private trash haulers. The trash is taken to landfills. The Greenpoint facility washes and grinds the polystyrene into plastic pellets. The pellets are than sold on the open market and are used to make useful, durable products, such as McDonald's in-store trays, office and kitchen products, videocassettes and building and insulation material. WHY SEPARATE MCDONALD'S TRASH? The purpose of separation is to obtain pure polystyrene. Food, paper and other items commingled with polystyrene make it difficult to recycle at the recycling facility. Technology has not yet been developed to automatically separate recyclables from food, paper and other items. THE RECYCLER The Recycler is responsible for converting the polystyrene into reuseable material. If you would like to visit the polystyrene recycling facility at Greenpoint, please contact McDonald's representative and we will be happy to make arrangements. jpa/26llA / << . FOAM PACKAGING VS. PAPER 0 & A Q.: Why doesn't McDonald's switch from polystyrene packaging to paper, which is biodegradable? A.: McDonald's has commissioned studies and evaluated the alternatives, and we're absolutely convinced that pOlystyrene is the most environmentally sound packaging available. The alternative, paperboard packaging, is necessarily coated for sanitation and consumer safety concerns and to retain the temperature of the food. Because coated paper packaging is a mixed material, it cannot be recycled. There are also a number of environmental trade-offs with paper, including deforestation, high energy consumption and water and air pOllution in the manufacturing process. Q.: But isn't polystyrene non-biodegradable and damaging to the environment? A.: Polystyrene is non-biodegradable -- and that's precisely why it's NOT damaging to the environment. Because pOlystyrene is inert in a landfill, there is no risk of inks and dyes leaking into the ground water, a danger that exists with some paper products. Polystyrene is also 100% recyclable, unlike coated paperboard manufactured for food service use -- so it is the 9ne packaging material that can be eliminated from the waste stream -- totally and safely. o McDonald's pioneered polystyrene recycling programs across the country, and led the way for the largest-ever pOlystyrene recycling program involving 450 restaurants in the New England area. o Through recycling and packaging reduction initiatives, we're actually able to eliminate millions of pounds of packaging, thereby reducing the amount of waste going into the solid waste stream. Q.: But doesn't McDonald's polystyrene take up a large amount of landfill space? A.: NQ. In fact, all QSR packaging including foil, paper and plastic make up only 1/4 of one percent of a landfill, or only about four ounces per hundred pounds of solid waste. McDonald's packaging is just a small fraction of that, and our polystyrene, even less, according to archaeological evidence produced by Dr. William Rathje of the University of Arizona in Tucson. Also, since polystyrene is 93% air, it compresses to a fraction of its original size in a landfill. as/2659A e- .- FOAM PACKAGING VS. PAPER 0 & A (Cont'd.) Recent studies and excavations of landfills have proven that materials once thought to biodegrade in a landfill -- like newspapers - don't even biodegrade after 60 years, if at all. In fact, today's landfills are made to Drevent biodegradation from occurring; in order to prevent against toxic leachates that result from materials biodegrading. Q.: Is McDonald's considering any packaging alternatives to polystyrene? A.: At McDonald's we're never satisfied with the ways things are today -- so we continue to look for improved packaging alternatives, as do our suppliers. To date, no alternative has proven as good as, or better, environmentally than polystyrene. If we found one, we'd use it. Q.: What about using biodegradable plastic packaging? A.: McDonald's is interested in real environmental solutions; eliminatinq rather than substitutinq one material for another in a landfill. At this time, there are no cornstarch additives commercially available that are Food and Drug Administration approved for food packaging use. With the help of packaging and plastics industry experts, we have researched the effectiveness of new -biodegradable- plastics and at this time, there are serious questions about the degradability of this product. The technology requires that you actually use ~ plastic, so this product takes up more landfill space than other plastic items. Environmentalists also believe that use of biodegradable plastics inhibits recycling efforts, since the mixed material cannot be recycled. .~ .', SOURCE REDUCTION 0 & A Q.: Has McDonald's made any efforts to cut down on the amount of trash you produce? A.: Yes. In addition to the recycling initiatives we're involved in, we've also made significant packaging reductions by modifying our packaging designs and changing to lighter packaging materials. We insist that our suppliers use as little packaging as possible for products delivered to our stores. Redesign of the shipping packs for our french fries and orange juice for example, has already amounted to a reduction of millions of pounds of packaging per year. Likewise, we redesigned much of the packaging for the food we serve our customers in order to use less material from the start. McDonald's is already one of the nation's largest users of recycled paper products, and we're increasing this effort by switching to recycled paper for our tray liners and Happy Meal boxes. Q.: Can you tell me the details of the new coke delivery system? A.: To stores not already using reusable tanks, soft drink mix used to be delivered to our restaurants in cardboard containers. Today, the syrup is pumped directly into the restaurant's own reusable tanks, a method that uses no disposable packaging. This new delivery system cuts millions of pounds of packaging out of the waste stream each year. Q.: How much more do you anticipate doing in the area of source reduction? A.: A lot. While I can't give you specific numbers, I can tell you that we are looking at a number of ways to do our part in managing solid waste. We agree with experts who say that the answer lies in the three R formula - reduce, recycle and reuse. McDonald's is actively participating in all three of these areas. .- .,' INCINERA~ION 0 lit A Q.: Doesn't incineration emit toxic gasses into the air? A.: The EPA-approved incinerator units used in McDonald's tests were closely monitored for emissions. The results indicate that emissions from these units were well below the federal guidelines, as well as the restrictions in 49 states. Based on the tests, incineration proved to be a safe, clean and efficient way to dispose of refuse. Q.: If incineration is so great, why aren't you testing more incinerators? A.: We have considered incineration as a possible alternative. as recommended by the EPA, but negative perceptions about incinerators have created strong opposition in many communities. And while incinerators are safe, and emissions fall well below federal guidelines, public opinion makes it difficult to secure permits for incineration tests. Incineration may be part of the solid waste solution, but it is not a program that could work for us because of our widely dispersed, multiple locations. We have no 'plans to test incineration in the future. Q.: What are the advantages of incineration? A.: Incineration reduces refuse to ash comprising 1/500th of its original volume, which drastically reduces the amount of material going into the solid waste stream. We have closely monitored the ash and emissions levels from incineration tests, and find them very safe and acceptable from an environmental standpoint. . . CFC 0 & A Q.: Why does McDonald's continue. to use pOlystyrene packaging with CFCs that damage the ozone layer? A.: We don't. All McDonald's pOlystyrene foam packaging is manufactured with hydrogen-based blowing agents. Even HCFC-22. a hydrogen-based chemical compound used to make ~ of our foam packaging has been recognized as a part of the solution to the ozone depletion problem by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the leading environmental organizations. Q.: Isn't HCFC-22 just a different name for harmful. ozone depleting CFCs? A.: Absolutely not. McDonald's and its packaging suppliers rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for determining what is. or is not. a CFC. We have been assured on more than one occasion. and in writing by the EPA. that. HCFC-22 is n2t considered to be a CFC. In fact. the Montreal Protocol. an international agreement by the United Nations which defines harmful CFCs. excludes HCFC-22 from its list of regulated chemicals. . . , . RAIN FOREST 0 & A 0: Is McDonald's contributing to the destruction of the rain forests, either directly or indirectly? A: Absolutely not. McDonald's does not purchase beef grown on rain forest land, or recently deforested rain forest land. In fact, McDonald's has a corporate pOlicy that states that in all cases McDonald's does not, has not and will not permit the destruction of tropical rain forests for our beef supply. This pOlicy is strictly enforced and closely monitored, and any McDonald's supplier who is found to deviate from this pOlicy or cannot prove compliance with it -- will be immediately terminated. . McDonald's is committed to using only locally produced and processed beef in every country where we have restaurants. For example, in the United States, we use only 100\ pure U.S. beef. In Canada, McDonald's uses only 100\ pure Canadian beef. And in the EEC, McDonald's restaurants use only EEC grown and processed beef. . In those.isolated areas where domestic beef is not available, it is imported from approved McDonald's suppliers in other countries. These suppliers are required to guarantee and prove that they do not supply beef to McDonald's that has grazed on rain forest land. Q: Corporate policy statements are easy to write. How can I be sure that you follow it? A: We take meticulous steps to ensure that our suppliers meet the requirements established in these polices. . McDonald's inspectors check our suppliers' plants regularly. We carefully check and double check every step of the beef process, our suppliers' ranches, invoices, shipping and packing documents, government stamps and labels to ensure sourcing, origin and handling. . We also have written affidavits from our suppliers stating that they do not supply McDonald's with beef from the rain forests. -. . . RAIN FOREST 0 & A (CONT'D.) · Additionally, we would have no economic or other motivation to use rain forest beef in our restaurants. It would be more expensive for us to transport or import Central or South American rain forest beef than it is to use our local suppliers. For example, in Brazil, for rain forest cattle to be shipped to any of the slaughterhouses which supply our processing plants, it would have to be shipped across the Amazonian frontier. The tariffs and taxes for doing this would increase the cost by over 30\. That, plus the shipping charge itself (about 5\ in this case) would simply make it cost-prohibitive, and certainly noncompetitive with the non-rain forest beef we actually use. 0: What about your restaurants in Central and South American countries? If they use local suppliers, wouldn't it come from the rain forests of these areas? A: No, it does not. Since McDonald's opened in Brazil in 1979, we took and have continued to take aggressive steps to ensure that none of the beef for our Brazilian restaurants comes from land that's been deforested since we had any presence in that country -- and probably long before. In Costa Rica, our four restaurants purchase beef that comes from only the southern ranches -- in areas that have been non-rain forest land for over thirty years (long before McDonald's opened in Costa Rica in 1970). We insist on this, we monitor it, and we demand and receive necessary documentation to assure us that our policy is met, even though only four restaurants are involved. In Guatemala and Panama, our beef suppliers are required to meet the same source/origin documentation and guarantees. Even if we didn't have a policy against using rain forest beef, the freight charges involved with shipping beef from the rain forest regions to our slaughterhouses in these countries would be prohibitive. 0: In Europe, how can you prove that McDonald's beef does not come from the rain forest? A: McDonald's restaurants in Europe only buy beef distributed and approved by the European Economic Community. While some other companies buy meat on the open market, McDonald's does nce. Our beef is grown and processed and supplied through a rigidly controlled closed-circuit supply system -- McDonald's uses only suppliers who are dedicated to supplying beef to McDonald's, and who comply to McDonald's corporate policy of refusing to buy rain forest beef. t ~ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 30, 1991 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Dear Mr. DiConza: Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York I am writing to inform you that the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold Town has made a second request of the Planning Board to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration based on new information about solid waste generation and disposal. Attached please find a copy of their July 22, 1991 memorandum. I have asked the Zoning Board to provide the Planning Board with documentation of the new evidence, so that we may distribute copies thereof to the McDonald's Corporation and all of the involved agencies that reviewed the long environmental assessment form in November and December of 1990. As explained in my response to the ZBA, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, the Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. If you have any questions about the procedure that the Planning Board will be following, please do not hesitate to call Valerie Scopaz of this office. Encl., VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Gerard P. Goehringer, ZBA Chairman Very truly yours, ~ ~/"c:Z;/6 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ;r'/ Chairman i , .\ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennen Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman (3o/Jv'11$ McDonald's Restaurant S.R.25, Mattituck SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 FROM: RE: DATE: July 29, 1991 On July 22, 1991 I received a general memorandum from the Board of Appeals requesting that the Conditional Negative Declaration for this project be rescinded. Upon review of your Board's memorandum, the Planning Board has decided to review the information about solid waste generation and disposal. However, the memorandum did not include written documentation showing the new information or changes concerning significant adverse impacts that are anticipated. Reference is made only to statements that were made by representatives of the McDonald's Corporation during a Zoning Board hearing. It would be appreciated if a copy of all new information pertaining to the projected solid waste generation and disposal for this proposal were sent to us. When we receive the requested information, we will forward copies of it to the McDonald's Corporation and all the involved agencies that reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment form. The Corporation and each agency will be asked to review the material and to respond in writing within a specified period of time. At the end of that period of time, the Planning Board will determine whether there are sufficient grounds to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration. " . L/~://J?:~ --"-"7- ,{!V} <;,.~fFDl.t ~.., {/~'-~rlt'<2:'\' ;'j <~ .~.' ~- \, .! -- :.;' ' ~~ t:' .i; ~ r.... -:. "_ "Cl I' - ~) en ~~, ~ \i' rl .., . -';".' :-'.~ I,;,; '(,J ~:, ''', c::> ;';', -,~- _ ~,\ t" ,~. '.~ ~ ." ", -t.. '"" . ~.- ~ "h" ,.....;)'- ~~J. ,~, .~~ . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineo1a, New York 11501 Dear Mr. DiConza: Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM ~ 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York In my last letter to you of August 13, 1991, I indicated that any factual information that was submitted by reviewing agencies, as well as the McDonald's Corporation would be distributed to all parties for review and comment. To date we have received three responses; your letter of August 26, 1991, the Zoning Board's memo of August 6th, which was sent to you on August 13th, and the enclosed response of the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, which was received on September 5th. The Task Force's response is in answer to the Planning Board's letter of August 13th, a copy of which is enclosed also. It would be appreciated if written comments on the enclosed memorandum from the Task Force, if any, could be returned within ten business days of receipt of this letter. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice that is being sent simultaneously to the coordinating agencies by certified mail. ., . . If any questions or concerns should arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~ ~~r/P'E Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold Solid 'Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Coordinating Agencies: Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Town Board Suffolk County Dept. Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook & Albany New York State Dept. Transportation . /1.J':-"'~<'" ">-;... d;J'~ ~\lFFDl,f ;::~ ,iY J}>~' t%: ~ _/i~ ' ~~ "'::;) , . N ~ ; :-. t~ ~ \\ ~,1 " ~~, ""0' "<.:. ''J(~f "~"-', \;l?/-jl ',-;'r;,.","f' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: September 6, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: This notice is being sent to all the coordinating agencies who reviewed the Proposed Site Plan for the McDonald's Corporation in Mattituck, New York. In response to our last letter of August 13, 1991, a copy of which is enclosed, this office received one response from the McDonald's Corporation, which is enclosed also. Additional information was sought and received by the Southold Town Solid Waste Task Force, and that information is included. The Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the other reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. It would be appreciated if you would send this office your written comments on the enclosed material within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If any questions or concerns arise, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, ~~~~~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~~ Chairman Encls. Memorandum from Solid Waste Task Force Chairman Table 2.2.2-2 Town of Southold solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Environmental Impact Statement Letter from Mr. Mineo, Counsel, McDonald's Corporation September 26, 1990 letter from Mcdonald's Corporation VS/vs 'r . . GU8P=-I u= Pb '\ ., ,.,.1 COUNCILMEN Raymond W. Edwards George L. Penny IV Ruth D. Oliva Ellen M. Larsen Thomas H. Wickham To: COUNCILMEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1891 From: Planning Board, Town of Southold T. Wickbam(/J 4 Sept 1991 ~ Date: Re: Review of Pro'ected Solid Waste Generation fi In its Aug 13 memo to me the Planning Board has asked the Solid Waste Task Force to address questions related to the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan and the volume of waste that individual businesses could generate according to the plan. This memo, prepared and discussed at the Sept 3 meeting of the Task Force, is our response to the three questio.ns posed by the Planning Board plus some additional comments. First, the Town does have a solid waste management plan that was adopted by formal vote of the Town Board earlier this year. Copies of it are available at the Town Clerk's office. It is our view that endorsement by New York State is not required, and the state has not challenged that view. The state legislation requires towns and counties to adopt solid waste plans, but there is no reference in the legislation to state approval or endorsement of those plans. The opportunity for state endorsements or rejections is when towns make permit applications pursuant to their plans. Second, the plan is being implemented; specifically, the Town is moving with all reasonable haste to achieve the recycling/reuse/composting goals set out in the plan. Those goals call for removing from the waste stream between 70 and 75 percent of materials brought to the landfill by recycling, reutilization and yard- waste composting. The plan refers to target tonnages of recycled materials and the residual materials which cannot be recycled, reused or composted. These figures . are goals and not mandated caps. There is no provision in the state legislation as we understand it which would give the state authorization to cite towns which do not fully achieve their plan goals. Overall volume is limited, however, by capacity of the receiving landfill cells or other disposal options. Third, there is no provision in the Town's plan nor in state legislation placing caps or otherwise restricting the volume of waste generated by individual businesses. " t_t 1 . . - 2 - The Task Force notes from the ZBA letter to the Planning Board dated Aug 6 that the proposed McDonalds restaurant could be expected to generate about 90 cubic yards of waste per month exclusive of drive-through window volume. The Town's Solid Waste Plan (Table 2.2.2-2) lists wastes collected from current institutions in the Town. We note that a business generating 90 cubic yards per month would rank as the sixth largest generator in the Town. Certainly every effort should be made to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste as called for in the Town's plan. The Task Force welcomes the fact that the Planning Board and ZBA are addressing the issue. I I I . I I J . I I I . 3 I I J I I I . . .' Table 2.2.2-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF WASTE COLLECTED AT INSTITUTIONS Hauler Insti tution Container Size (cu. vds) Approximate Amount of Waste Piclc:ed Up Each Week (cu. vds) Mattituck Sanitation Mattituck HS Cutchogue School East Cutchogue School West 8 3 1.5 40 9 3 North Fork Sanitation Southold School 6 30 Peconic School 3 6 Greenport School 6 36 - Oyster Ponds School 4 4 New Suffolk School I 1 Head Start (Greenport) 1.5 9 Sam Simeon Nursing Home 10 60 Southold Senior Citizen 1.5 9 Nutrition Center Oyster Ponds Manor 2 2 Retirement Home Eastern Long Island 10 60 Hospital Source: 1990. Town of Southold 2022H/10 2-25 PRiNTED ON RECYCLED A4PER ,';;;';-- .. - ~ GU8f='1lE" Pb COUNCILMEN Raymond W. Edwards George L. Penny IV Ruth D. Oliva Ellen M. Larsen Thomas H. Wickham To: COUNCILMEN TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Planning Board, Town of Southold T. Wickham()J 4 Sept 1991 Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo1d, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1891 Re: R i fPr . From: Date: 'nfi In its Aug 13 memo to me the Planning Board has asked the Solid Waste Task Force to address questions related to the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan and the volume of waste that individual businesses could generate according to the plan. This memo, prepared and discussed at the Sept 3 meeting of the Task Force, is our response to the three questions posed by the Planning Board plus some additional comments. First, the Town does have a solid waste management plan that was adopted by formal vote of the Town Board earlier this year. Copies of it are available at the Town Clerk's office. It is our view that endorsement by New York Slate is not required, and the slate has not challenged that view. The slate legislation requires towns and counties to adopt solid waste plans, but there is no reference in the legislation to slate approval or endorsement of those plans. The opportunity for slate endorsements or rejections is when towns make permit applications pursuant to their plans. Second, the plan is being implemented; specifically, the Town is moving with all reasonable haste to achieve the recycling/reuse/composting goals set out in the plan. Those goals call for removing from the waste stream between 70 and 75 percent of materials brought to the landfill by recycling, reutilization and yard- waste composting. The plan refers to target tonnages of recycled materials and the residual materials which cannot be recycled, reused or composted. These figures are goals and not mandated caps. There is no provision in the slate legislation as we understand it which would give the slate authorization to cite towns which do not fully achieve their plan goals. Overall volume is limited, however, by capacity of the receiving landfill cells or other disposal options. Third, there is no provision in the Town's plan nor in slate legislation placing caps or otherwise restricting the volume of waste generated by individual businesses. . , . .' - 2 - The Task Force notes from the ZBA letter to the Planning Board dated Aug 6 that the proposed McDonaids restaurant could be expected to generate about 90 cubic yards of waste per month exclusive of drive-through window volume. The Town's Solid Waste Plan (Table 2.2.2-2) lists wastes collected from current institutions in the Town. We note that a business generating 90 cubic yards per month would rank as the sixth largest generator in the Town. Certainly every effort should be made to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste as called for in the Town's plan. The Task Force welcomes the fact that the Planning Board and ZBA are addressing the issue. I I I I I I . . . .. . Table 2.2.2-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT OF WASTE COLLECTED AT INSTITUTIONS Hauler Institution Container Size (cu. vds) APl-vAimate AlDOlmt of Waste Picked Up Each Week (cu. vdsl Mattituck Sanitation Mattituck HS Cutchogue School East Cutchogue School West 8 3 1.5 40 9 3 . North Fork Sanitation Southold School 6 30 Peconic School 3 6 Greenport School 6 36 Oyster Ponds School 4 4 New Suffolk School I 1 Head Start (Greenport) 1.5 9 Sam Simeon Nursing Home 10 60 Southold Senior Citizen 1.5 9 Nutrition Center Oyster Ponds Manor 2 2 Retirement Home Eastern Long Island 10 60 Hospital ~ . ~ - ~ - ~ Source: 1990, Town of Southold 2022M/1O 2-25 PRIN7aJ ON RECYCLED Pi4PER " . . ARMAND P. D'AMATO JEFFREY D. FORCHELLI JACK L L1BERT* DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLINO PETER ALPERT ANTON J. BOROVINA SAMUEL YEDID DAMATO. FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD P. O. BOX 31 MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 SttVt~ v'S f'~ (516) 248 -1700 TELECOPIER: (516) 248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER COOPER WARREN S. ARTHUR MARJORIE E. BORNES WILLIAM A. DrCONZA WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK THOMAS V. PANTELIS VINCENT J. PIZZULLI, JR. *AlSO MEMBEk OF PA a co BARS August 26, 1991 Planning Board Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 30 I '.,:' ,~ij RE: Application of McDonald's Mattituck, New York Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: The following are McDonald's responses to the Board of Appeals request that the Planning Board rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration ("CND") and reopen the environmental review of the above- described application. The rescission of a Negative Declaration is governed by 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i), which states, in relevant part: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it determines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed... (emphasis supplied) A review of the history of this application reveals that there was neither a project modification nor a change in circumstances subsequent to the Planning Board's determination of environmental significance that would affect the amount of solid waste generated. ". n . . D'AMATO. FORCHELLI, LIBERT. SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Two August 27, 1991 On February 5, 1991, the Planning Board issued a CND outlining in detail the reasons supporting its determination of non-significance and setting forth the conditions that it imposed as mitigating measures. That the Planning Board considered the issue of solid waste generation and disposal before issuing its determination is evidenced by a letter from McDonald's to Valerie Scopaz, dated September 26, 1990, which included fact sheets and brochures outlining McDonald's recycling program for the proposed restaurant. This letter was on file with the Planning Board at least four months before the CND was issued. It appears, however, that the Board of Appeals is unaware of its existence since, in a letter to Henry Raynor, dated July 31, 1991, it stated: In reviewing Town records, there appears to be little, if any, documentation from McDonald's Corporation or its experts concerning solid waste generation, disposal and any proposals to mitigate the tonnage of garbage. Also, in review the SEQRA record, very little, if anything, was offered by the applicant concerning this subject. Thus, ~ written documentation has been offered ~ McDonald's Corporation on this subject. (emphasis supplied) The fact that the Board of Appeals is unaware of the documentation submitted by McDonald's regarding recycling is further demonstrated by the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of it in the Board of Appeals' July 22, 1991 Inter-Departmental Memorandum to the Planning Board, the July 31, 1991 letter to Henry Raynor, or the August 6, 1991 Memorandum to the Planning Boardl the only reference to information regarding solid waste is contained in the July 22, 1991 Memorandum where the Board of Appeals alluded to the Long Environmental Assessment Form ("LEAF") submitted by McDonald's. Since the issue of solid waste generation and disposal was addressed by McDonald's in both the LEAF and the September 26, 1990 submission, and considered by the Planning Board prior to the issuance of the CND, and since the Board of Appeals, as an involved agency, not . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT. SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Three August 27, 1991 * only had the opportunity, but the obligation to review and comment upon the solid waste documentation prior to the issuance of the CND, it cannot now be heard to argue that the determination of environmental significance should be rescinded. Furthermore, the above-cited correspondence from the Board of Appeals does not demonstrate there was either a project modification or change in circumstances within the meaning of 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i), which are the only two grounds for the rescission of a negative declaration. A recent case, Pospisil v. Anderson, 136 Misc.2d 346 (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Co. 1987) illustrates the fact that a negative declaration cannot be rescinded at the very end of the approval process: The record is clear that at the first public hearing (Preliminary Plat Approval, July, 1985) there was no opposition indicated by any person to the granting of the certificate of non-significance (negative declaration) nor were there any changes or modifications made by petitioners prior to their request for final approval. It was not until the February, 1986, public meeting, at which time there was what petitioners infer was an orchestrated outcry, that the question of 'traffic impact' reared its head for the first time since the days the lead agency reviewed this matter and issued the negative declaration. The respondents now argue that even at the last moment the planning board has the authority to rescind the negative declaration, and declare the SEQR procedures 'incomplete'. There is no such provision in the law, either SEQR or the Town Law, and to imply that such an action is appropriate after a hearing for approval of the final plat is ludicrous. * see 6 NYCRR S617.3(i) which states, in relevant part, that "Each agency involved in a proposed action has the responsibility to provide the lead agency with information it may have which may assist the lead agency in making its determination of significance..." (emphasis supplied). . . D'AMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO S JOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Four August 27, 1991 It would place every developer in the grasp of a vacillating public body which could not withstand the 'heat' of public outcry. (emphasis in original) In its August 6, 1991 Memorandum, the Board of Appeals finally identified the basis for its request. According to that Memorandum, at a March, 1991, public hearing, a McDonald's representative stated that the proposed restaurant would "fill three 30-yard compactors per month". Based upon this single statement, the Board of Appeals proceeded to make a number of assumptions and ultimately calculate that the restaurant would generate 3,332 pounds of solid waste per day. The Board of Appeals' request that the CND be rescinded on the basis of this statement and the projections derived therefrom is incorrect for several reasons. As stated above, 6 NYCRR Part 617.6(3) (i) is not intended to permit a lead agency to rescind a negative declaration simply because additional information concerning a project is presented during the subsequent permitting process. Additional information is always presented during the course of the public hearings that are a part of the permit approval process, and to interpret this section to allow a determination of non-significance to be rescinded on that basis would render the SEQRA process never-ending. As stated by the Court of Appeals in Jackson v. UDC, 67 N.Y.2d 400 (1986): A requirement of constant updating, followed by further review and comment periods, would render the administrative process perpetual and subvert its legitimate objectives. Another reason why the CND should not be rescinded is that the Board of Appeals' objection that the proposed restaurant would generate 3,332 pounds of solid waste daily is highly inaccurate. In November, 1990, Perseco, an independent consulting firm, studied the solid waste generated by two McDonald's restaurants that are comparable to the proposed restaurant. The findings of that study were set forth in a document entitled "McDonald's Waste Characterization Study", dated February 25, 1991, a copy of which is annexed hereto. . . D'AMATO. FORCHELU, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT LAW Page Five August 27, 1991 The study calculated that each restaurant generated approximately 238 pounds of solid waste per day. In addition, it calculated that 34 percent (34%) of the solid waste (approximately 80 pounds) was in the form of corrugated cardboard. Since McDonald's will recycle the corrugated cardboard from its Mattituck restaurant, the solid waste from it will be approximately 160 pounds per day. This figure does not include the amount of solid waste generated by the drive-thru window, which the study calculated as 22 percent (22%) of the total generated by the restaurant, or approximately 60 pounds per day. Since the solid waste generated by the drive-thru window is transported by car to destinations both within and without the Town of Southold, the entire 60 pounds per day cannot be considered as part of the solid waste stream that must be disposed of within Southold. Based upon the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted that there is no reason to rescind the eND and reopen the SEQRA process. McDonald's has supplied the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals with more than sufficient empirical data to answer any question concerning the quantity or component parts of the solid waste stream from the proposed restaurant and McDonald's proposal to mitigate the amount of it by the recycling of corrugated cardboard. v~~ou~. m.~ PETER R. MINEO PRM:ren Enclosure cc: Wayne Bender, Esq. Hon. Scott L. Harris Ms. Judy Pascucci Mr. Henry Raynor Board of Appeals, Town of Southold "" '. ~DONALD'S WASTE . CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The Waste Characterization Study was conducted at two McDonald's Restaurants simultaneously in Denver, CO, and Sycamore, IL The test ran the week of November 12th to November 18, 1990. The study was conducted by two different companies: Waste Disposal Specialist, Denver, CO, and Landfill Alternatives, Elburn, IL IDUE.CTIVE The purpose of this study is to obtain a current, detailed analysis of an average McDonald's Restaurant's waste stream. It is important to note that all waste calculated in this study is for "on premise" wasteoooor'what ends up going out the back door of a McDonald's Restaurant and the corral for either disposal or recycling. It does not take into account take-out packaging which is brought to the home, work, or elsewhere for disposal. This information will hopefully generate new questions and opportunities to learn more about McDonald's waste, and to use as a tool in assisting future recycling and source reduction programs. CATEGORIES McDonald's waste was put into three major categories: Over-The-Counter (OTC), Behind-The-Counter (BTC), and Miscellaneous Waste. Each category has sub-groups which include the following: OTC Polystyrene Uncoated Paper Coated Paper Condiment Packaging Non-McDonald's Waste BTC Corrugated Organics DurableslEquipment Inner Packaging MISC. WASTE Office Paper 3 0 ;;'iC.11 1_."'. METHOD OF MEASURE The waste was categorized on a daily basis and totaled at the end of the week. All measurements are on a weight basis. Measurements were made of liquid retained in cups and other paper items. STORE VOLUME Both McDonald's restaurants do have drive-thru operations, and their yearly sales is just above the national average with 1.5 million in sales. The sales for that seven day period are $29,149.26 and $26,592.23 respectively which gives an average of $27,870.75. RESULTS The results indicate that 78% of the waste generated is Behind-The-Counter. The bulk of the waste is Corrugated and Organics. The Over-The-Counter waste accounts for the remaining 22%. Please keep in mind that the Over-The-Counter category does include the projections for conversions to the coated paper (paper-based wraps) from polystyrene (clamshell). MAB183/CEB -2- MCDONALD'WASTE CHARACfERlZATION s&v The two restaurants averaged weight generated about 1,660 lbs. over a seven day period. ITEMS WEIGHT PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL (OTC) Polystyrene 79 Lbs. 5% Uncoated Paper 62 Lbs. 4% Coated Paper 99 Lbs. · 6% .. Condiment Packaging 51 Lbs. 3% Non-McDonald's Waste 75 Lbs. 4% (BTC) Corrugated Coated 78 Lbs. 5% Uncoated 488 Lbs. 29% 566 Lbs. 34% Organics Complete (Waste Menu 166 Lbs. 10% Board Items) Putrescibles 395 Lbs. 24% 561 Lbs. 34% Durables/Equipment 1 Lb. LDPE (Inner Packaging) 25 Lbs. 1% HDPE (Inner Packaging) 14 Lbs. 1% Mise. (Inner Packaging) 101 Lbs. 6% 140 Lbs. 8% Liquids 26 Lbs. 2% Total 1,660 Lbs. 100% (Based on two restaurant study: ll/12-1]J18; Denver, CO, Sycamore, n.) . Includes conversion of paper based wraps. MAB183/CEB -3- MCDONALD'~STE CHARACTERIZATION ST", . A"n;j1Ii.~~S!!lre J!Q~""Pi:l/$l4-Q!!q Sales .. Polystyrene :U#!M TJnroatedPllper 2.2#!Ml CoatedPal'lel" 3,5#l~f Coudi.ment Packaging :t8#/M Corrugated 2tl,;l#/M Organics 20.1#/M Il1l1erPackllglng 5.U#/M Non.M.eDorutld's Wasle 2.7#/?r.f Lilll!.ids1.O#/M TOTAl, 6U.O#/1\1 + Nl)tt~~ '!'hls isindlldt\d In order to U$eas 11 tool to project waste d.lltllfur lilny McJ)()nflld's restaufllllt. A!!1:rt!,g.iL~tmr~U;;'J11"~~ri!l!1\QQ!t~;!J~L~ Ct' 9i::f,;(~~{ "~'~""""':~'"'""'~ .,,/'- /~ CIIll'!7'-' I ,--,.."" '.,,:, '!i}::';,.;:- fL:tSt'-d On l'.:qt fl:'I,Llll.rnrd -";hHfy:: r f,/:l .2...1, f,/ l H;. 1Jl'.:~'n"l;T" (':'(),. Sy(.tlnH,Ht:,H_~,). '.~ .i': l ,1 . . . WASTE CATEGORIES . . OTC - Waste in the lobby/si~-down area and parking lot. EXAMPLES Polystyrene Foam Qamshells, Hot Cups/Lids, Cutlery, Salad Containers Uncoated Paper Straw Wrappers, Napkins, Trayliners Coated Paper Fry Cartons, Wraps, Cold Cups CondimentPackagmg Salad Dressing, Creamers, Nugget Sauces, and Jellies. This group includes both unopened and opened packagmg. Non-McDonald's Waste Waste from parking lot and lobby which consist of newspapers, aluminum cans, and glass bottles. BTC - Waste in back or the register counter including the kitchen, employee break area, and storage rooms. Corrugated Coated, Uncoated Organics Out of code sandwiches, and all other putrescible waste from Behind-the-Counter (egg shells, coffee grounds, etc.). DurableslEquipment Trays LOPE & HOPE LOPE (i.e. Hot Cup Sleeves), HOPE (i.e. Plastic Jugs) Miscellaneous Packaging Chipboard Dividers, Kraft Paper Miscellaneous Waste Office Paper MAB183/CEB -5- . . ; . MCDONALD'S WASTE CHARACTERIZATION STUDY (f) o z :) o 0.. 200 .-' 100 ' I I O~/ , f' .~ '. l~ ~ OrganlC$ CorTugaled Inner P"Kg.Polystyrene Non-McD . Coated UncollfBtlCot'dlment Pkg. Water 34% 34% 8% 5% Waste Paper Paper '2% 2% 4% 6% 4% SEVEN DAY (ONE WEEK) AVERAGE (Based Or! two restaurant study: 11 /1 2 - 11 /18 : Denver. CO. Sycamore. ,L) ... ~_,....J. ..J.......... D.......:.e.....H....""'e- f:r"'fH"""-" rnnvp,..~ion to P,Dner-Based 'Nrof,Ys # olliiiili~~~ ~lo."._. _........ I o SWY DATA - SU8-CATEGORIES CORRUGATED - COATED 5A CORRUGATED - UNCOATED 5, ORGANICS. . 6 . DURA8LES/EOUIPMENT 7 MISC. LOPE PACKAGING SA MISC. HDPE PACKAGING 3B MISC. PAPER PACKAGING BE MISC. KRAFT PACKAGING 8F MISC. PACKAGING - OTHER 85 MEN~ ITEMS IN SVC. PKG. VA TOPPINGS - UNOPENED WA OFFICE PAPER XA 2.33 1.39% .58% 171.67 100.00% : ~ '. . o .00: S9 34.37% ~,2. 48 36.40: .00% o 1.92 1.12% 1.10 I" .64: .68% .00: 7.33% 17 . 50: o 12.58 30.03 MON. MON. ll-12 ll-12 SUMMARY DAIA - CATEGORIES 1-" ..00. CORRUGA TED 5 ORGANICS 6 DURA8LES/EOUIPMEtH 7 MISC. PACKAGING 8 MENU IIEMS IN SVC. PtG. VA TOPPINGS - UNOPENED WA OFFICE PAPER XA 59 34.37% b2.48 36.401 o .00: 16.77 9.77% 3D.03 17.50% 2.38 1.39% ,t,. ....0... 171.67 100.00% ~ o 117 52.94 .10 1.'16 .20 11 ')11 ~ ....u 18.53 Ltc. "" .(:"1 .00.: 56.38% 26.18% .05% .97: .10. .41: .00: 5.54: 9.16% o 2.43 l'l'" ~ . LV... D .00% 202.1:) 100.00% TUE. WE. 11-13 11-13 :u.:: ; 114 56.38~ ~;2. 94 26.18: .10 .05: 14.20 7.02% 18.53 9.16% 2.43 1.20: o .00% 202.H 100.00% . . 82.45 3.75 2.10 .52 1.34 LBS. 5 2.65.% 36 19.05: 43.63% 1.98: I.ll% '1"7"" ....1.. o .71: .00% 6.% 3.68: 48.48 25.65: 1.41 .75: I .53: IS'7.00 100.00: WED. 11-14 LSS. WED. 11-14 41 21.on 32.4S 43.63: 3.75 1.93: 10.91 5.77% 48.48 2S. 65: 1.41 .75% I .m 139.00 100.00: , . LSS. % 24 13.74% 44 25.m 65.48 37.43: o .00: 1.57 . :~Ol .68 \0,. 1.51 .86% o .00: 7.36 4.21: 25.16 IUD: 3.94 2.26% 1 .57% 174.70 100.00l TUl! ,"v. 11-15 THU. 11-15 . ::!": ...:..v. 1)0 38.n: 6S.4S 37.48% o .00% 11.12 6.36% 25.16 IUO% 3.94 2.26% .57I 174.70 100.00% 67.73 23.'11 L83.. 1 .72% 27 19.55% 4.-.. 11"'. _~. v/., o .001 1.0(; .7n ..:..:. .16% 1.84 1_33% o .00: 5.S4: 8.06 , "" L.:..:. 20.93% .28% 133.13 100.00% 7"' .,.:.'" ;., -,,-, r"i!.I') o 11.21 23.:H 1.22 1 FFL FF!. 11-10 11-16 ?:~ 2D.27.: 49.07t 8.12% 20. 'j3% .38% '". ./i.it 138.13 lOu.QuZ LBS. o .00: 97 38.35'4 87.33 34.73% o .00: o IUD 45.&9 2.'.H L15Z 1.19 .47: 2.35 0" .1J... 4_36 .00: 4.5'7% 18.07% 1.72~ o .00: 252.:'3 100.00: . . SAT. 11-17 !:!~ SA!. il-I7 97 38.35% ::;7. S3 34.73% DO! o .00: 18.Q4 7.13% 45.69 13.07% 4.36 1.72: a .OO! 252.93 100.00% . . Las. : o .00: 52 3U3: 48.43 "tl) n,! ........v/-,o .5:3 .38% 1. 06% 1.60 .33 .22% 2.18 1.44% o .00% 3.32 5.51% 34.79 23.03% 1.80 1.19Z 1 .66% 151.02 100.00% ,.."~' ,:;u,~ . 12-02 Las. SUN. 12-02 52 34.43% 48.43 32.07% .58 .3BZ 12.43 8.23% 34.79 23.03% 1.80 1.19% .66% 151.02 100.00: . L8S. . . 30 2.30% 429 32.88% 467.39 35.33% 4.43 .34% 13.16 1.0l% 4.23 .32% 11.23 .86% o .00% 66.0:3 " " 17.54 30 2.30: 130U4 100.00% . . TOTAL 7-DAY LBS. TOTAL 7-DAY I 459 35.18: 467.3:? 35.33: 4.43 .34: 94.69 7.26% 231.5') 17.75% r---17.S-~.34% 30 2.30% 1304.64 100.00% ....... ~. o .~ " .......",.,"~,,' ~ . ~ MENU ITEMS IN SVC. PrG. ~'l)~iilfi'"' . .- ~. ',' .... .~ TOPPINGS - UNOPENED I OFFICE PAPER ITEH TOTALS 00 SHA~E Mi~ JJG~ '.".'L..'- 85 RIGID HDPE I-GAL. . 86 SNAP-OFF BOTTLE CAP" (ORANGE.) 35 SAUCE CANS 8G PS FOAM TRAY 86 PORTION PAC, 35 LAUNDRY PACKETTE 3G SANITIZER PACKETTE 35 FLOORCAP.E PACKETTE 85 GRILL CLEANER PACKETTE 8G TOILET PAPER CORES OG TOILET PAPER WRAPS - PAfER 3G NAPKIN WRAFS - PAPER OG eLEACH PACKETTE OG TOILET PAPER ROLLS (PARTIAL) OG SANITIZER PACKEITE 3G IOILET PAPER ROLLS (WWLE) VA eIG HAC VA QUARTER POUNVER VA (I-POUNDER WITH CHEESE VA MeDU VA FILET-V-FISH ~A McCHICf.EN VA NUGGETS - SM. ~ HED. sizes VA HAHeURGER VA CHEESEBURGER VA BISCUII VA BIG BREAKFAST VA HOTCAKES VA BACON & EGG & CHEESE BISCUII VA SAUSAGE ~ Ebb BISCUiT VA HcRIB VA PIE VA HASH BROWN VA SALAD - SMALL size VA SALAD - LARGE size VA HOTCAKES & SAUSAGE VA SAUSAGE H(HUFFIN & EGG VA SAUSAGE MfMUFFIN VA EGG HcHUFFIN VA ENGLISH MUFFIN VA FRIES - BOX VA FRIES - BAG VA HAPPY HEAL COOKIES WA KEICHUP WA HUST ARD WA HOI HUSTARD WA CROUIONS WA BACON BITS NA BUIlER PAIS WA JELLY WA HOHEY WA CREAHER WA BBQ SAUCE WA SWEET 'N SOUR SAUCE WA SUGAR/EQUAL WA SYRUP WA SALAD DRESSING XA HcSIORE OFFICE PAPER (LBS.) .,. c' _ ~ ,.--,,, .i. . v-; 1/0 .3748 ~ 3.37 30 .0661 17.50 .03::~6 10 o , o ~ .0066 2.50 .0055 15 . v':; " 5.50 (tF!] 5 .Dt. 5.50 .0121 2 .02 25 .0551 5 25 .0551 3 .OD66 14 1 4 2P.70 .4844 lS3.9D .1054 20(,.10 .4544 24t:.JO .5474 151.30 ..)jjij 5 " ",-, I) ,,;.0' 3 1.36 '" ;; 9 3.00 I50 .3307 lo4.JU .~06J 6 2.4~ , 11u.8O .2443 117.lG '1C'Vl ..:-.;0.;. ~'i .1 'tIS 230.60 .SOS4 lS:~.4D .3492 141.60 .3122 103.90 .372~ 225 .4%D 100.30 .2211 56.80 .1252 154.40 .3404 291.40 .6424 211.60 .4665 175.70 .3873 131.20 .2892 .66 23 5.62 1.81 , ; 6 U5 1.02 l.05 2 5 , 1 ,^ ....<. , o , 2 o 0 o 0 2 1.28 o 0 2 .77 2 ,,', 148 .3263 2 .65 69 .1521 0 0 112 .2469 1 .25 72.:30 .1605 0 0 o 12.20 .0269 50 1.34 1 31.30 .0690 10.30 .0227 3.50 .0077 10.30 .0227 15.90 .0351 15.50 .0342 15 .0331 33.50 .0739 33.60 .0741 1 .0022 65.80 .1451 75.60 .1667 2 3 2 10 3 7 o D 4 o o o 171.67 100.00: HON. HOt/. Il-!2 Il-l2 .; 1. '?i:,,~ 5 .; .(;; .46 .0:3 .27: B .53 .04: 4 .15 o . as: ~'" . Ut, .D2.: .03 .04: 5 .Db .01: 3 .04 o '1,., .i.e' .0,., .16: (lQ .052 11 .07 o o a 2.26: J. r~ . ~ 1 .2~: D "'I,'":" .,7.," .uu. " 1. 75: , " 1.42: 4 l.b} .39: .33 3.27t 9 ~ ~n 1.05: 3 .77 .67: 7 1.34 .59% 0 0 .':.>1. .35 1.56 .91: .31 .65: Z .74 ,~"j .53: 1 50 .26% 6 1.33 .00: 0 0 . 00: 0 0 .75: 1 .64 .00% 0 0 .451 2 .77 .34% .2'.1 .44 .38: 2 .65 .00: 0 0 .14.: 1 .25 .00: 0 0 o .78: 40 LOg o .14 .07 .02 .23 .28 .08% , , .04% 1 .02 .01% 2 .02 .13% 10 .23 .16% 12 .42 .04% I .03 .13% 10 .33 .00% 3 .22 .00% 0 0 .01% 5 .01 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .58% D 0 .07 .23 o o .01 o o 202.t~ 100.00% ruE. WE. !l-l3 !I-13 .on 2 .~;l .93Z 2 .7S o .26: 9 .Of:% 4 o .03l .01% 0 .03% D .02: c .0:;: .Gb . ,,~ IH:...- 5 .2:3 .04Z .01 c o o L6;::~ ;;, " .J i .3e, .67: 9 ~.09 n n(l~ ... 1.~,4 1.6.7 .82: 7 .8a~ 5 .16% 1.09~ 18 ,\,-,.. . ,,';:'io 4.40 15 3.87 o .66! .00% 0 .17: lC.o.- ...". .35 10 J.12 .37: B 2.'18 .25: 2 .99 .66: 5 1.11 Qi1~ .13 .00% 0 0 .32% 1 .64 .00: 0 0 .3HZ 14 5.42 .14% .29 .32% 16 5.22 .OOZ 2 .30 .12% 6 1.48 .00% 3 .48 o .53! 17 .46 .07 o .03% 0 0 .01% 2 .05 .011 3 .02 .m 5 .l! .21% 5 .1H .02I D 0 .16% 9 .30 .m 0 0 .00% D 0 .01% 3 .01 .00% 2 .29 .OOI 0 0 .00% 0 I .It... .40.% 2 .60 " ....0 .31: 2 .08% 12 .Dl a o .00% 3 .00: 1 .00% .01% 4 o .01 .03; .151 .3 .001 2 .., ...,~ '7 (,.", ". ,)'t... .. ~ a .aOl u 2.16% 2 .C;7: 0 ') n o a o .33 1.24: 7 2.33 1.07% 4 1.63 .lll .33 o 2.05% 3 1 2.33% 12 2.93 o .00% .00% ,,.,. ....).. 1.65% 3 1.5:3% 2 .52% 3 ) o o .5:3% .07% .00% .34% 2 .00: 0 0 2.87% 3 1.1& .15% 3 .87 2.76% 2 .65 .16% 0 0 .78% 2 .49 .251 0 0 o .24% '15 2.56 o .00% 1 .07 .02% 4 .09 .01% 1 .DI .06% 15 .34 .09% 9 .32 .00% 4 .14 .16% 3 .26 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .00% 9 .02 .15% 1 .15 .00% 0 0 .53% 0 1 139.00 100.00% WED. WED. 11-14 11-14 .51 3 1.05 .94 1.49 1.55 o o 1.23 174.70 100.00% IHU. THU. II-IS Il-l5 .t2 .35% ,< .'0 .43% 7 17 ..0 'rI'" 7'-'.':::l ;:~.:~~~ 4 .08! 2 .13 .10% 9 on .26% 3 P .0:3: 4 .15 .46 .02 .01 .01 .05 .06 p ..; o a .031 1 .06 .D9% .Ob .01% 3 .02 .01 o ,-. o .03: 14 .01% n"'. '1 .v1... .:. .02l 2 .04: 2 .04: .01% c o . , , o .00: u o 0 3.05.~ :;: 3.:37 2.81: 1I S.jJ o 5.33 .91 o .52% 5 2.27 .00: D i1 1.34% . 2.00 .93% 4 ,.< ..nll .77 1.68% 13 .44% 7 .11% .29% .60% .54% 4 .43% 5 .35% <. .19 " .,.'t . DOl 0 0 1.64% 15 v.~.;. .ao: 0 0 1.45t 8 2.67 l.t,j 1.18.: .33 .24% 3.18 2.30: 18 4.40 1.31: 14 3.61 5 ....u'" "'I 2.31 .39% 4 .88 .64: 6 1.33 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .74% 4 2.57 .00% 0 .67% 5 .50% 4 .3n 5 .00% 0 .23% 2 .00% 0 o 1.46% 23 o .04% 1 .05% , .00% 2 .19% 7 .m 5 .08% I .15% 3 .00% 0 .00% 0 .01% 2 .OB% 0 .00% 0 .57% 0 1.81 .19 .14% .l:~ .51 .37% 5 2.54 .25: 4 1.40 , 0< J..';'", . 90% 6 1. 87 1.3S: 6 2.23 1.86 .'19 .72% 5 2.43 .00: 0 0 .OOZ 0 0 1.86% 5 3.21 o 1.'14 .00: 0 1.40: 2 .:34% 3 1.181 3 .00% .36% 2 .00% D 1 .45% 81 I .05% 12 .03% 3 .0]% 3 .12% 16 .]3% B .02% 3 1.16 1.63 o .49 o .t'i .07 .05 .02 .16 .18 .03 .10 o o .00 o o I .07% 8 .00% 0 .00% I .00% 6 .00% 0 .00% 1 o 70< ..i.A. 252.93 100.00% 151.02 100.00% 1304.64 100.00% 138.13 100.00% FRI. FRI. 11-16 Il-l6 2.18 1.23 .49~ 1.50 , " .sn 3 1.12 I .24Z 2 .13 .0&% 3 .12 .03 o .0, c.' .031 2 .01 .00% .01 .0lZ .01 .01% 2 .02 .02 .11 .04% 2 .11 o .04% .06 .03 .01% 3 .02 o o D 2.11~ j 1.45 .00% 0 0 2.69: 2 .91 .00: 0 0 1.06% 2 .67 .30: .41 .92% 1.74% 4 1.431 2 .0:3: I 1.00% 1 .55: .74% 4 .-.,-," .';:'<:1.4, o .'/3% .52% .00: 3 .00: 1.27% 13 .00% 1 .3!! lQ .34% 15 .39% 8 .D6: 0 .20% 4 .00% 0 o .%% 33 1 .01% 7 .04 .OOZ 3 .02 .01% 1 .01 .03% 2 0" 77 .r .98 .< .lo .49 o .;; .c'.... .33% .03% .01% 2 .14% 3 .!!% 4 .04% 0 .10% 7 .00% 1 .03% 2 .01% 2 .00% 0 .07% 0 .DO% 0 .07 .02 .36 .23 .10 .26 o .07 .01 o .17 o SAT. SAT. 1'-17 !I-17 .51 3 LOS 1.25 12 4.47 .34 8.35 .47 3.87 4.34 2.61 o .99 o 1.02 " .jl ", ." .vL" .74% 15 .0'1: n,-,l\I . ul).~ .01% .00% .01l .021 .07: .04: .01% .96.: t,3 .00: . 60~ 39 O;l~ . u." .44: 44 '1.0! .i.,:,," L. .33 .22: 14 .98 .52 .1 '~ .65% 9, .34: 51 .13% 17 .34% 10 IlQ,. 16 .83: jj 2.%': 3:3 .50 .33: 16 .15: 31 .25l 4 ?? ... .38 ')'\'" .<.". 5.53: 23 .31% 2.56% 38 2.87% 29 1.73% 38 .DO% 3 .65% 18 .00% 3 .07 .02 .02 .07 .14 o .23 .07 .15 .00 o o I IJI' 344 3 ,05% 18 .02% 16 .01% 15 .05% 66 .09% 51 .00% !l .15% 52 .051 4 .10% 3 .00% 31 .00% 3 .00% 1 .66% 0 SUH. SUN. 12-02 12-02 6.94 11. 9'1 39 32 52 15 15 16 5 15 15 39 o , 4 30.51 17.72 l'i.!)ij 11.78 23.69 13.17 5.03 5.59 10.30 14.15 7.94 6.85 .50 .34 17 .99 .47 14.72 3.39 12.40 .46 4.44 .40 9.25 .53% .92! 2.58 .20.: 1.23 .on .29 .02: .on .OH !"11'" .u...... .10 .13 .1'1 .33 .33 .06% .06% .26 M< .U':'io 2.34% .-il 0-' . .. L36Z 1.8~ ,.,.... .1...'.. 11.:>"t ..H.... .qo~ 4.63 "it:or .v":JOo 1.82: I.Olk 3.26 ')r., ...".. ~O'!'. .V'.. .43: .,,.,~ .J ,. 1.03% .61% .53% .04% .03% 1.38: .04% 1.13% -'~'" .D't... ot;.,. .-'V" .03% .34% .04% .71% 1.24 .10% .36 .03% .12 .01% 1.50 . In 1.79 .14% .33 .03% 1.72 .13% .30 .02% .22 .02% .07 .01% .44 .03% .17 .01% 30 2.30% IOTAL 10m 7-DAY 7-DAY -, e, ,,". ... : ".,.",." "ili" . ~. .. ""', '"J LalldfileernativeSl Inc. .0022046 ,.... \. : B TC CATEGORY CORRUGATED ~, ORGAlHCS DURABLES/EOUIPMENT MISC. LOPE PACKAGING MISC. HDPE PACKAGING MISC. PAPER PACKAGING ~~- MISC. KRAFT PACKAGING MISC. PACKAGING - OTHEP. Waste Cha~rization Study for: um um MON. WEIGHT WEIGHT 11-12 -GMS. -LBS. COUNT BTC ITEi1 OESCRIPfION SA COATED (LBS.) sa ur~COA TED (lBS.) 6 ORGANICS (LBS.) 6 fljG. HUF.-BAGS OF 4 dOZ.I:~BAGSl 6 BUNS - LOOSE 6 CHICKEN BREASTS (UNWRAPPED) 6 Me NUGGETS -LOOSE 6 HAMBURGER (UNWRAPPED) 6 BUNS-FULL LDPE BAGS (IBAGS) 6 HASH BROWNS - UNWRAPPED 7 STEEL WHIS, ., .00 NOT ... HOT GRILL. WEIGHT 7 GLASS COFFEE CARAFE 7 IN-STORE TRAYS 7 IN-STORE SALT/PEPPER SHA!.E,S 7 IN-STORF ASHTRAYS 7 SPONGE 3A MISC. LDPE - CLEAR 8A BUN - LDPE - CLEAR 8A LDPE UTENSIL BAGS SA LDPE CUP SLEEVES 8A HDPE CUP SLEEVES 8B MISC. HDPE BAGS - CLEAR 8B HDPE - SMALL, W!LID (PEPPERS:) 8B HDPE - LGE. (PICmS') 8E DIVIDERS - CORRUGATED 8E DIVIDERS - BLUE PAPER 8E EGG TRAYS (3 doz. eggs each! 8F KRAFT NAPKIN WRAPPER 3G FISH BOX - COATED CARDBOARD 8G BUTTER WRAP COATED PAPER 8G DIVIDERS - ~;MALL 8G DIVIDERS - LARGE 3G OJ CARTONS - 64 oz. size 8G COFFEE FILTERS - SMALL 8G COFFEE FILTERS - LARGE 8G HOT CAKE MIX BAG S6 FRY OIL FILTERS 8G FRY FILTER BAGS 8G SAUCE BAG - CLEAR 8G WHITE BAG - WITH PULL-STRING 8G CHEESE SAUCE BAG 8G LETTUCE BAG - CLEAR 8G PICKLE SLICE BAG - CLEAR 8G ENGLISH MUFFIN BAG - CLEAR 8G COFFEE BAG - WHITE OR RED 8G SLIVERED ONION BAG - CLEAR 8G SUNDAE TOPPING BAG - CLEAR 8G DEHYDRATED ONIONS BAG - CLEAR 8G SALAD MIX BAG - CLEAR 8G HOT CHOC. BAG - WHITE & CLEAR 8G HOT FUDGE TOPPING BAG - CLEAR 8G MISC. MULTI-LAYER BAG - CLEAR 8G BACON BAG - CLEAR 8G DILL PICKLE BAG 8G MULTI-LAYER 'LARD' BAG - PINK 8G CHEESE SLICES WRAPPER BG CELLOPHANE? WRAPPER .' .;~:'[" ".~, C' q'" "-, '\ -.. ---- f., IOlll1 .....'-Ouv 6 .0132 150 .3307 18.67 53.10 6.1000 .1171 .5000 1.7 .0375 43 17 .D375 1 IV.50 .0231 4 7.50 .0165 10 2 .0044 4 6.50 .0143 10 72.50 . 15'?8 4 141.75 .3125 76 .1675 ? 93.50 .2061 .0036 .0044 7 .0154 195 o 14 5 o I o 3.90 2 175 .3358 .0039 .om 4.02 7.03 11 .0243 19.50 .D430 7.50 .0165 7 .0154 12.50 .0276 17 .D37S 12.50 .D276 IUD . D430 12 .0265 19 .0419 11 . D243 13 .0307 o 14.50 .0320 0 5.50 .0121 6 5.50 .0121 4 On.' . ....'- .j .7500 .0500 .0750 .1700 """,-, THE PER5ECO COMPANY o MON. MON. TUE. 11-12 11-12 11-13 LBS. % comn o .00: 0 WE. ruE. WED. 11-13 11-13 11-14 LBS. : COUNT o .00% 0 o Q 5'1 34.37: 0 62 36.121; 0 o .QO~ 0 " , .03 .02: 21 .28 3 o .33 .12 .19% 13 4.30 .DIZ 33 1.36 o o o o o D o o .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 .00% 0 0 " o o o o .00: 2 .00: D o o 1.61 .04 .09 .17 .02 .14 .64 .31 .94Z j1 .02: 0 1.16 o .53 .21 .OSZ 25 13 2 .10: (11" .v...~ .08% 3 .37: .13% 0 D o o , " .....1 h"'" ..0';' 5 o o .62 .36% 3 .62 .04 .03% 5 .D4 .19 .m 32 .14 3.01 1.75: ISO 2.31 o .00: 4 J.54 .12 .m 4 .04 .03 .05: I .02 3 5 4" , 2 .17 .ID: 0 0 2 '7 .22 .13% Q .19 o o 4 1 7 " , o .17 .10% 2 .09 '0 J. .12 .07% 4 .D7 .59 .34% 32 .49 .06 .03% 3 .03 .11. .07% 0 0 .D6 .03% 2 .06 .09 .05% (. .26 D .00% 1 .03 o .00% 1 .04 .07 .04% 2 .05 .OB .05% 2 .OB o o .00% D 0 .07 .04% 2 .02 .DS .03% 9 .11 2 3 2 2 D o 3 2 114 56.::;8: 0 47 23.25: 0 November-December, 1990 - Hc~or.1 Sycamore, Illinois WEO. WED. THU. 11-14 11-14 11-15 L8S. % COUNT 5 2.65% 0 30 19.05.: 0 58 30.6'?t 0 o , .oa~ 4 24.40 12.91% 0 .01% 2 .00: .14~ 1 o 1 o 2.13: ,~.. .Q/." .001 0 .00: 0 .00% 0 .00: .ac~ .10 o .G5~ n .oo~ 0 1 .57: ',4 2.02 .00% 0 .29% .01 .04 .16 .m 3 .00: 0 .02Z 3 0'-''', . ,)~ o .00: .84 ," ..1... D .31: 1 .02% 0 .07: ~l 1.14% 141 .76% 0 .02: 2 .on 0 o .DOI 0 D .10% B o 1 .04: 3 o .D3% 10 .24% 69 .D41 I .DOI D .03% 0 .m 1 .Oll 0 .02% 0 .02% 13 .04% o .DOI Q .01% 5 .OS% o o o ti 1. 34 .01 o .04 .0-2% 3 o .001 0 .00% 0 .OD% 0 D o 3 1.59: u .75 .401 0 o .00: 0 .ODZ 0 o 1. 07% 30 o .00: .02 .01% 9 .05 .03% 12 .00% 1 G .D4 .16 .31 .02% 3 .08% 2 .17% 1 o 1 .71% 9 .21 .11% 2 .00% .07% 23 US% 109 .GO% Q .01% S6 .00% 1 o .OD% 0 o .10% 3 D o .07% I o .09% .17 .56% 58 .01% 2 .00% 0 .00% 1 o .14 '"! 1'-' 1....0 o .02 o D .19 .13 .17 1.06 ,03 o o .D4 o o .02% 2 .00% 0 .00% 0 9 3 o I 5 5 .32 .04 P' . ~/. .02% o .06 .DI .00% .03% .01% THU. THU. FRI. 11-15 11-15 11-16 LSS. ! COUNT 24 13.74: 0 44 25.19: 0 65 37.21% 0 o .GO% a .03 .02: " .33 .19% 1 .12 .on 3 1.12 1.51 o .41 .01 .10 1.63 D o o o .DO: .001 0 .00% 0 .!JU: U o ;.: .00: 0 o o .00: 0 o .00: Q .04 .&4Z ~q .02% .12: \ .11Z 5 .ODI 1 .02% 4 .18% I .18% 0 o .21 .20 .00 .04 ,", ."" .31 .36Z 11 o .24% .00% 3 .061 25 .%% ll5 .00% U .50 .02 .23% 6 .01% 1 o o .00% 0 .07 .04% 5 o o .02% 2 o .16% 17 .51% 19 .D3% 2 .DO% 0 .02% I .05% I .00% 2 .00t 0 .12% 3 .D4 .23 .9D .06 o .03 .D9 o D .22 .12 .on 6 .03 .0. .06 o .D2% 0 .03% 5 .03: 13 FRI. FRI. SAT 11-16 11-16 11-; LBS. : CO UN G 3 13.3D o o o o o 1.34 1.77 o 7.'''' .iL;" v 27 19.55: u 49 35.47% 0 .00% 0 .02: o .03 .33 '1i~ .L'T... .12 .09% 3 o 13.25% G .00: 3 .00% 0 .00: 0 .001 0 o u .00: 0 o .00: 0 .90 .65: c6 .D4 .D7 .03 .DO .06 .16 o .D3% .05% " .06% 1'1 .00% 3 .04% . .12% .00% 2 1.33: 14 .21 .15% 2 .02% 2 .03% 45 1.231 213 .03 .11 o .00% 0 .04% 10 .Oll 1 .05 .D2 o .00% 1', . , o .O'it 13 o 1 .06% 4 D .20% 20 .21% 57 .D4% I .OD% 0 .D2% 5 .03% 3 .04% D ,00% 0 .05% 12 .D9 .28 .29 .06 o .D3 .D4 .05 o .07 .24 .17% 6 o .06 " ..b .00% 2 .04% 7 .111 13 SAI. SAT. SUN. 11-17 11-17 12-02 lSS. Z COUNT o .00% 0 97 38.35% 0 87 34.40% 0 , o o " " 1..'1l o 2.35 o 3.29 o 3 o o .00: 0 .03 .on 1 .33 .13! .12 .US% 2 o .QG~ Q .14: 0 .00% 1 .00: 0 .00% 0 D .00% 0 .35 o o o o o .00% .04 .D7 .31 .01 . :?SI 27 7 0" .v~.. .D'~ .03% L .12% 16 .01% 4 .D3l 1 .,-, .'i') .63 .19% 2 .25% 0 , , . 93~ 13 .41 .02 .16% 3 .m 3 .20 .08% 32 1.30% 151 .00: 0 .u9 .04% S .01% o .07% 0 o Ii? .u" .17 .32 .12% 7 1 .17 .07% 2 D .m 19 .m 42 .Dl% 3 .00% 0 .05: 0 .05% 4 .DO% I .DO% 0 .12% 6 .09: 14 1 .03: 0 .03% 4 .33 .38 .03 D .14 .13 o o .29 .24 .D6 .08 .1(, .06% 18 o BEHIND THE C~R WASIE SUN. SUN. TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 12-02 12-02 7-DAl 7-DAY 7-DAl LSS. : COUNT LBS. % o .00% 0 30 2.30: 52 34.43% 0 429 32.88% 48 31.78% 0 416 31.89: o .DO% 4 24.40 1.87: .01 .Oll 31 .41 .031 .33 .22% 18 5.9S .46: .08 .D51 48 1.98 .15% 1 o .00% 3 13.30 1.40% o .00% 3 .35 .03% .50 .33% .50 .041 o .00% 3 .23l o .00% .75 .06% o Q o .00% , .ID .01% .08 .05% l' .08 .m I 1.01 .67: 275 10.31 .n: .26 .m Il .41 .D3% .05 .03% 47 1.09 .08: .26 .13% 73 1.29 .10% .02 .01% 15 .07 .01% .01 .01% 30 .43 .03% .32 .21% 14 2.24 .17% o .00% 5 1.56 .12: I 1I 2.18 1.441 1.7 11.23 .86: 2 " , .62 .41% 15 3.09 .24% .03 .02% 19 .16 .on .14 .on 230 1.01 .03% 2.33 1.54% 1074 16.57 1.27% o .00% 4 1.54 .12% .07 .05% lOG .81 .07% .02 .01% 10 .15 .0Il 5 o .DD% 2 .34 .03: 2 .17 .m 53 1.2:i .10% 3 3 .D'! .06% 18 2 .77 .06% .31 .21% 94 1.55 .12% .65 .43% 315 4.86 .m .08 .05% 14 .39 .03% o .00% 3 .Il .01% D .00% Il .30 .02% .17 .m 19 ,82 .D6t .03 .02% 4 .11 .01% o .00% I .04 .00% .15 .10% 43 1.16 .D9% .56 .37% 34 1.35 .10% o .00% 3 .10 .01% .DS .03: 34 .41 .03% .22 .14% 63 .76 .D6% '" ~ " ; rc ,- ("1-, ~ .'."..,. . -"i ~~G '3 () \9Y' . CDOKIE SDX LINERS WRAP - : PROMO 20-01. HOPE CUP : JUiCE CUPS - SMALL Y CHEESE SAUCE CUPS : POL: COLD CUP 3278001 : COFFEE FILTER BAGS Y HcPIZZA PLATES : 1/2 PINT MILK CARTONS : CREAMER : TOWLETTE (UNOPENED) 6 ORGANICS (LaS.) " LIqUIDS (LBS.) XB NO~~HcDaNALDS (LBS.) ORGANICS LIQUIDS NON-MeDONALDS ITEM TOTALS SUMMARY DATA - SUB-CATEGORIES EPS FCW~ !A _.f~ . . .- ftj,., - . ,".:,' ~.., NOLDED PS IS THERMOFORMED PS IC PS SHEET FOAM 10 PAPER - UNCOATED 2 PAPER-CLA: COATED 3A PAPER-POL: COATED 32 PAPER-WAX COATED 3C POLYPROPYLENE 4A LOPE FIlM 4B M.l. -PLASTIC 4C M.L.-ALUM/PLASTIC 4D ORGANICS 6 lIQUIDS ., NON-McDONALDS XS NON-SPECIFIED : SUMMAR: DATA - CATEGORIES I POLYSTYRENE PAPER - UNCOATED 2 PAPER - COATED 3 MISCELLANEOUS 4 ORGANICS & LIQUIDS 9 NON-McDONALDS X NON-SPECIF~ , '. , ';. ':. ~; 12.70 .0280 .50 .0011 4.20 .0093 . .0781 .0331 4 .0D::::3 j 12 .94 l.J8l ,. .26 .39% 7 D o .06 .on o 9'.~ 2.77 4.07: 23 .14 .20: III 1"< .- .01 .or: 0 16 23.4t!! 5 7.m 10 14.68: 6:LI0 100.00: MON. 11-12 WiN. 1:-1., '"" L::'::J. " ./' 1.13% 1.55 2.27% 3.37% 8.56: 13.0'_~: 2.64 5.83 8.91 2.59 .77 3.81% 1.13% 11.77% .54: .17% .23% i.4HZ 8.02 .37 .12 .15 1.01 It, 23.4::;: 7.34% 10 14.68% J 4.37 6.42% 6:l.1O 100.00% MON. MON. 11-12 Il-12 LO< I 10.79 15.34%. 8.91 13.09% lL38 16.7i: 1.65 2.42% 16 23.49: 5 7.34% 10 14.08% 4.37 6.42% 68.10 100.00% . . o 14 1.09 2.28% .14% o L .Oi 18 .16 o o .64 1.35: .12 .26% 105 o .00% 0 3 16.71% 3 6.27% 11 22.93% 47.87 100.00: HiE. ruE. 1l-13 ll-13 LES. % .66 1. 32% 1.24 2.59% 1.45 3.02: 3.31 6.91% 7.18 14.99% L85 3.86% .65 1.36. 6.05 12.63% .2': .51% .09 .18% I.' .25% .86 1.79% :3 16.71% 3 6.27% 11 22.')8% 2.18 4.56% 4i.:37 100.00% TUE. ll-13 Las. TUE. ll-13 I 6.65 13.90% 7.18 14.99% 8.55 17.361 1.31 2.73% 8 16.m 3 6.27% 11 22.93% 2.18 4.56% 47.37 100.00% 3 .33: 4 1 13 o o o .31 .75% 5 .03 .08% I .11 .27% 34 I o o .53 1.27: 13 .12 .28.: 109 o .00% 7 8 19.16.: 5 lL 93: 1 ~~ 7 16.77% 41.75 100.001 WED. .ED. 11-14 IH4 LBS. % .49 1.17% 1.67 3.99: 1.49 3.SS% 3.13 7.50: 5.78 13.85% 1.58 3.301 .1',' 1.17. 4.79 11.48% .15 .36: .17 .41% .1J .32% .71 1.71% :3 19.16% 5 11.98% 7 16.7iI L15 2.741 41.75 100.00: WED. 11-14 Las. WED. 11-14 . . " '7,-, ../Q 16.24% 13.35% 5.78 6.87 16.45% 1.I7 2.81% 8 19.16: 5 11.98% 7 16.77% 1.15 2.74% 41.75 100.00% .39 .03 .30 .80% .07% .61% 9 o o o .36 .74% 23 .12 .24% 152 .06 .m :3 It..31Z 4 8.16> 5 10.19% 49.05 100.00% THU. ll-15 L8S. THU. 11-15 . . .6Q 1.40% U7 2.80: 2.34 4.77% 4.23 8.63: 8.16 16.64: 3.39 6.91% .83 1.69% 7.82 15.94% .44 .8'1% .09 .18% .11 .23% 1.13 2.01% 8 16.31% 4 8.16% 5 10.l9% 1.45 2.95% 49.05 100.00% THU. ll-I5 L8S. THU. ll-15 I 8.63 17.59: 8.1616.64% 12.04 24.54% 1.77 3.6l% 8 16.31% 4 8.16% 5 10.19% 1.45 2.95% 49.05 100.00% , , 2 .55 1.23%. .07 .15% 5 .08 .18% 29 o 1 .64 1.45% 54 .17 .38% 114 .01 .02% 1 9 20.21% 3 6.74% 10 22.45% 44.54 100.00% FHI. lI-l6 LBS. FRI. 11-16 .62 1.3:3% 1.41 3.16% 1.42 3.19: 3.48 7.32: 5.96 13.39% 1.78 3.99% .61 1.33% 4.43 10.05% .23 .52% .10 .22% .15 .35% .71 1.60% 9 20.21% 3 6.74: 10 22.45% 1.53 3.56% 44.54 100.00% FRI. ll-16 LBS. FRI. 1I-I6 . . 6.93 15.55: 5.96 13.39% 6.37 15.42% 1.20 2.69% 9 20.m 3 6.74% 10 22.45% 1.58 3.56% 44.54 100.001 .36 1.27% .17 .24% .26 .33% o L 1.51 2.24Z .13 .19% .01 .01% 20 2'~ . 63% 8 11.35% 3 4,44% 67.51 100.00% . . SA T. ll-17 LSS. SAT. 11-17 I .86 1.27: 1.57 2.33% 2.27 3.36% 4.82 7.14% 9.98 14.731 3.39 5.03: .94 1.39% 8.21 12.16% .37 .55% .12 .17% .13 .201 .81 1.21% 20 29.63k 8 11.85: 3 4.44% 3.04 4.51% 67.51 100.no: SAT. SAT. 11-17 II-if LBS. . . 9.52 14.10% 9.98 14.78% 12.54 18.57% 1.44 2.13% 20 29.63% 8 11.85% 3 4.44% 3.04 4.51% 67.51 100.001 . . o 3 4 16 o o o .23 .46% .13 .26% .14 .28I 00 .:..:. .62 1.21% .19% 88 .10 o o .00% 13 25.491 6 11.77: 9 17.65% 50.99 100.00% surL SUN. 12-02 % 12-02 lil<: ~I,I"'. .51 l.Oll .85 1.67% 1.58 3.llZ 2.94 5.77% 5.94 11.651 1.91 3.75: .59 1.16% 6.27 12.29% .34 .67% .07 .13% .07 .13% .60 1.17% 13 25.49% 6 11.77% 9 17.65% 1.32 2.58% 50.99 100.00% SUN. 12-02 Las. SUN. 12-02 I 5.89 11.55% 5.94 11.65: 8.77 17.20% 1.08 2.m 13 25.49% 6 11.77% 9 17.65% 1.32 2.58% 50.99 100.001 5:.8 23 .76 126 1.11 o L 253 304 1.18% .m .30% 7.03 1.92% ,.n., .<).' tH"!' ..:.'tAl 10 .09 .03% 83 22.44% 34 9.19! S4 14.60% A ~ ,.,' 369.81 100.00% 9.66 13.19 27.7~ 51.9, 16.50 TOTAL TOTAL ?-DA: HA,( Las. . . .; Ci. 't..oF 1.24: 2.61% 3.57% 7.50% 14.04% 4.46% 1.32% 4.33 45.63 12.34% 2.14 .58% .75 .20% .88 .24% 5.84 I.581 33 22.44% 34 9.19% 54 14.601 15.09 4.08% 369.81 100.00% TOTAL 7-DA: L8S. ";.'~.' . ,,'fi... . -' TOTAL ?-OA: . . 55.19 14.92% SUI 14.04% 67.00 18.12% 9.61 2.60% .83 22.44% 34 9.19% 54 /4.601 15.09 4.08% 369.81 100.00% W.-lSti~ ~r:a.fact.(;'n2atlOr: ::it;j!]y rOf: Ut!llll UNIT MON. MON. JEIGHT WEIGHT 11-12 11-12 1~ GRAM IN LBS COUNT LBS. J.39 .0086 90 .77 2.85 .0063 246 1.55 w.w .0223 44 .?8 6.:30 .0150 10 .15 un .002') 3 .01 .m < 2_18 .0048 302 1.45 2.13: 203 5.30 .0ll7 4 .05 .07% 2 5.75 .0127 m 2.78 4.081 163 no .0161 176 2.83 4.16% 65 4.05 .0089 25 .22 .33% 22 14.50 .0320 27 .86 1.27% 28 .13 .00Q4 197 .08 .11% 118 6.30 .0139 11 .15 .22% 7 , .0066 655 4.33 6.36% 468 J .0066 9 .06 .0'1% 27 31 .0683 .07 .10% 0 IS .0331 4 .13 .11% I 5.94 .0131 223 2.92 4.29% 195 '*C11iiAj.,-Ci,-r'::'.1\iC!( ir,( '- '.. _._ n .\.-, "'n. .\.-_-, .",. .0022046 OTC CATEGORY ole ITEM DESCRIPTION .... r EPS FOAM ~~;(--~ IA HOT CUPS NOLOED PS IB CUTLERY + STIRRERS THERMOFORMED PS lC SALAD BASES / LIDS IC SUNDAE CUPS lC SUNDAE LIDS IC BEVERAGE LIDS IC JUICE CUPS - LARGE I D CLAltSltftlS ID BREAKFAST BASES, LIDS ID SWEET ROLL TRAYS PAPER - UNCOATED 2 CARRYOUT BAGS 2 STRAW WRAPPERS 2 PIE BOXES 2 NAPKINS 2 PAPER TOWELS 2 BEYERAGE CARRIERS 2 COOKIE BOXES 2 IRA Y LINERS 2 FOOD INFO. SHEETS 2 FRY BAGS 2 MUFFIN PAPERS 2 SUGAR/EOUAL PACKETS 2 SALT/PEPPER - CARRYOUI 2 XMAS ORNAMENT BOXES 2 TEA BAG WRAPS 2 PARTY HATS 2 NUTRITION INFO SHEETS 2 CUS10~ER ORDER SLIPS 2 HALONEEN CERTIFICATES 2 TOWLETTES PAPER-CLAY COATED 3A HASH BRONN SLEEVES 3A NUGGET BOXES (20-pc) 3A FRY BOXES (led & 19) 3A HAPPY MEAL BOXES PAPER-POLY COATED 3B SANDWICH + CONE WRAPS PAPER-WAX COATED 3C COLD CUPS (4 sizes) 3C SUNDAE CUPS (slall) 4A STRAWS 4A CEREAL BOWLS LDPE FIlM 4B UTENSIL WRAPS H.l. -PLASTIC 4C BUrrER PAl M.L.-ALUM/PLASTIC 40 KETCHUP 4D MUSTARD 4D HOT MUSTARD 4D CROUTONS 40 BACON BITS 40 JELLY 4D HONEY 4D SWEET /SOUR SAUCE 40 BBg SAUCE 4D SYRUP 4D SALAD DRESSING 4D TOWlETTE WRAPPER Y McBALLOONS Y MeBlBS Y McPUPPETS Y MeBALLS Y HAPPY MEAL TOY WRAP Y HAPPY MEAL COOKIES WRAP PS SHEET FOAff POL mOPYlENE ~: . NON-SPECIFIED 1.30 2.04 .25 .002:; .0045 .0006 10 .0220 3.70 .0032 .0032 23 .0507 .0213 3.70 9.67 35 .0772 2.03 14.21 172 .0313 255 .0045 4 .80 6 .50 I I I I .50 .50 1.50 .0088 3 .0018 210 .D132 0 .0011 105 70 142 7 .0022 .0022 .0022 .0022 .0011 .0011 .0033 2 .0044 .0044 .0044 .0099 .DlIO .50 .0011 2 2 4.50 5 3 .0066 5 .0110 o 73 , , 47 o o (I o 16 o o . 41 o 77 " . 6 6 3 40 6 9 17 24 13 3 2 o 5 o 22 4 .21 .03 .03 .02 .02 .33 o 1.64 .62 .91% Lm 11.73% .04% .77 7.99 .03 .37 o .12 .15 .31 .02 .01 .01 .00 .13 .03 .04 .07 .24 .14 .00 .15 .04 MON. ruE. 11-12 11-13 % COUNT - 1.13% 77 2.27% 197 I. 44% 16 .22% 4 2 .31% 64 6 .05% .04% 37 .03% .02% .49% 27 .00% o 2.m 51 7 146 191 7 123 . 2 .54% .00% .17% 79 .23% 55 .46% 119 .02% 6 5 5 3 33 5 3 14 20 12 2 o o 5 2 .02% .01% .00% .19% .04% .06% .11% .35% .21% .00% .21% .06% ruE. IJ-!3 LBS. .66 1.24 .36 .06 .01 1.00 .02 2.07 1.05 .20 .90 .05 .10 3.10 .18 o .03 2.55 o I o o 2 3 2 3 .02 .22 o 1.09 .54 .65 5.99 .06 .22 .03 .09 .12 .26 .01 .01 .01 .00 .11 .02 .04 .06 .20 .13 .00 10 3 lHt rtX~t0; c~fANr ruE. WED. 11-13 11-14 %_ COUNT l.:m: 57 2.59% 265 .74% 22 2.09% 184 .051 4.02% 140 2.19% 76 .m 15 !.B7% 16 31 6.47: .18 .03 .D2 .37% 14 .001 0 .07% 0 5.33% 177 I 40 2 15 o o o o I I o I 31 o .02 ? ?7. ......,.. .07 .03 1.13% 4 1.36% 109 12.50% 151 .13% .45% 36 .06% 0 .13% m .25% 61 .55% 62 .03% 1 .D2% 3 .01% 3 .01% I .23% 34 .D5% I .07% 3 .13% 10 .41% 28 .23% 8 .00% 2 o o o o 4 I .13% .01% .10% .20% .38% .06% .04% .05% .05% .46% .00% .14% .07% 6 2 2 .02 L77 1.22 .13 .51 .03 .06 398 2.63 .0', o o 4 , '0 LJ.:. .01 .25 o 43 1. 02 , , .49 4.73 .D6 .15 o .17 .13 .14 .00 .01 .00 .00 .11 .00 .04 .04 .28 .09 .00 WED. THU. 11-14 11-15 l . .COUNT 1.17% 80 3.99% 213 1.17% 28 .22% 10 .01% 4 .39 2.12% 313 WED. lI-l4 LBS. .49 1.67 .49 . D', .01 .06%, 4.25% 2.93% 1.23% 14 .08% 227 .m 9 6.31% 633 3 o o .00% .00% 5.55% 218 .11 .01 .01 o .31 .02% .61% .00% 2.45% .74% 1.I7% 185 247 11.33% .03 .01 .32% ?"* ......... .27% 93 .02% .02% 38 .00: .15% 9 .36% 247 .00% 0 .41% 31 .32% 52 .33% 191 .01% 19 I 14 8 35 10 II 6 13 25 3 o o o o 25 I .02% .01% .VO% .27% .01% .03% .11% .67% .21% .01% .06% .03% tiOVe~loe"-l!t:t:eln(le': L1;U - Hli-"Ulidl'J ;:.~ "F-'i;u;.ii '=1 .l...llliilU;:' THU. 11-15 LBS. .69 l.37 .62 .15 .01 1.53 2 .02 233 2.95 70 1.13 .15 .45 .0:1 .13 17 o 5 I 4 1 o o 6 o .01 33 .27 I .05 36 1.33 16 THU. FRI. 11-15 11-16 % COUNT 1.401 72 2.80% 224 15 I.27% .31% .02% 3.12% 205 .05% 3 6.02% 143 2.30% 92 21 29 4.22 .02 o o 2.85 .27 .02 .02 .09 1.23 .02% .55% 42 .10% 0 3.74% 42 2.52% .33 7.74 .08 .44 D .09 .11 .42 .D4 .00 .02 .0) .12 .04 .05 .03 .13 .23 .00 L69% 15.78% .16% .391 .00% .13% .23% .86% .09% .OD% .03% .02% .24% .09% .10% .05% .26% .56% .01% .17 .01 .31% .91% .18% 117 .34% .02% FRI. I1-16 LBS. 4 .62 l.41 .33 .06 .01 o . I (it . ~'l 1.43 .19 .93 .05 .02 .34 o .90 7 .54 137 .61 142 4.45 3 123 I 39 70 70 3 3 2 I 35 5 5 13 26 6 2 o o I o 9 I 2 .04 .19% ..; 5.41% 611 .13% 17 .15% 5 .07: 0 4.70% 131 I .29% 101 .10% 9 .06% 40 I .05% .03 .22 o .04% 4 .77% 47 .00% I 2.01% 70 1.21% 19 1.38% 209 '.1.991 258 .06% 14 .49% 209 .03% 0 .22% 107 .35% 61 .35% 135 .01% 2 .01% 13 .001 3 .00% I .26% 27 .05% 3 .05% 3 .13% 26 .58% . 14 .15% 7 .00% 10 o I I o .13% 14 .02% 2 .01 .10 .15 .15 .01 .DI .DO .00 .12 .02 .02 .06 .26 .07 .00 .06 .01 o 3 , , 2 SA r. SUIL 11-17 12-02 1 COUNT L 27: 60 2.33% 135 qq" ....... .18% .01% 2.15: 203 .03% 4.00% 154 56 10 2.62% .52% 0' .", 3.m 20 .12% 160 .10% 11 5.99% 397 .m 4 .m 0 .00% I 3.51% 151 4.04 .Il .34 o 2.37 .29 .43% 78 .061 6 .03% 34 2 .031 5 D o o I o .05: 5 .57% 24 .OS: 0 2.21% 48 2.17% 9 1.39% 132 11.~~SZ 198 .18% 7 .55% IbS .04 .02 .02 .D3 .38 .05 1.49 1.47 .94 8.08 .12 .37 o .00. 4 .17% 59 31 .12 .13 .30 .00 .03 .00 .00 .09 .01 .04 .I1 .14 .03 .01 .20% .44% 98 .01% .04% .00% .00% .13% 25 .02% 4 .05% 5 .17% 10 .21% 14 .11% 5 .02% 7 o I 2 .09 .02 I .14% 13 .03: '.'fL" 1 Hi... ....~'v" I.." 17 12 o o . o 3 2 2 SUN. SUN. 12-02 12-02 LBS. % .51 1.01% .85 1.67% 3" . oJ .IS .03 .n 1. ~~1 Z .25% 6 .08 3.60% 364 2.41 .04% 9 .06 .00% I .07 .001 1 .03 5.32% 160 2.10 o .54% 45 .13 .05% 10 .04 .04% 52 .03 2 .181 I .02 1 o o 3 o FRI. S~ SAT. 11-16 11-17 11-17 % COUNT LBS. 1.38% 100 .86 3.16% 250 1.57 .75% 30 .67 .13% B .12 .01% 2 .01 .99 2.21% 302 1.45 .03% 2 .02 4.07: 213 2.70 3.32% 110 1.77 .42% 39 .35 2.08% 80 2.56 .10% 1'17 .08 .02 1.95 .90 .09 3.331 1.77% .18% 1.25: .64 .06 .15 2.63 .03 o .03 5.15% .05% .00% .06% 3.38: 1 (i') "-._''-' '0 .<. .03 .02 .I1 .04 .20 D 1.02 .69 .59 6.20 .06 .08% .33% .001 2.0n 1. 36% 1.16% 12.17% .29 .05 .07 .07 .22 .01 .00 .OD .00 .03 .02 .02 .D4 .14 .06 .01 14 3 .09 .17% 97 .01 .02% 13 .741 "'t;~' .":"k .OS% .05% .12% .30% .44% .05% .04, ')')II! .~~. .12% .57% .10% .m .13% .42% .01% .01% .00% .00% .16% .03% .04% .09% .27% .m .02% ".""', rln",.. TOTAL 7-DAY COUNT 536 1535 I" ,< I. TOTAL 7-DAY 7-DAY LBS. % 4.59 1.241 9.66 2.61% 3.33 1.04: 54 '-'] ??'r .0.. ....~.. 24 .07 .02% 8.23 2.24% .20 .05% 16.0-4 4.34: 10.3S 2.31% 1.33 .36% 6.34 l.851 .44 .12% .74 .20% 23.35 &.32% .55 .15% .43 .13: .23 .06% 17.D9 4.62: 1722 17 1265 645 149 214 1097 53 3531 33 7 7 1305 4 494 45 263 6 13 2 3 4 32 2 13 245 2 422 70 1090 1442 50 I163 7 677 400 817 41 33 35 13 229 34 54 96 139 76 29 2 1.42 .38% .20 .05% .14 .04% .29 .08% .15. .04% 2.00 .54% .10 .03% 9.00 2.m 5.40 1.46% 4.33 L32% 45.19 12.22: .44 .12% 2.05 .551 .09 .03% .75 .20% .38 .24% 1.30 .49% .09 .02% .07 .02% .04 .01% .02 .01% .76 .20% .15 .04% .24 .06% .42 .m 1.38 .37% .84 .23% .03 .01% 2 .64 .17% .14 .04% ....." ~lii' fiUG 3 0 /991 . .. Box 385 orient, NYl1957 August:J; 15,1991 Bennet Orlowski, Jr. Chaimnan" Southo1d Town Planning BOard Suma:: 16 Dear Sir: This :lis :!in referenoe to SEQIlA file seotion 617.6(i). I respeotffUllJ;y request that:; the Planm1ing' Board reopen MoDonald"s negative dsol.:lIlratiom oi!' envirollJJl9n1;al impaot granted under the Stat." Em- ~ronmentar Quality' Re~ew Aot prooess. Clear~ the MODonar~'s projeot will have seriious oonsequenoes fo]!' our town, most partiaularl;y- ill! regal!d' 1lQl d:lis- posal olf trash. YOWS~rr;;x- ~trtl/R ~.WilDard Rooseve~t AUG 2 I 1991 ~f'ltb 10 _~_~_~_____ __u_ __un :Crld~~ - _d ------- - -- - ----- --- --- ---~~-tr_c __ ___ ____ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _~_u~ 3 -Lj_'17L ___ _ _ ----- -- --------u---~r!J__------- --- . _u____.____.___________________. ~--dld,~-ff?L~E;J2~q.AtZ{----..-..-.-. ..e_ _. . _ ~-6--eCG ~ ~ .___ __ --pL - ~&dd...Mf 11.'1.]_~ --...------ - .-.----------- .. -------- ----..- .-...... ~.1JiM.A,OJd&u-uu~..- ------------------- .-. ~~~---h-_riA "'bJ' ~ If) i /'f4l=-- ._ ~EQt.ft~5~-'b.~~--~~--- -------------- ~. - - - -, - U 0 r).~ ~,~ f)l'~f.L~JVft-- 'fF-:~- ___ . _ -... .. . ..... -~..Jill--tl-+3 ~~ '# ,,~~ _ .___~~~/jA'f/X-);~~ __~~(p/-7io- C~----------------. _____ ~~~..~~~-~ {.,A.{c .d.. ~ ~ :;td~ ,. ", .---. " ~~_~ ~~_-~LAL~-~-~- -VQ~rLfitlJ~-----li r25..r-~--:S:< - - u~U~7 -~--=:JG--r=:=-~= .-.-.----.~- ;~J' U i~~1 L~ - . .- -- __________u__________ j.llL~---~~~.----.,.- t . ,.., SutJntft ;:J;e August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, d,r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly -i.mdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. AUG I 6 1991 ankYou, .f. . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 13, 1991 Thomas Wickham, Chairman Solid Waste Task Force Town Hall P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: Review of Projected Solid Waste Generation Figures for McDonald's Restaurant, Mattituck. SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Wickham: On behalf of the Planning Board, I am writing to ask the Solid Waste Task Force for assistance. The Board needs specific information about the Town's official Solid Waste Management Plan so that it can evaluate the impact on the Town's landfill of the projected volume of solid waste that is expected to be generated by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. By way of background, the Planning Board has been asked to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration with regards to this project. The recission request has been made by the Zoning Board of Appeals on the grounds that the impacts of the projected volume of solid waste generation and disposal were not addressed. The Planning Board will make a determination whether nor not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the information presented by the Zoning Board in its August 6, 1991 memorandum, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience. In the meantime, the Planning Board needs answers to the following questions. 1. Does the Town have an official Solid Waste Management Plan that has been endorsed by the State of New York, and has been adopted by the Town Board? .\ . . . 2. If there is such a plan, and if it is being implemented, is there a mandated cap to the volume of solid waste that can be placed into the landfill? 3. If there is no such plan, are there other mandated caps on the volume of solid waste that can be placed by a solid waste generator into the landfill? :; If the Task Force has any other comments that they wish to make about the proposed project, please include them in your response. Encls. VS/vs .' . . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr" Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: August 13, 1991 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Dear Mr. DiConza: Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York In accordance with my last letter to you of July 30, 1991, please find a memorandum dated August 6, 1991, which contains the information that has been submitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals in support of re-opening the environmental review process. The Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. It would be appreciated if written comments on the enclosed memorandum from the Zoning Board could be returned within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If additional factual information p~rtaining to solid waste is submitted, it will be sent to you for your review and comment. For your information, I have also enclosed a copy of the notice that is being sent simultaneously to the coordinating agencies by certified mail. . . If any questions or concerns should arise as to the procedure we are following, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Coordinating Agencies: Zoning Board of Appeals Building Department Town Board Suffolk County Dept. Health Services Suffolk County Planning Department New York State Dept. Environmental Conservation, Stony Brook & Albany New York State Dept. Transportation Board APpea.~/__ August 6, 1991 , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 TO: Planning FROM: Board of DATE: . 1<J77-<j,>, ,>~;->::;...... .,'i"~UfFDl", ''c ifY ~,,~" "a' ';, ,9'~ ' ~Cl\ ~:;:,.. ~?, N Q .. ~ \~ en :i!: 'oj ...., !>> \\, o~ ..~, ~}. .~ -.:rt. '''''~. ",," & '~'"IJ-I. ../l>'" IV "'_" .-~ 1'.0.\ , ~'>?:";?::r~_fJ:d;JJ-' .. SuI:3FrU /8 V5 tf./<.-r Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516)765-1800 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUtHOLD SUBJECT: McDonald's Solid Waste Problem Based on our past discussions, we are incorporating the fOllowing additional information you requested concerning the waste generation for the proposed McDonald's in Mattituck in order to further emphasize the need for studying this particular process and update under SEQRA. At the March 8, 1991 hearing, the question was asked of McDonald's as to how much solid waste would be generated. The question was answered by the consultant Mr. Randy Bock, that the amount of solid waste generated should be about the same as that produced in their Riverhead stores. In each of the Riverhead stores, Mr. Bock stated, they fill three 30-yard compactors per month. Figuring compacted garbage at about 700 Ibs. per cubic yard, each compactor load equals 21,000 Ibs. Three compactors then equals 63,000 Ibs per month, or 31.5 tons per month, or about one ton per day. Mr. Walter Dunn - McDonald's traffic engineer- stated that the Riverhead units average 1,300 vehicle trips per day and that 40% use-the drive-thru window. This 40%, or 520 vehicles, would generate a like volume of solid waste per vehicle or another 1332 Ibs. per day. The total solid waste to be generated at the Mattituck site is estimated to be about 3332 Ibs. per day or 1-2/3 tons per day. GG:lk 'I . .) ,., , ,APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 '. ',J .-! .") c:::/<7~,?%.' .-./ ')l '~,. .-.;;; -~;; ~) :,:". .' ":',} .~. -, ,,!~. --~-'" ~-, , ~'It.,~~;.: ....:_~:.. '. ~;, -, :;.. ~ 1 SCOTT L. f{ARRIS Supervisor BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTH OLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 SuI3FIce- 1'6 t/S ./ ~/C. -1"'(1 TO: Planning Board Board of APpeals~~ July 22, 1991 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SEQRA - McDonald's Corporation Project at Mattituck Please accept this as a continuation of our April 10, 1991 written request in order to, in writinq, as suggested after conversations between board members within both departmen~ clarify reasons for urging the Planning Board, as lead agency, to reconsider and re-open the SEQRA Conditional Negative Declaration in the fOllowing areas, which are new under the SEQRA reviews, and to obtain further studies and provide the applicant with opportunities to submit the same and provide possible mitigation measures. It is our understanding that this area is new, having not been previously addressed in this project under SEQRA (Environmental Conservation Law). We are attaching for your convenience a copy of Section 617.6(i) which permits the CND by law to be reopened where there is significant new information which was not addressed previoUSly. Some concerns which branched questions throughout the hearings were: SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL: This area was not sufficiently addressed. Also, in the LEAF, the amount of solid wastes generated was grossly understated. In one of the ZBA hearings, McDonald's representative(s) stated each of the Riverhead stores generates a ton of solid waste per day. This is generated by the customers who eat at the establishment. It was also stated 'by McDonald's that 40% of their business is generated by the drive-thru window. This results in another 1332 lbs. of solid waste per day that must be disposed of. McDonald's also stated that the recylcing program that was initiated to recycle plastics has been terminated since they were going back to paper products and no other recycling program is in effect. This means that the Town would face an increase of 3332 lbs. per day of municipal solid wastes that cannot be landfilled according to the NYS DEC. Since the Town is attempting to reduce its municipal solid waste (MSW) to 40 tons " ,.....~ . . -..."~ ,~,.'. . .~ .... s ,. .--.'''''.'''.:.." .." ',:" ,;;-- ~ '" .,-,,~~<;;,;~~,. Pdge 2- To: From: Re: - . tf July 22, 1991 Planning Board Board of Appeals McDonald's Corporation Project at Mattituck or less per day, the amount of MSW produced by McDonalds would be more than 4% of the entire Town's waste stream. This could be a major increase and cannot go unaddressed. ...t... . t( . , , ,'.,:;:f.~: wn;ch may be likely to require preparation of an EIS. Further, Unlisted actions comprise the majority of actions statewide, and thus CND's could be used for a great many actions. The exclusion of Type I actions will help ensure that this minority category of actions is given the heightened environmental scrutiny they deserve. Comment: Authority to fssue CND's should be explicitly stated for agencies 1acxing express powers to condition a~provals. Response: The provision states that a CND may be issued if "SEQR conditions imposea have eliminated all significant environmental impacts." Also 617.3(b) now clarifies the ability of agencies to impose substantive conditions on an action if necessary. Comment: CND's should be available for experimental hazardous waste treatment tests. Response: Hazardous waste treatment has been speCifically cited in 617.14(g) as an example of a topic potentially subject to unavailable information disclosure and is also a likely topic to fall under one of the criteria for determining significance (617.11(a)(7)) as a potential hazard to human health. It would seem unreasonable to proceed with any aspect of such a project without providing opportunity for review and findings through an impact statement. The fact that tne action is labeled as a test only relates to the duration of the impact which still could be significant and subject to review. A conditioned negative declaration appears to be inappropriate. ,- '- '617.6Ii) (was 617.6(j) in Jan. 1986 draft) Rescission of Neaative Declarations Problem: The regulattons'adopted in September 1978 do not address circumstances wnere, after a negative declaration has been prepared and filed, there is presented significant new information, a project modification, or a change in circumstances which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. Revision: 617.6(i) establishes a procedure for the lead agency to rescind a negative declaration. Comment: Statute of limitations issue should be clarified with respect to rescission procedures proposed in 617.6(j) of the January 1986 draft. Resoonses: The wording has been changed to clarify that rescission of a negative declaration may occur prior to the agency's decision to fund, approve or directly undertake an action. This does not establish a statute of limitations, but allows each provision of law regarding limits to function running from the date of agency decision. Clearly, however, if an agency's decision is rescinded or nullified, the supporting negative declaration would be deemed nullified as well. Comment: Rescission undermines finality of a decision. ( -21- '-- .' . , ~, '" Resoonse: The adopted reV1Slons actually add finality to the process because tney allow an agency to correct an oversight only until it makes a final decision to act. If agencies exercise their SEQR responsibilities in a reasonably thorough manner, rescission should not need to occur often, nor should it be a decision undertaken lightly. ,1 Comment: The rescission process ne~ds a time period for the applicant to respono and a notice to involved agencies. Response: The provision has been revised to reQuire notice to involved agencies anQ to afford applicants a "reasonable" time in which to respond. Comment: Rescission should be triggered only by sponsor-caused changes. Resoonse: Agencies have a continuing responsibility under Article 8 to consider signIficant environmental impacts. New information or changes concerning significant adverse impacts, from whatever source, must be considered. 617.7 SCOP fNG (Note: Section 617.7 of combined into new 617.6. previously inclUded.) the regulations adoPted September I, 1978 has been Section 617.7 has been revised to address scoping, not Problem: A process of identifying the relevant issues whiCh must be addressed in a craft EIS is known as scoping. Earlier regulations have provided indirectly for scoping as a recommended procedure but have not specifically provided a process. Scoping may take place with or without direction. If the organization or individual responsible for the initial preparation of an application has been provided no direction by the lead or involved agencies, typically a best judgment will be made from the applicant's perspective of the issues to be addressed. Clearly, the most appropriate identification of issues should come from an agreement between the applicant and the lead agency, in conjunction with guidance from the other involved agencies. Guidance from the public and other interested agencies may also be appropriate. Revision: A voluntary formal scoping process has been provided in new Section ti17.7 and the term "scoping" is defined in subsection 617.2(ff). A Scoping Checklist is provided as a model in Appendix 0 of Section 617.21. Section 617.7 provides that a formal scoping process can occur either-at the initiation of the lead agency or at the reQuest of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of any draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provided by the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. If the lead agency fails to provide a written scope within 30 days, an applicant may submit a draft EIS. -22- r r- (. r r r. J t f t c l ( t r L )- L e L ~- ~".... "';'.""" ~ ~ .. ~-. -~...;: .-- " c.,:'"'.: ," c' ,'><i!~ ., '-\ ~";.. e' .- -19- ~617.6 9617.7 t! a eND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and allows for a minimum 3D-day public comment period; and (v) the CNO has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(9) and 617.10(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be Iprepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: r ',- (i) the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental impacts; or (ii) the need for the examination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an EIS if requested by the app I i cant. (i) Rescission of Negative Declarations: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 617.7 SCOPING. (a) Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS. If the action inv01ves an applicant, either a written s~ope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be providec oy the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished throuoh me~ting(s), exch~nges of written material, or other met~ods that'will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written SCope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that th~ lead agency fails to provide a written- scope of issues within 30 "- .' . ;..-~r~-::~.~_, .;~- _ '. ~ -'J ; ",;" "", '\~\,~",'i,,'I,":C,.'..'(. /"':'~', ,\r~"'a.: -"'~y,,", /;:"';' ~;!" '<h "!,~'::? ;, l." ':::2.' '1i:::: ' "e-. . !- ~'-' ,.. -,,:,;, -:e: '-":~ \::7~ '. '2\ \ ",' ,,":1>,W'r ::' ~ .~, ~_,.'..". ~ I. ." ",- ~ ;"'1 .;,-... '-' ' \>...- --"1,,; -> :.3~_~./ ''?o- ,., 11" .)' ",- '~~::J:7:'-;""",--i/.iY/ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Certified Mail: August 13, 1991 To Whom It May Concern: This notice is being sent to all the coordinating agencies who reviewed the Proposed Site Plan for the McDonald's Corporation in Mattituck, New York. Enclosed please find a copy of the Conditional Negative Delcaration that was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board in February of 1991. The Planning Board has been asked by one of the coordinating agencies, the Zoning Board of Appeals, to rescind this Conditional Negative Declaration. The reasons for the Zoning Board's request for recission are set forth in their correspondence of July 22, 1991 and August 6, 1991, copies of which are enclosed herein. The Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the other reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. It would be appreciated if you would send this office your written comments on the enclosed memorandum from the Zoning Board within ten business days of receipt of this letter. If additional factual information about solid waste should be submitted in support of this recission request, it will be sent to you for further review and comment. If any questions or concerns arise as to the procedure we are following, please contact Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner. Very truly yours, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encls. VS/vs -' IJ c "'~-~ ,,,~_-:"~J.".~ .... . ~ -, ill.... '.- :.r "~'.', I "1'1 ..... .~ ,'" ':~,).~'~. .,:~,:,~,..:<i.:--~ (~..,",. l..t ~\ ; .:..:: . >, t.:..- ... .~I.":. =--' ~~ -:: ~ ~- -:: ,~:":'\:~ ~ :~ V1 ..;.~; ,~~":.:-' :::: < .; .."-> ..' :y,' ,-' ""-/'. .. ,~\ ... " '-", - "0"'" '~'" _'/)/ "' '-' ....A 7~___.~.,' t ;,' ., . c PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennell Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr, Richard G, Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Ro. P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 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 SCTMJI: 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: ycs (X) No ( ) 1)(- ( ,... Page 2 McDonald's Corporation Conditions for McDonalds Restaurant 1. The impacts th&t 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, , arid 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. .' . . !~c -r '-" ' 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 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, fJ~~ C1Z~ L ~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen MoDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direotly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. . . .,." Thank You, -.. . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen MoDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a signifioant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, .5~ jcy~ Cufcha;U E.. I jV Y . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many4impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA re~uires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake"fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect,.to prepare or re~uest an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~"'yvt--~- lfr-tJ C/(..p ",VI c'<l fL D .s Dr) -r1iJ' Co.!), ,,' Y . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will diTectly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direotIy undert'ake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, o/:f_t~ ~ ,<;y II'fi I . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly und-e-rtake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, \9~~ ~.o . f6 ''0)(. Of ':)0 "2:>01A~O Ii J N'-( 1/17 I . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake), fund or approve mayhaye a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~-~ ~, ~ Fl.-r..3 - ~(/2.-1' ((fS.s . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will' directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~fJ.~~ fY)<Ur>' b~v/~~ Scx.;.t.nold !tj f/1/1 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direc-tly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, tqlWut~ 6d IUu- ~ ~/'7J.C' /19'} ! . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, W;fL.(~~ S \ 11- ~ flq 1 \ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~r}~ ~~ P+-. 5~+t<.Qlcl, N.Y. tlq::n . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly- undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~ha&;;:~ tra- - .19a t'~ 0 IJ./ 41..7e..-r Kd Or/~1\ ;; J;. Y, I/q~ 7 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDon~ld's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dfrectly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~Yk- f- 0 _ {51/f. (5 5" o-A- Jl.J, JJ..i- (1~/J -e . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undet'tlike" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ':\ i '-.-; K"~I b~ T/l4 p.o. ~r (f:, If) PMCt~ ~~ (Ij).. ~ tJ-r 1\<\1\ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen MoDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's projeot will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the oonsideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making prooesses of... Local government agenoies at the earliest possible time. To acoomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direotly undertake~;fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ',' ", I " ;-'Ul_: "::1 dv:jam -rr; H7 e. 6rx 7 1d.u-r~ I -n.y, W{tf~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-makir.g processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will-directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~ ,} Thank You, lJ ll.1I'(e~ w. Moor (... '\$01-.1 LAL\~' ~~. Ho,f<!' . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly :u;ndertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. 2;~ 1'-' i \~, 20/., l#I1/1eCdt/ JY~ cSek? ~ /f/ Y //9:r1 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direc't-ly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. . , Thank You, /2/ (?~ ~ /~) tv ( <" k rv p /l1 /J ;{l ~.J I p,p .{;'}6L 0 tfl-iZ,> /2. t" [;J4.,erP~p ~ rr~ ,u'l' ("J 110D ScJ(FT!lOl..P LI ~)' ///")/ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of South01d Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly unaertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, p~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest .possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank -. ?;jf ~ ;d~~111' - . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they wi'll directly undertake" fund or approve may have' a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect,~to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~fi/~ R413t1ZT' tv. ~te"tNJ 'Sa 'X '30 ~2S AlGd'~N.::. /-"'1. ~LlT)'>~ /.;1) .- .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dJr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undej:-take,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~o/Uh717~~d L9~ .- .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, J-r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. (j{:;}j) Thank You, )!;'ji 'r;)'~,{ ,Ii ./vVv </--'"" ()/LUAd .- .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank '" , ~ ,-r 'jJ'J.c You, t{ :, :, l~'c..._. o~ .- .- August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a Significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, o~ .. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a Significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ 755 13~ i)AWe .40Ud,~~ .- .- August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, J,r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly .:imdertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. r;~ ID7'1-0 C,--d~ ~ rJ..-o. .LJ or:: /'- f(-v , ~rnJ01 J 7/l7?1 You, .- .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct'Iy. undertake,. tund or approve may have a significant etfect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant etfect,"to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ T~~~HI~~ C. -~-/.~ ~/1 ~ ~ . { ~ ifll .- .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dfrectly undertake" fund or approve may have ..' a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, C(O~ ~ ~.l(~, ~<L U~ \'~I\ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration " of' environmental impact granted under the State Environmental -........ Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertaker ,fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, .4Mtf Ifut /J1uau I , ~ i/Jij ( . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dl'I'ectly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ ~/!~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest pOSSible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA reqUires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direot~ undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined .~ the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ U . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen MoDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "inoorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. ~~ YO;'-y- \N....~ ~. "'1, . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, JJr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impaots to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dire.ctly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~;L c~ / /.'.}. ~ / .' , ~U-7~ /~4~, . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will' airectly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~? . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or ,,', request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~vUc ~ '\.'d- . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impact~ to our Town. As you are undol1btedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quali'ty Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake"fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. -- ~b. } /J,u ~~yY;1J August 2, 1991 -- ~ Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA reQuires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directlar -undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or reQuest an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, -, . . . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct:1y:undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~oc~ . mel(..t..~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southo1d Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#1000- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direc-t1y undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined '-~. the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, LNi4 l,,\u<,ie.( . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southo1d Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will'direct1y undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, !\(Y\O s \i\f\ e(l~e.f' . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dire-ctlyundertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effeet,"to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, '50-<<\Q.A~d- rQ,-\ne_- MOJ~e\ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dJr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have' a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, Oo:t;v:c:... C G"l.... . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directlY'-'-undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, f)/ ~,'.~/d!ltlv V IV/,';iJ get!1JDf L-. I. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Pleas~ reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direotl'Y undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank Yo~, tVVl/rur1 ~"~ JVtuJ 6 iJJrv I k. \. I .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold . Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, .,-- ). .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, r ~~ -/21 95utflOLO ,. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, frJ~ ';. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of.., Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617,1. G-':'il~13~rJ,- ~Vv\ll It br1.:;V\ KC ~O'~1- I..fSb ?'LLo~'-) N',' 1.11S ~ ,. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, dOA-A-A-U~ ~ U~~ 1~0V'-',c ,. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly-undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, 'l~~~ 13~ ~/3 c9~ 11-,/- 119..)7 . .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will di~ectly undertake",fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, / " - .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a Significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~~ ~~r . .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undet\take,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effeet,"to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ ,t'/441r .. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, .. .. August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant etfect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant etfeet,'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank d~ ., . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, Ad.eL 4 c.. ~ , ,-~ V~Q./, ~ Wtl.o/JlJ~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly urldertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~~ :5~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, Wi th regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTMi/lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may h<;lve a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank 4, . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct1y undertake" fund or approve may have; . a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ct~~- \j . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, dir., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II. 617.1. , .~. "j) 7}/{ui 0 I< IREL'" IIJ-::Ji>1-rJ 'it.,.s- FI-ed-..u <' "elL fZc9 C- u rClf- CI & u E.) /...r( II 't .! S- . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly urid~rtake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, /(aiib- YJ~ -- -..<.......".. ---- " . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen MoDonald's negative deolaration of environmental impaot granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Aot prooess. Clearly the MoDonald's project will have many impaots to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th& State Environmental Quality Review Aot is to "inoorporate the oonsideration of environmental faotors into the planning, review and decision-making prooesses of... Looal government agencies at the earliest possible time. To acoomplish this goal, SEQRA re~uires that all agenoies determine whether the actions they will direotlY.undertake,. fung or approve may have a signifioant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impaot statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, /!~c~ eJ 5"S-..s- I () 1.l1lJc..5 f.l..ve . So >iT HOG-VI 11/, r /1'17/ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II. 617.1. ~ \ l'\~U ~ ~oJwLL ~~. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II. 617.1. Thank You, ~~Q.,~ "')cJ2+- ~ ~ \=>~ ~ ) .t' . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, (-M~~ 3~J/VVf )1'111 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an impact statement. II, 617.1. ~/ "'...---..-" You, \. \3 Cu4L-H06Ut.. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or " ...., request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ J2,Jl~ ';::;f ~ Al ~ ~~~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA re~uires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~/ ~ fl:i;) . iy /1950 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~~~ Po, 8~ lof ~.~/r!j.'J' //13"1 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direc'tly undertake,. fund or approve may have- a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~/7Yl~ ~{?~ ~#y J //~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ ~,~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.u:n-dertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~~ ~:t:J ~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. ". 617.1. Thank You, aJ~ 8lu>rtL-1 '(J . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct);y undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ JO~dv/ctJ ~CJ<.f~, NY (fCf~8' . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly 'undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II. 617.1. [) Thank You , ! D"tVJ~ kJob~ 6b~ 4'7lp Q-~~ 'r; ('<)Sr- . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-)-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State.Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have maRY impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of ths State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the action!" they willdirectly.'undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~rtD 13 ALJJoJJ &vv.. Ud~ /tV)f. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly 'undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~ #76 50MA~!/; JUlf ) Jf'J) . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly'\indertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effeet,'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, ~~~4 ~~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. ClearlY the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will dirootly undertake., fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, "to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank ~ /e~k:l''(; II > '> / . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will- directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, 4l. -. s~ 11611'171 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southo1d Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#1000- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, '. . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of th~ State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly.undertake" fun~ or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~af~) diD \B12ICL E Cr--- C fArc,<-(OtU-l~ /v, I- 1193<" . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have ma~y impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direc-'&ly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, i1~ l A _ "k----- 2f~' ~- ~1~ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a Significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a Significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, ~yy\, l~ 8'os Pn L)CVbv ~ou~ LO I Rd-.- ~.,). \ 10. 'f 1lC(l1 . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporata the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. Thank You, C2~/f?~ --V-;, at' 17 t M1> 1'7 tE 5 W~$3 rJ:'rb po. (8,0)c /f~J ~ vr\1rtCJ> ( (\I@JI t,rc,f' ,'111 \ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental im')act granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many im')acts to our Town. As you are ',mdoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and deJision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRJ requires that all agencies determine whether the actions t}ey will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a signif_cant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect,-to prepare or requee.t an environmental impact statement. II, 617.1. Thank You, 70 /~ 01 (9 t I XJ~ ((q1/ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will direct~y undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement.'" 617.1. e ;;:;kYOU. ~ ~'f ~d-l~ ~N1f((r7/ . . August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, ~r., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake,. fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, 'to prepare or request an environmental impact statement. ". 617.1. Thank You, ~w fJ~&:J e( ~ ~r scon L. HAKK6 .. ! fA/A I C~I'IM j t!!r r0/Y - "FOR YOUR INFORMATION" '1(~. '5:.t60Lr ~~~ ~rrrttpnrt - ~nltt~nl(l :C1t11Umbrr nf C!tnUltt Janual'y 17, 1':1'31 Supervisor Scott L. I~aryis Southcd d Town Hall 530'35 11a i n F:oad Southold, New York 11971 Dear Supervisor ~taryis: In reply to your letter datsct January 4, tllat the Board of Directors discussed regarding ttle controversy raised by sOlne McDonald's restaurant in Mattituck. 1991 , please be advised your request Jc.r input regarding the forthcoming Ttle Boar~ is of the opinion tl1at: 1. A McDonald's restaurant, or any other restaurant, desiring to invest its money in ouy Town, should be made welcoma. 2. The more that new businesses cOlne to Southold, the less our future real estate taxes (or rent) will be. 3. Moratorium are conJ8ssions that planning was not done on a timely basis. 4. Those opposed to fast-food restaurants, or kangaroo ranches, or five.-cCoi"nered buildings, et.:. in their bal:kyai'"ds Hiay stop them through the use of privately owned land easements. That is, they buy, with their own money, easements which regulate what Alay or Alay not be built on the land fOI' which they bought the easement. You know--.-the 01 d Yankee idea---they pu't; the i '( mc.ney where their mouths are.. Thank you. Sin.:e\'.ely, tl~Ca ~ ",' 'h d ,- ,filp 'd ,- .....1 C ar _.agg 1 an.:., res 1 en" On Behalf of the Board of Dil'"e.:tors BOX 66 GREENPORT, NEW YOnK 11944 [' - Mtf, '/~/~~, (, 199/ L.I. 13 LE.,'l"EBS .,0 .,BE EDI.,OR 'Golden Arches' Not Yet Approved As was clear to careful readers of the Dec. 16 article on McDonald's, Southold is far from having "ap- proved" the golden arches in Matti- tuck. At the moment, neither Southold's citizens nor its town government have given their approval to this newest attempt to siphon badly need- ed local dollars into the coffers of an international corporation. The Planning Board has yet to de- cide whether to require an Environ- mental Impact Statement of the pro- posed McDonald's. The North Fork Environmental Council has insisted that such a well-known generator of traffic, solid waste and fast-food al- leys across the country ought to be required to produce such a study. Approval of the proposed restau- rant also depends on the Zoning Board of Appeals' granting a "special exception" to the proposed McDon- ald's, something the Z.B.A. is by no means required to do. ..... The Mattituck Chamber of Com- merce is in fact split over the McDon- ald's application, something its presi- dent, Robert Koch, knows quite well. Many of his members would suffer directly if this McDonald's were built. Mattituck business people are not alone in wishing Long Island's econ- omy were less tied to decislQl\ mak- ing hundreds and thousands of miles away. Mattituck, and Southold Town as a whole, are home to many first-rate locally owned luncheonettes, dells and diners with the genuine charac- ter that comes of being from some- place. No matter what the McDonald's Corporation)s -willing to do to "ac- commodate" local character, it wilI stilI serve internationally homoge- nous mediocre food, the sale of which wilI only enrich the home office and the franchise owner. Southold Town need not bow down to the market, to the dangerous siren song of phony "progress," or to the threat of a lawsuit by a disgruntled would-be franchise owner. By turning down this application, the town stands to win on all counts. WARREN GOLDSTEIN Executive IDirector North Fork Environmental Council . As a member of the law firm repre- senting the McDonald's Corporation, I wish to correct any confusion that may have occurred as a result of t"'''' article "Southold Aonr""- aid's." fleeted the approval process, the headline did not, since various de- partments and agencies of the Town of Southold have not yet completed their review of the application, and no public hearin~ has been conducted. Oil J,.Jt::C. 1 , the Town Planning Boar' declared its intention to be- comi."ae "lead agency" responsible for coordinating the review of the environmental issues regarding the ~y...lkdL1uu. As part of its review, the Planning Board will analyze the input received from other invQ,lved agencies and de- partments, the traffic study and En- vironmental Assessment Form pro- vided by the applicant's engineers and the comments and concerns of the community. Once the review is completed, the Planning Board will issue a determi- nation of environmpntal ~i9'nificance. The applicatIOn will then be the subject of ft~UbliC hearin~ before the SOUthold TO Ul ^ntlP l~. In tfie event that the Board of Appeals grants the application, it is then re- turned to the Planning Board for final site plan approval. If this final ap- proval is issued, McDonald's may then apply for a building permit to construct the proposed restal:lrant: McDonald's looks forward to be- coming a part of Southold and has designed a special Cape Cod-shingled building to blend in with the surroun- deing country atmosphere. In order to conform as much as possible to the architectural style, McDonald's has also removed the corporate name and logo from the lower roof line. While several important events must occur before the proposed res- taurant may be considered "ap- proved," McDonald's is confident that by working closely with the town anil by having amended its applica- tion to address various concerns, it has' gone a long way towards eventual acceptance. As the chairman of the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce was quoted as saying, "We looked at McDonald's track record and felt it would be a positive addition." WILLIAM A. DICONZA Mineola . --, . ~... ,/SU8Pru P1!5 .€J<.., > P.O.Box 128 East Marion 14 January 1991 . Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold Ml16. Dear Mr. Orlowski: It is most heartening to learn that the Planning Board has asked for additional time and information before making a landmark decision concerning the McDonald's Corp. application to open a franchise in Mattituck. The statement of the NFEC's position, as expressed in a letter from its executive director, Mr. Warren Goldstein (N.Y. Times, 6 Jan."91) eloquently sums up the negative aspects and, in this writer's opinion, clearly presents an overwhelming case against the project. By contrast, the letter from a member of the law firm representing McDonald's (appearing in the same issue of the Times), quoting the Chairman of the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce as saying "We looked at McDonald's track record and felt it would be a positive addition" does little to allay our concerns--and makes us wonder if the distinguished Chairman has really given the matter enough thought. In any case, his opinion is far from unanimously shared by his fellow Chamber members and certainly seems naive to a great many North Fork residents. Your deliberations as to the overall environmental impact of a McDonald's in Mattituck must take into account the almost inevitable consequences of saying "yes" to this one (simply because we were taken unawares)and then attempting, through new regulations, to block further incursions of the same kind in the future. That may well prove to be legally impossible on the grounds of discrimination or some other technicality. Therefore, the "impact" of McDonald's becomes enormous as we find ourselves powerless to prevent other versions of the same from cropping up in Peconic, Greenport--even Orient. Do we want, can we afford, must we accept this? If all else fails, it is to be hoped that there will indeed b, a public hearing. More efficient, more dignified and far wiser, however, would be a simple "No" from the Town of Southold now to the would-be-franchiser. A firm stand by the Town, supported by all the public protest of past months, would be an act of courage and integrity; it should persuade the huge multi-national corporation to look elsewhere for a more hospitable new frontier. They don't really need us any more than we need them. I CD ~ Sincerely yours, ~~ I y 5[( fJhU; fJb ICK December 13,1990 Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main Road Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Members of the Board: ~. ," In light of th~ apparent concernooveroth'e proposed McDonalds Restaurant on Rt. 25 in Mattit~ck, I request that you entertain a pos1tive declaration :lior a full Draft Environmental Impact Statement. It is without question that;" th.e said proposal will seriously affect the character of SouChold Town and will set a precedent for the future. 0 It is imperative that every avenue be explored and that no approvals be given until a complete SEQRA study has been done. Thank you. Very Truly Yours, ~~ ~:d/Q~'4'4J Debbie Sidlauskas cc: Southold Town Bd. Members Suffolk Times t61 r '" .... ~ It S/.(~ nUE" /6 JtI( MORTH FORK EMVlROMWEMTAL COUNCIL Route 25 at Love Lone. PO Box 799. Matlltuck. NY 11952 516-298-8880 December 6, 1990 Southold Town Planning Board Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 IlEC \ 0 RE: McDonald's application Route 25 Mattituck Dear Mr. Orlowski, I am wr i ting to you today on behalf of the North Fork Environmental Council to petition your Board to give the above application a positive declaration and to require full review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. It is my understanding that the Planning Board has requested lead agency status and will be determining the significance of this action. In determining whether a Type I or an Unlisted action will have a significant effect on the environment SEQR {PART 617.6 (g) (2) (ii)} requires that you not only review the EAF, but that you also review the criteria in Part 617.11. The NFEC firmly believes that this project will cause a substantial adverse change in traffic and noise levels and a substantial increase in solid waste production, that this application will attract a large number of people to the site and that it will result in the impairment of the character of the existing community and neighborhood. This application will have a cumulative effect in that other proposals for fast-food restaurants can be expected to be submitted. Further, the significance of this consequence should be .fully assessed with its probability of occurrence, its duration and its irreversibility. Additional support for an impact study on this proposal is evidenced in that the traffic report submitted by the applicant focused entirely on the Riverhead Route 58 McDonald's and simply transposed the figures collected there to the Mattituck location. A full study of the traffic conditions and patterns existing at the project site on Route 25 in Mattituck must be completed. a non-profit organization for the prea.rvatlon of land, _., air and quality of life printed on 100-" recycled pap.r I j . . ,. It Finally, I would point out that although SEQR states that a Type I action is more likely to require a DEIS than an Unlisted action, there is nothing in SEQR that precludes the lead agent giving an Unlisted action a positive declaration and to require the preparation of a narrowly scoped impact statement that will address the concerns listed above. Thank you for considering my comments as you make your decision in this matter. Sincerely, 3~qc~ Sherry Johnson Program Coordinator ~ i Sig:i,ee Road Cvie A:J6ociation malliluc/', new '/jork 11952 SIINi u; P,e, ;elL ADDRESS REPLY TO: 1295 Sigsbee Road Mattituck, N.Y. October 15, 1990 McDonald's Corporation 70 East Sunrise Highway Valley Stream, New York 11581 Dear Sir or Madam: We, the families of the Sigsbee Road CiviG Association of Mattituck, Long Island, are opposed to the construction of a McDonald's fast food restaurant in Southold Township, and in particular, to the announced unit to be built on Route 25 in Mattituck. We are op~osed to this McDonald's because we come to the North Fork of Long Island to get away from the very aspects of life which fast foods represent, not the least of which is the seemingly inevitable proliferation of restaurants like McDonald's, Roy Roger's, Wendy's, Arby's. and so forth. We are also concerned about the impact of your plan on small businesses in our area, like the delis. ice cream shops. and local restaurants, and the dire environmental impact of the tons of garbage McDonald's generates on a daily basis. We treasure and want to preserve the quality of life we have in Mattituck, and that life does not. in our view, include McDonald's in our backyard. V~rU1Y your , , ~Q- r Fel ix Mule President '\ cc: s90tt Harris, Southold TOI'in Supervisor ~outhold Planning Board The Suffolk Times Mattituck Chamber of Commerce ~. E. ~ - StfbFIu! ;1/.J ST/tPf" September , 1990 Dear Sir: As residents of the Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, we strongly object to a McDonald I s being constructed on Route 25 (slightly east of Bray Avenue in Mattituck.) The building of this fast-food restaurant in this location would lead to additional congestion on an already very congested road. In addition, it would contribute to garbage being strewn around. Also, these fast-food chains are noted for attracting people who congregate in and about the premises, creating an intimidating situation for the local residents. The construction of this McDonald's would be of no value, both physically and economically to the local residents of the community and would cause devaluation of the homes in the area. The surrounding area is residential and we want to keep it that way. We urge to to vote against the building of this McDonald's and urge you to do whatever is .necessary to prevent its coming to Route 25 in Mattituck. very truly yours, ~ WnC1NvW A4/4~ lU~Jt DR, . ~ ('ij llq~( SEP I 8 i99U - -,--=,<--,"-._-- ~ ~ SU6fit.E' 1.8 ~ 7trrP 1(.. September \~ , 1990 Dear Sir: As residents of the Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, we strongly object to a McDonald I s being constructed on Route 25 (slightly east of Bray Avenue in Mattituck.) The building of this fast-food restaurant in this location would lead to additional congestion on an already very congested road. In addition, it would contribute to garbage being strewn around. Also, these fast-food chains are noted for attracting people who congregate in and about the premises, creating an intimidating situation for the local residents. The construction of this McDonald's would be of no value, both physically and economically to the local residents of the community and would cause devaluation of the homes in the area. The surrounding area is residential and we want to keep it that way. We urge to to vote against the building of this McDonald's and urge you to do whatever is .necessary to prevent its coming to Route 25 in Mattituck. very truly yours, ~~ JJ ~~~~ Q). ~~. ~';:-!. \,\ tl\(\cr t$ \ u.' , I Rib 5f1bnt& !/T/(ff' 975 North Oakwood Road Laurel, New York 11948 September 10, 1990 Mr. Scott Louis Harris Supervisor Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11871 Dear Mr. Harris: As residents of the Hamlet of Laurel, Town of Southold, we strongly object to a McDonald's being constructed on Route 25 (slightly east of Bray Avenue in Mattituck). The building of this fast-food restaurant in this location would lead to additional congestion on an already highly congested road. In addition, it would contribute to garbage being strewn around. Also, these fast-food chains are noted for attracting persons who congregate in and about the premises, creating an intimidating situation for the local residents. The surrounding area is residential and we would like to have it remain that way. We urqe you to VOt9 aqainet the b~ildinq of this McDonald's and urge you to do whatever is necessary to prevent its, or any future fast-food venture of this type, coming to this area. cc: Mr. John M. Bredemeyer III President, Town Trustees Very truly yours, ~c~ 'k~f1j A~~lan ~KrOp.p \. . dM( /[t! . J; i.e K opp ~ I. Planning Board, Town of Southold 13 l ' f Sur!J6t.E ~ 16..r MATTITUCK CHAMBER OF COMMERCE P.O. BOX 1056 MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11952 -rt3 zelf September 13, 1990 Southold Planning Board Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Gentlemen: At the General Meeting of the Mattituck Chamber of Commerce on August 20, 1990 a motion was made, seconded and carried with no member present opposed regarding the proposed McDonald's. The motion made was that the Chamber support the project and that our feelings of support be published in the local newspapers. A McDonald's representative met with our Board in June to go over the proposed plans for the building and grounds. We feel that the McDonald's representative, Planning Board and the Mattituck community will work together to work out the problems at hand. It would seem to us that if McDonald's is coming to our town, it would be in everyone's best interest to get involved to insure a positive influence on our community. Sincerely, Mattituck Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors cc: L.I. Traveler Watchman Suffolk Times SEP 2 , \990 " Of .. ~ ~ .. i t Mr. Scott Harris. Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall. Main Road Southol d. N. Yo Dear Mr. Harris: Your open letter to the regional director of MacDonald's (Traveler Watchman, 23 August) seems to be an acceptance of the "inevitable in Mattituck. Your concern that it not look too much like what it is hardly addresses the issue. The negative response in the community is based on more than the esthetics of compatible architecture and landscaping. You speak of the 350-year-old heritage of this rural area, the desire to preserve our image and protect the beautiful character and environment "treasured by its citizens". Yet the whole concept of a busy drive-in chain restaurant is at odds with that principle. If this gets by in Mattituck, the way is opened for more of the same down the road. The argument (Suffolk Times) that the location in question has already suffered from commercial blight prompts one to ask why it must be written off, why not improved by more appropriate and attractive develop- ment beneficial to the community. Earlier mistakes and insensitivity in planning should not be compounded by this sort of "laissez-faire". At the moment, the three-acre parcel involved is quite lushly green, overgrown with wild vegetation, having been ruthlessly bulldozed into an ugly pile of barren earth some years ago. Nature has since covered that eyesore, but it seems we're ready to begin again. Isn't it ironic that the "project co-ordinato~" employed by MacDonald's was Chairman of the Planning Board in that earlier period, and seems now to be exploiting experience and contacts gained during his tenure? I suppose there are "factors" which pertain here: projected tax revenues, expected employment, whatever. These are usually over-estimated at the outset. For instance, "100 potential employees" seems way out, unless we are talking about 4-hour shifts (at minimum wage) for teen-agers in July/August. Counter that with local businesses adversely affected, resulting lay-offs, even business failures. And, the beginning of a slide in the direction of suburban sprawl. You are quoted in the Suffolk Times as not wanting MacDonald's here at all; go with your instinct and do all you can to block this project. It is wrong and out of place on the North Fork. We have an exceptionally lovely environment here, a fact acknowledged by visitors from everywhere in the world. It is fragile, so is our local economy. Our elected officials and appointees have a responsibility to protect both. ifnr'--'-' :' l\ ' rL';:\;\~ - , ( . f -~ ~ - 2 - Your swift response to the public outcry at the threatened loss of "67 Steps" is an indication that you are tuned in to the voice of the people. There must be a loophole somewhere.. The ZBA will be asked for a variance for the "drive-ins". Surely they can "just say no" to something that is detrimental to the best interests of the business community and which residents find offensive to the image of their Town. Once this has been dealt with (and hopefully the project defeated) it will be high time for the Town to get to work at strengthening its zoning code so as to prevent strip development of this kind in the future. Respectfully yours, Jane M. Gohorel cc: North Fprk Environmental Council Traveler Watchman I ,..- . 'SUe,PIl...E"""" Pe:, R~ Ralph Merrill 600 North Oakwood Rd. Laurel, N.Y. 11948 Southold Town Board c/o Scott Harris, Supervisor Main Ro ad Southold, N.Y. 11871 Gentlemen: Regarding the headlines, "McDonald's is coming to Matti tuck", I must say that Ms. Pascucci and Mr. Raynor mentioned all of the positives but neglected the negatives. (By the way, the Elbow Rooms in Laurel and Jamesport serve great burgers, so one doesn't have to drive the five miles for a burger.) . #1 Litter A great number of the empty bags, containers, cups, condiments, etc. when empty, go out the Window wherever the car may be, highway, parking lot, dead end streets, State marina, new sub- division~ and even the north end of Laurelwood. I ride my bicycle daily on the main road and Peconic Bay Blvd., from Laurel to Riverhead, and I am saddened by what I see. I feel that many users of the take-out window are too lazy to get out of their car, both before and after their meal. Eliminating the take-out Window by not granting an exception would certainly help the serious litter problems. KcDonald's does police their iffiM~diate area; lve never seen them outside of their area here or in Florisa. Also, I have never seen an effort made to educate their take-out customers as to what to do with their litter. #2 Traffic M". RaJnor said the maximum number of cars at peak hours would be 125 per hour. Ask anyone who picks up their mail at the Laurel Post Office about the difficulties of getting in and out at any hour and I am certain there are far less than 125 cars per hour at any time. I would say that McDonald's would have serious impact on traffic in that area. Litter and Traffic - do we really want or need McDonald's? Very truly yours, A\.lG '2. 8 \990 R(l::;:'~ ~_ cc: Planning Board Board of Appea;J,!j ~ ~. ~/.)r-"o '. ........~~... /-i -0:; ~l ' ~,-#.~,....,,.....'...~.....'..-....... '0" ... ...... ............~"-....~..~..........,......-.o""~....... ..~. .. -...... . -. '_".WW._~ ...~_....__.....~..._..~. New McDonald's To Have' Old Look -. By Ellen Braitman Come April, the historic Denton home in New Hyde Park will again be open to hungry visi- tors. But this time around, the food of choice will be Big Macs and Happy Meals. After monthe of controversy involving neigh- borhood residents concerned about the impact of the restaurant, McDonald's officials yester- day broke ground on the $4-milIion construc- tion and renovation that will restore the white, clapboard house on Jericho Turnpike and transform it into a fast-food restaurant. When the eatery opens, it will be the world's 12,OOOth McDonald's and the only one in the United States in a wholly restored building. When McDonald's bought the Denton house and property in September, 1986, officials ini- tially planned to raze the building and erect a typical McDonald's. However, the designation of the site as a historic landmark in January, 1988, spurred McDonald's officials to pursue restoration. Last month, the North Hempstead Town Board cleared the company's fmal obstacle for the project when it voted to approve the plan with board.imposed conditions aimed at keep- ing noise and smells away from neighbors. The plan had been approved by the landmark com- mission and the zoning board. The owner and operator of the New Hyde Park franchise, Larry Anderer, yesterday called the project "a chance to preserve a little bit of the history of Long Island." Anderer, who sat for five years on the planning board in RockviIIe Centre, said, "I think this is going to enhance the beauty of New Hyde Park." Angelo Corvs, the vice chairman of the Land- niarks Preservation Commission of the Town of 4 North Hempstead, agreed, saying the restora- tion "will be preserving the architectural heri- tage of the building." AB of now, the three-story house standing on a 1.1-acre lot on Jericho Turnpike is in disre- pair with boarded windows, overgrown grass and chipped paint. The interior is stripped, and there are holes in .some of the floors and walls. Since the 1940s, the house had been operated for a number of years as a restaurant. When the restoration is complete, the front esterior will be restored to match a 1920 photo- graph of the house; there will be an addition to the back and sides for a drive-through service; a parking lot for ahout 45 cars will be built in front ofthe house; and dining areas will be built on part of the ground floor and on a mezzanine on the second floor, opening into a cathedral ceiling where the attic is, said Paul FaceIls, vice president and manager of McDonald's New York region. The decor, Facella said, will be a "blend of both old and new elements." Plana call for wood and tile floors and floral wallpaper similar to what was in the house in the 1920.. . FaceIla said the company anticipates the New Hyde Park franchise to be successful because there are no similar restaurants in the area and because the nearest McDonald's restaurants are in Elmont and Carle Place. This, be said, is the reason McDonald's is willing to invest a substantial sum into the restoration and con- struction project. The new restaurant will have seating for 125, a McDonald's Playland area and a special video and dining room for families and children's par- ties. i Facella and Ronald McDonald outslde Denton home '", ._-_& .--.---- -. Edited by AI Cohl), ;~ k ;- Mrs. John R. Feeney 495 S. b · Igs ee Road Mattituck, N. Y. 17952 ..511 bFJ t...e:' ,0-6 .,I<t::.. /rvv. AtJ~ -- .I j)~~r. - , . " I~ J,:- >- '}?;~ f '/_ - d,uo-026./"-' -. .' d..4 ~ j..aJ . . J.! 1L m~ RP.., f~ ~~r '" /'Yi~~.w '}n~cJ Lk- ~ ~ ~ I>-V ~;:t; - So\ -'" J-..,p. ~ ""'" L...- i ~ If c;,aL II jh~~tnv ~"~ (l'>tJo d ~ ~ '" f0- ~ ~ . ~rd~~~- ~~~ . . 14~ ~ ~ i\' ,~~ ~ , loon (,J..- L I,j-J\.i ~~ tlAL ~~~# ~ 't ~ ; ~~r~~ ' ~. . ~. ~;I~~ p?~? .'~ ~~o-;V~ . ~...JI..e-N~~ f&t'wt::lb 1h-- pP ~ ~ ~ _fVd!JJk ." .~' ~~\~ ~k.~ ..dh-vt 0VUf I. ~~~~ ~a./k-~' ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~. (jJ~ tnL ~ ~~ . " ,-- 6a1!JnL.& INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE: Valerie Scopaz planning Board Office Linda Kowalsk~ December 9, 1991 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Letters on File - Fast Food Restaurant Property ID 1000-122-7-3.1 Thank you for furnishing courtesy copies of letters received relative to the proposed fast-food restaurant at Mattituck pending at this time with both our departments. Attached as requested is the original petition of signatures which appears to have originally been filed by the Planning Board on October 22, 1990. We have made a duplicate set for our office. m m 0 \'!l ffi rn DEe I 0 1991 SOUTH OLD roWN PLANNii\iG B0,~;:t) SubFI UZ pe, i ~) "".- 2 2 :11 ' V...,."'...., l",,)t I::;""! f' ' ., , ,J me fo-n {( tis 'Vl rYJ(ct6 :t?{.Jc v~ rJOi5\y.r~ JflGjLl:yI SI U/-~)t !JR-. 210 [9/L It&?# It*; SovJ}-rrMW'" 1j M~y-~ef\ er~-ffo" e. cgc .- /.1c I J7<^ d /lUQ-~ ~ ,I, /0 (I'e ~"{v 'j '- -- 1"\ o.nD I') ~ ' lL,( \\I,aw 1 Ave, '. k. '-"'Y, e:,"j f\v.. ~qr ~ f((" ?f- fd&mcvuJlJokt . ~ i " be8.r t-.{r. ~on.(..hat) u incJ~ aLe.. cur pt:bJ1lr~_ ?~ne.d uuu_ b~ Citizens 6f'~111~ +-tu. ~ln,c1:Hc.OorvJ_ld3 vn (20u}e., a 5 l() tvta.J+i +uck . We... \\.a.d; -\0 I - flea.~-(.; .(Of' c..o\l~e... G.n.Gt c.ou1~ .~ -~t'\UL ~"S ~\~~. WtL- -tnl<\1c- '-lou Clf't.. CV\ t(\p-lL{e(\-h'a.J lPif~ '" "'l\ \\ do Q\\ ,\D\A. Caf\ ~ s-\op ,Uc....Do (\q\.d.:"':> . i !f\eQSe- cdcl w<=;,,e.. \?Jlu-h00'S -to \1()\..l( DV'l ^ ~ I !cof\:h(w..e.. -\u ~rQt~st. WlL Ofpre.c\Wt..'--iou,.r wad:. I ~'i' L...~" uo" n I . -,J<..- -t....... Q..(LL SL.lCc e.'SS ~ . ~ * ~ ~ Ur<jen+lV le.q,lte~+CV\~f\\J\fOI'\~-fal 'i O\fO-cl -:k\.ti!1 (W\ -4c k c.ondLtLJ-~. "I.+ \"U:l C)~ ihw-I::.es OL {~L.l~~+ -R:x- fhts, s~~ ,i{. need (l0+ pe... !'Pe-( -\b( i't\JLcl. 1>.J2 <:>+ ",h -:> ht"'J. . , , 1>1 Q(1-?~ aLon '+ ~t "~lfiP b ..L . . We the undersigned, hereby protest the construction I of a McDonald's restaurant on Rte. 25 in Mattituck. As residents of the community that would be directly effected, we cite that this business would : 1. increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. with a drive-thru, it will also increase air-pollution. 3. having no acceptable plan for refuse removal produces a sizeable amount of non-recyclable trash just as our local landfill prepares to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a result of it being located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its very appearance. We therefore feel the construction of the McDonalds is ill-advised and unnecessary. NAME t),<:'PI(~iU SHJ~J7\ ~~ - IV/ex- Mt:11i~1\...J Jv\ flrl-I .~ ~- ~ . (IV ..61.A~.. ~ ~0"""'"'::> ~~ ?~..P(:.~ 4r\~ D~ ~ tli / J &rule~ E ~utt-() to ~7/5~~~ (~3 0 ~A Dr<- ..YCtJ 1< WuJ~aO'ICl. ~ CJWJ PfDm '# ~- c9P 97 ?15~Zffl7 2?~1 Qqg - 5 I~.;l , ''''f '3~ . N ~ u~1JJ l~ /Ib~ ~ (d~6tp~[~~ ki '-11\~\~\L ~q'b-ll<{t?) fe(JlV\,c g~ rhvo 21)'- Yoo J B~ 7 ~au(eJ J,9S"~j3J t> 6)( ~9"3 rvWYitv cf\ ':)~t -q~ fo g So '---J~,/.clL ~ ;:J() P4~ 35 cJf~ 2f}r-- :Sf'I2.- XJ~.~~ C<R ;xq ~ ~q S d-. II . .---. --- ~lC i . Ii. UL .... . . \ VI . tihtbfL1{k'If!,::C"__~ .~. ..~. .tlGC. GrtQlfO;7-,IJ.L(, . ~vnrzct-: li&I"'rJ'j (r)-LCIQ Neu.J J~fiu(. _ , II .. .... .... IYI~ ("Alf4 _ ;2 Of? <fL- i~.~.... .., . rUll. ~ ~'13t.4 2ft csm I~j~..% --~. i1)IJ4d~', ;r~-y.k. . _ Ii ... ~~~~~=;ljl.50~Y '. ~,rzi~.,--"t~(}Q~~d/C. 't:i'kj!;..~ 7jJf-"~_~_ ~v ~~ lqP'~ ~~ J t,~;"1iL~j.{.~~ii+I7~ . g8~1~4~71&:. 14"" I ~. '2Lf . jXo--~\~ ,.. ~QI,:>$3){' ~'\.\CN\c" ~\q~~ ~!. ,g. ~~1f3 .......c;-66f)\J'-~ s-r. M(JfI]'[vCf:c 1(9J~1..: .... :i. m_ a. ,.,__.. . _ . /(17S /!llj/N /CO. fi1tJ:rlj[ucf( .1/'l5~ ._ ~ !:. .... ... . .....' ..Cf.J~~~ ~~ ~, J.oI!~JJ.~ , ...1~~3/>>=7/./U~ n~ :; I .' . .... ....c:;;2~[;i:G,.{?~O~~--cc:.,/~ . .<d'. .,. .... 7f!0zu- r2~ d1'5 ~z. Prf-sJ1'.j. .~~~ ll(~ - Yfg-- 'feY' : - '- ...~. 4;;l:Pfa~/ttDWf/z~ 111 . .. .r (Y'{)jj;rJucl rlVI! 11 . ,I ~.- ---,,,._- ~-------- .....L ND rYl~~u\ds 'tv) YYh+~+UCL f11~ fli1VitQ., Add (6:) , Z~a-s'LL ~;~1 W 1%50 ~'1 t.K lvA-\+duJz Zq~''T.301 t--\ ~u~ E;oo'b L-iti/\ A~"~ :L'!i - Cj /'1/ :2'1? 71Yj , . Jf3UAk /j:20/3 a~.1t;~ ()ft ~59br . ah~ SJ .eA-' ~ ~ 1J.z-w.4C(1I7 ~ _ 01J-en 1?,I(p ~f ~tf-(\gJ'1(014., 0';'~()K-- ~.t(3-S/d( o(~~ J{Jff) ,;),,~w.;'_ 6!.,~ ~~51{5 ,(J~tV ~ ~ttL ~, ;li&-5'J37 K .. .~ J95lJ~/flillvJ.< f;J. matfi;tuu<.. ,0<1(--0l7Jf 0 .' . ~ ~,(. ~ Sss.-I'-I'Z.. ' '., GdtCt/TCII<!X:Tc/E II f.3s' RO. Z? ~ ~ L:A, )/~6Z . 2'8-"'".. tt. - . ~oM'J" (II..~I i( 1;.>7- :t9$-'j>$"3( ~-I~~~ ~~. ~4~Jt,AI( cm-fO~ It · ~~~~4;~~- ct fl ~ ffX fIIpt- /IIIJJ IlIQ., ~e,~~rr.~. ",-, - - _c- "" -~ .; -- - ..-0- s-L i ,. " f. tv 0 VY1cLXmQ tJ; I h Vii" . --- ~ ~Il 1.-: .". .. .., 1:29~ "-- 73{- 5192 ::2't ~ - L( I ~ '0 02-9<6 ~ 0(,61:. 2.q%,,~ '3 ~& Z "/to-j:>/ ,b /bO-/>.-4 ~{a-d '/ ~/k 7&S-'" / 3/,(; -?G-r I 31-6 7 '3-{,- tot '33 73'f 14-9 11' ~~p 'Pot~ 7:5 7 MC\i1ih,dL .z'1'i>-":<.I! ~ ~~ , )ohc POl C1/4ue 7Y/~S~ ~ j ~ P.O(~ 4(P (duviLj ~q~-46,;;}{p 7;tI~~ ~\. ?()~c;J73 /J~~ 73V-7et7r .~ i3~--IJJ- tufA-ll J-II- 'JU1l-f(fTCa ,)9 f -..s--&'t"c 1f'.Ja,~ f~ 10, Box. s(.( I Lf1V(~(, 29?- '7?~~7 r/'l,cd 7PyLof:... fD, ~x l7L[ J1l4--1T17r.-dc J--rY-Lft73 o h 00 "J S fa..... eX{.~) po $--0 0 7Yl~ 2- <>t 6 - L-l067 ~ T~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 5<1'Cf'l ~~(~~~~ L-.V'3uJJto~ ~p~ 6<S-{-D~~ ~~~ \\ Cl Ll -f)~,~~{~:~~: ~q3L0\tbJu\<d fn4r ~G~~SSI~ ~ { I , IOY~ [1(,' -\1JV't'1r- ~ ~SCM.~ t,A} ~ ~ lH+U~~ 2 q~ -q~ ~OJ,~ '+~~/~~PJV.~ ~ ~ /fr) ~~. ffL'J. 't3'f-7-'ft8 tf::;I~~ ~C) bt1Jry iff1 Uy (l9$- c.t7?o ~~~ -~~~ ~,&)?'fJ-}/YY-. ~<-71){U}~t~~~rJ~ 7l}cJI- d7P-&J/ _ ~~ J'oo !I~ ~ b J /3 L; - 55.,),~ ,~ {~Co( G\GWi 1-Lw ~e I Cc.wN\~(I1Jlttb. (?:'Ul) 1~o.tJ-71 ff(~<&A~k. ()/ /!PAl t11N/~1L 1!cd>>]k Ct~ (ilt;;)k~ ISI(.~ 4~.,.L.lWr4'4- pSS- we~ ~;tI~ ~ qj-- s-...2.(5 ~}J;j' n~ ~ l~'~L, ~~,d 2;~r @) D0lJfj rvlMRM0A Rf.\. Sf.4';/vuJ OR. 1J.!.j,!)(.)Jr..J1J~ 9 0/ - 8(" 12:. . lYI'i.M-o ~V/~ .~8GThu Oc ~)J>-d~--u l1 744Cj? fVl(~DJ tJA L p~ ~cillrtua:: ",~, ~uJ(J " ~ 'aW odu ~(jruc" 7J, ~qo / 63;Z:f _ ~~Z:xkLVCL ~ . Ctdc~ '7=:4 . 571-Q I~ r2~ 7e.. , .)..2 S" p, ~ ~ '}yf n 4 7'7, hc.fl ).. '7J-- .2 0 <:l ( ,fly;; jIjoo~,,- 2UJ .;:9,6e",- RO, "q~-"losq ~~ ',,~ d?:I&Y~ 77{-"S-V '~,nvu.T ~ \~), '(\/~)~. C - cl"\8--Y~~ '~ih ~<.VT~ fly MI/I!vk 21fZ:JG JI!:1 ? C::P'1 L ~ ~ 727/)L ;U? Y " _ N Lv s;: ~ /0 [c 'J b <:{ ~~ ~ \') Ll:x S " V\ ~ ~l ~~~ "3s-zp ~ . b,yV'P-:^V;-\'~ J1L't&:t ~~ ~:i1~ ~V<.A-1A<~ 'f?~"'-'-':' ~~ /@t} ;ti: ~ b/4DtQ ~- -S,j1-<' , ~~ () '\ r;vcK-- f\/1.Q t I IwlL LC{()J ~ I 2- ~~ - ~--q ~l ;)ir~S~{;) d;f -J,Tl- L. c i ,21 J - .S-,l. J- C 17-1,/ . CP:J! 76) <.(3cc} .Jif-/J!J 7r<j-{pr<':>1 ).76' 5)5?~ II ~ ~~ 4~~~ -, ---------------------------------------------------- cc~ C4~"'il' s.'f~ /<:df'l'1Q.o.<~ .'C. / Jt<,~~4jtvkA,-/,1 ~dAH. d]<n cs-g~ ..~ CS2! e~ . C"'ro'1.tJ'Ic-- ') 6'{ 61 b\ . ._...' _. ~_. r!2tfg /' So'1Y' ~ .etchQW~ . cr~ J;~.~ 73 ~S5fs- .... .....s;,~ ~ ..' il"~f?'C) . .. .~ --- .. . 0"i?.fl/fQ:- j,le" , ' vv '/ 2- ?c -?t''7'l tB~1J .' :::-~7-; 7:J~-??1~ ~z1~8Vd~t SLC~"-\\f\L ;t'1El/,)(9 I " ~ ,;? tcf"17<(() ....')6$- /t~ 'kqt<t1 ~;).- d "71f' 'Y5':>? . .~~[1f2() _.. 2Jl'i-Lir21 .:(93 -:.5?'G4 . z't1f" TfJ-7Cj ~. - ./ ,1 f1~ YI1LJ>malds k~'Ack . ,'. ~n'1 RotJ Vhl,v,\ S'~U>L..J ~?v~ d--7'~- <;;/"//-/ ~ S'fc::.Er..E IJf tUN KD , f>>aff, ;2;6' -6-f/gs- ~ ' ~. 'l./. 1'1 ~ -t- ~_~_ 7:2-~- c.JJSD f)~.. I..{,I' S 1 ~ ~.d.e- / ~ 7~<e(-, G 72 7 ;~u(ffl~l 'Yf'<f4rk ~4Yt~y/~, ~'e:I!e,"'40""3:;- ~ ~, l'l?r;; C.~t..~ Pv S";:]LofeJ 7651rC; D -r.. . 6., -" ~ ~<:' -rEt"124" M Jr~:;tcl ~::::; ~ ~...\(d. l..,.('i'~3 to ~c9'/ 'If! ~ J4....J. 'M { QR, n~ ~ 7)~J~ ....~.~~~' ...~..1Q;Q~ .JOhN A 'ro~k,.()sl;.:. ~. . ~Q.\f )<-.6Jrr/lh L-t:.. C;!:;7:YiE~ &1(_ .~ 1.~vJ:-h0IJ 2 (r 5 c.. j'7. L~. "'7.. . f/". /J I'Cfo c~c-Itl ~ . S~Vl J fuCl-f'1rltclcl<: tiJL{11Cl- .. (i}Otlf, !lx 9P 2/J!? // 0W ~i~~~'3- Q ~,(.IUb y~ Cb--CZl \W. N'-~ ~"''"'\ I ^,,,,"'7 . "'~., ~'"'C-. " DOY. C\\ P.. ~-k\.i4u.(Js,_ (],v'- f::24t?}?J;rvu-- Riv;Ut{i< ,5 5 "/1 c9cf8'-cke l{Cj d--1<P -4/P6 lla.\ ~ lo~cdJ 2. "',f'-.)c? ~ 6" 2-1'0: P'hf r ?q8~:rr~ 2qf/qI7~ fl/-' 9/.f/? 13~::~M ~~;pho ~,53<i3 e'1,\-~$b'l ,c. ~ c~~ -'?'/:::~-~.' ..7/___.--77.-- _..- ..",UIZIf(!..L--I,~,-- ~ ~~~ I ' '-- .~~ ?~ '1-- 3'~"Z/, J'3"-L~6a-t 3SJ>- r3S) 7:JL,T-??1~ 7Z1~~32..-.t ~~---W\L .)"i[Lf,)(9 -- ~t~t?<f() .. ~~L2% . . ~q 'f. o/f1/~,).-r d e:;; F'. </5'77 .."'hf.__tIf2o 2.q'j:Lj'k2L( .298 -~26~ 20(~r V9'ZCj ~. -: / ..' :~< ,,\ - ~:;~sfVo MdJDr14k:lS, . " - 'In ~LJc 1ID0~scq ~ . ?.a. fix 45 I Cutb 761--{ - 7 8--Q) 't f'0150'(!/Ct.t1. ~Ir 27?' 57'1-7'- \.\ II '.' (I l( " 1+ .13't' II. d-';Wft.;C( /:7) v~ ~ "~d- ~eL.~ InAt.!-wl.A.tiYlM ~~~ . 16'1.~~~~ "dq8'-58'~ \.\. _mm '\ / 0 1()~$:. &q~.j(040 ttJf;:;~~; ... .1J~?A1 DO Boy \ 5J 8/ dt . ZQB-5B84 7)/ Ir V(,IIT . .--- ----- ~ ;?()O)JIlto~, J11h17~ ?o 3DX' 0'6-- Sour/!olc/ 76S--tI /( re:.. .m m,... . .....s; ..... . ZIt.f s- ~ Yl1,J;t;~. ~ 'LJ'r.' ~- ~~V5 l~L.- ~(Lf-L-- (1.r,\'..--r-.Tr- r ~ \f\J.'1~ ,JEf('-~ .'11 ,,,1, .;~. -~' tfi.; p\J~ (Y1td4-. UYl. ItM;.. i ) j' J-l '-. ~...l,~- . ,.- - ~ -- - lI/11-fit ~ ~~ - ~ , &1; ;;?f!? I fi:cC>/Vl6 :n b . B"'"l ~ ~tv';2J f~/7"'5~Aw( dJi( ~~ca~.. ~Jr;am 5JCljzd IJtc ft(rdJ {li r--~~ '. ~t5 .::DUfi,d Age fUcatr ~r~5L{S+ CR .. ~d~.mrdt " Jli- 93o~: JAt\l& h1uh //1/ flJot,'A/ f~~u.J (f};ffj't!.v;~ ;)c:y8-'2SSv . \~ClJ)h'&l&'- \&1\ '~eA) &f\AvQ, M~+itLtL ~-4;;(j . . . '1.34- 6)40 a/j~- 5J;fct 1~ Uo~~, r 0 fl'tv.-ll(p/-J '76t<'"'- ~~ :: ~.'''' .-:~Leo'l " - 2-CtP rrn;; I . / J :' ."":5 . _ _ ~T ~ Y"3'~~, t'/ 6r?:'~ 5'r~ _ tuy ~ tt9P- ~.P6() JWv-,~ ~ IN\O...-'c\.:iWUL ~ ~t1~Y~~ \l~':>~~ ~ Cu.x~. ~4~~ ~~ '0'0). z/.""ddRJ-. (pO[) ~:I4. ~, 134--5<'<~ . ,. ,.330 (;,;~-6WtWi f)r-. ~ 73H7"7~ I q,u. ~.. ?~&(fr 'tAfitt. ...&.Jl~~~ :1t:! ~<,J I~!~ ~Are ~:t1jJ~~~6~1 bJv . Po ~. ;~)- e~ --v; ;)-3'[5 .~:d-.. 7D '~?[,~G~RE-L~~.).. ~9P-16.Jl ?-'rn--:\ e . .' -. La.t--~ l0Y\hO \ l ~fQSD ~\J.--fhD let -- ibC:;-- 01:>1 (h~~~ CY) l(3)rIlcrl~L~<- ~. "'["il;)tffJ ~lA..I.UU . LA-~ ,~ , ....- . " _~~~l~ ~q;:x I-f~ U::uM 4, .- @ (Y)~~~ .in rYldtb mGK, -# a<1~ ~~39 :!9=t:p j? - n j? Y <:2-70-- 5/13 J-'V- H/J. 2-~ - 6TU.... 2'\'6 ' l{G, 72.. '1 '3-t-"7 I n ~J9t-g&3v J1?--slj3 A'bDQGS?> ~..~ ~ ~~ L0vr-e{ i ~.4 Pw fV7- L:wt~( 1~~7D~ ~. ! 6J;j.~~ ~ ~~ I .~ I' I ( L l 2</'8 ~ S4t( 5 7,~ -ts~, 7~d--~3~<{ 7 c;?\ q f 5"~ 6Z 9<t ~r 8-q~. ~ ~9'( -7'{P(Y~ d2Q?-eolI9. Q '7<:6 - ?1cR3 :2 f lJ f-6 7 'f J-q~-->f~\'-l ' C5~ 771__ ;;iJ'J73/ t.; L I 'r @ I I ./ " ~:~ /' ~, ~7~ ,~ 1€>T0. ~ ~r ; ",.r.. J.~JJ.j . .~. ~qs-~'.tl~ z:::CA-. Sf.. . ~ Itt3Y m ~. . (I SL t\ . u. C{2f;4&lMlve ~~J~ /.:>,ps Vv/~~ ~ /. ~. .... .. ~~ VI f~~.J \'/M~ . f-feeo-nc "-' ~-7 {p 't tJ~ r-iV 4<1./-2 7::::;: '~:.'. J. ' 1.e..rr. ~ CXt-<2... . .Q... b.. I ~ I ..Y~ ~~ ~ rt- . i P.C9_~ ~ Po r:c'i'd.l-li. .1-t.f-'i~J,3~~ &;J.. ~~ ~ . L~ .9. (hn lrb M4rTI71A.CJ( 'tJ,'{. /l9S:2. -;37-j-MJI,I~ ifi f?o. 'iJtrtY '-153 ~ -r;J' 1fC/~ 47/--' Cl~\\~ O~ y~ ~Y\ ~L-\ -f\-'<l,,",,~s G.p"t- ll't'i ~ ~, ' " j/lltrYt~ lfe, ,Yc.1J;-f M/jiJ" ,1/ 1/9rs-Z---- , 017 II+: &&f (j, J}/L c'~~ 71v 1/7 )/__ ~~~60 &tI,u('j~{fLJ-I o.~ IZ0/A ~~~ tfi,.lJf!.d.Li4t. /!Je../5vft,/k. Ilfa - 7 '3.4 ,-78!!)'r-r9r O~M<>f'",vb-f 17' A"''fl-..f /t..It. ~~?vC,/l/'f If "'I"!) 2lWr~<611 , y<.o ,s~.j O~ lG \" ~ Vl~V<.- ~ krC, l~~ ';)Cj8-s1'n -:t;# ;'tr;4w.J ~UWd~ m~ ,;/' 7r?-- 73~~~ . ~::. "..il!P {:Vi? lw-iW ' ~;l;,-~ ~ 1/9iK" ,G~,~ ~ #~~ " /tR7( ~ 7l~ ,.f) E 4.lj""l. l-9 ~A1"L7"'~ck //9[~ ~ (t..~,,, y I'tp1f{T'J<l., Ill'@ I - 4~~~.~~~ ".<.,/ ~ II ti .. ....-. .. . ...- . t~ .' H-. fbw( pC; l~{c?lJUY /19t;S ~ ~. ~ ~O-;n (d. ~i:ttct tJY Ej. ff;:': 1~.:1i::::Z' "~~. ~kfd... stiPFEN ~q M~Jvd.. .~.. ...~ 1- :~~ .m. . ~ )7 <;;'c.-. .... ..~~~111r(( ~. k'JJu g. ~ 3~LfS ~d ~. 'lJJttiJu.Cl.,NY rWsa.." . Sp()/l.,- _ 33:r~ Of.i. N.,..~, m~ . ., . f{Lm. .~ ~cfr:~4 _ .. . ~ ~~ ~if'3~A G'/f:A~fdAvL ,m,,7f"1Y.!i1 . g- l/V~ LO[.c~.u ..~ ..~llt{lfc' PI/lp/JlA<!e~ .. IlW() /()d~..~d. ~ ~~ l'i~c> ~~ ~(f}v- C. 'J~ ----;3I-f1V' .D l/~ 15' W/ Ct2J C/;/./iXr <zc..- (:/)5 ~..J(.. <2<..J-rrfitduA.. r - .7Po N~ . ,r:::.f!N-!l~., _ rfJ::: ~,,'R e<i~~ 01'1 ~~~t:~J~~.h-71f0 H~ pz. MfU~ - ~~' ~~~/~ - ~-~ ~ .... AAJV;b'~ f KAlM-J't, h~rV~ ~. ,11(.6: .5~~ t/ ! Y ?7dfi/~ /J4. hP~ Hn fftJU(.. ,2S~ F~"?1 ,():J ~#/~Cf/' /",""" @ , ~o VYlc~n{{Us ) ~ r'lalHfa~ NAme AdJV'L'0'S PtorLo ~ 1)~W~ 6~S C:rc:oD~v-e-e\cda.r~L-l~ti -Jt/5~9aIY cu. z-'Z-os 51 ~t:: - 7","~ 0-\ . ...Lt.5 k:" V ttt....M ttVtJ 51, S~'d"" ~1'tO/ IU//t-I <-?TO -'j'rY~ .zI;:- ~~____ _ /;.s/a..- 4,,~ &.eeHj>""V't- <&J <f7~ -;;1-1 ~ J .. . ::.J -~ Y'/5-fi/v~~r )iXlt~ ~h40r~ l)(,S ~/oc I ~ ~, b.A;'f3 1b5--~{}3 'U-'~ ~ o$--~ Irfm." IJ'1I\,-Kq.c...O ;:Jlot r.eh La~ kvr>e/ .f:l91' -0'7'1">- ~ G, . c, @ We the undersigned, hereby protest the construction of a MCDonald's restaurant on Rte. 75 in MattitUCIc. As residents Of the community that wOUld be directly effected, we cite that this business would : 1. increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. I{ith a drive-thru I it \dll also increase air-POllution. 3. havinq no acceptable plan for refuse removal prOduces a sizeable amount of non-recyclable trash just as our local landfi,ll pn'par0S to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a result of it beinq located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its very appearance. and unnecessary. We therefore ~.I.(' the const:n 'tion of the McDonalds is iII-a(]vised " '. octU' !IA AIL ~/t /fd~ ~ Uhu7t1 rhu /J/7 () .161/) T)~ ~~~~ :I\a r2~ '~(llt11~ jvoly 'i'~ ~o0 ~/ r71f1/NA 01fJ /GlJL)i~ lUl.d3~ ~._.~ , ~ 91a(j~ . ~tD1 f?v.u} iJ);udf-^--' ~~'~~\~O~~~ ,. ~ \c~ ( tbv-q2 Zi'l/ ,. -N2Q1i~_ _I.)I~ 1L QJ Ie 1\\ 0C'-zLS~.- 734'~~7~ eh.~~ v ; l' 731-( -)8'7{, /3 '-(' bJ~.L/ .; ,l @a:I~r- (iJ ~#h(2!JUJ2. (~v<-~c/.,~ l"U e.. v . , 73Y-S'8?6 4Q~~n(lr LAuVe.l, fl q ~ -ctStfJ- \.ntil.Jlil.'i((!L .., fYvnT~c.L' (~kk~ O)~~l~~~ ~ ~Q~ ~~ . 'l~ ) 7;,/ \,v' ,"./ CJ~M~,y~' 1./ _) ') ~_/ 218 202~ '2L) ~) - c:::; I ~ 3 , . . , \ ' We the undersigned, hereby protest the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on Rte. 25 in MattituCk. As residents of the community that would be directly effected, we cite that this business would : ,1. increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. with a drive-thru, it will also increase air-POllution. 3. having no acCeptable plan for refuse removal produces a sizeable amount of non-recyclable trash just as Our local landfill prepares to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a resUlt of it being located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its very appearance. . We therefore feel the construction Of the MCDonalds is ill-advised and unnecessary. _/W4F. _ / U\ ~ PHONE tL .. ,"j .1 J/, , r. ' ,- ,I '\>, '-.' ~,\~V'-)! ! :S'_rrl " i..._ ( t? q j C,i .", ; ,~ , , I. ',_ >: 2 "'; ~:,(/ (/ '- " L' .- ,S'':, j ;,)tl ~e.~ ~!~l1 ~C\u~~ ~~ % c..J~L 4_\ & I-~'{ 'J' Qr,...,,,,>/(,. -5+5 ~C+) ~~~ 300a Qeamic ~ ~, 33S-- {Jy,~[-.l RJ ~. :l qg- - '?9'itk' 79<2-'810+ .tf-S63s .----....... , . (.. 0ci, /? 1 -~ '1', (.~;.) ."f) ') J 't> U" "(',"c1'I1).: ha"'1h'i21 "(;!~ / <'9~ ~'x_' .,^ ......1 -, ),,' l - r:29f' -; I>c.r-- / 'I n, IIlj / , (I JI (Q~1f'Gf JL ,,,lJ /1, 1\ (f;?1 \ "I ( /\ .'" \ ~l '- L)'-.- "-./\ ct~vU 7'1t ~~<.,. C4iCv "- HeC';.:u...d~ C f . ~(E' tl . I, (" ~../ (Yl & ,{veC ) . , / y""......,.r .s' :J 9 f ~ !/y:,23 .'-'11 ,/ ! ,'\. ,'c ,) nile V,i',;,' t:." .[ \:J\(e~-? ~\{.t.:~zh;o,,,-{ 73 'ifl(y~) .fi S' '{'('. I~ I, r1 k li.,-,_ . ~ \u,J\,~ ~T~ . . , r PA /} .:',7 i It,,- IV.' )(~ W I fl~ .iQ~-Is(lj) ~\(e~) NN-ti:lhtfk ;N, r.' , , ':I. , . . . . . "We the undersigned, hereby restaurant on Rte. 25 in Mattituck. protest the construction of a McDonald's As residents of the community that would be directly effected, we cite that this business would : 1. increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. 1<ith a drive-thru I it will also increase air-pollution. 3. having no acceptable plan for refuse removal produces a sizea~le amount of non-recyclable trash just as our local landfill prepares to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a result of it being located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its very appearance. We therefore feel the construction of the McDonalds is ill-advised and unnecessary. NAME _ tf. ku>C,7 )) J.i; /' I ii;, '-]/ "--7/ ' fLA,clivl. tdcu.u..k./"c" '.. / /1.( J > "- /--V,l/,1 ""'/t I L.:7...1 l.~t; ! r] j II :) nUL ';,y~\\ ",J, Y \ 1 f\;\I, /1:) 'd', u: \Jv'>\\,\ " , \ ,;;:A /' /- ...-/~<~" - 'l~ /~~~ ) In (1.) e f ~~d (TlI~() ~ESS _ PHONE "# -) , C' L ,/ ..-7 j - _ , ), o (::J I () J ))\_1 1tJ-<' v!( "'0--"-- ~ / ' ..;:. l ---7 ~ () D. y ~)j.:) 'fi I. :~) ..;(, . 1"8t S'; i'f- ,2(-xCJ fiJ---f Sf=fVtll'!ifcd /, 'I "\ ~ ~}J tl) 1;j'kf)Jl& l~t't. 'i\VJ(,' I' /S-..zs ~ 16.. ~ ~ IS'")-rtitk ~.~ J d ~ hi, P rJe~c.. vt -)c. IfA/V'. I \n~ ~(l) L .:;;7':), ,YS7Y" \ -; \( "\,C,c; --It: 'f", I "" J J.. -{2 "} .j' I' (j I oI9cf"-So3.:2.- ~F~~U 3 Y i1-0J.L I 731/ - 7(P ~ 7 t[ / ! / ) , ffJJ2/' ;1)jJ[(/,./ , Snlrf.baJd N V ) T . . We the undersigned, hereby protest the construction of a McDonald's restaurant on Rte. 25 in Mattituclc. As residents of the community that would be directly effected, we cite that this business would : ,1. increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. with a drive-thru, it will also increase air-pollution. '3. having no acceptable plan for refuse removal produces a sizeable amount of non-recyclable trash just as our local landfill prepares to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a result of it being located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its very appearance. We therefore feel the construction of the McDonalds is ill-advised and unnecessary. NAME 4:;1p ~ I '- j IL-CA/.7n ()l. iJ {~~. (~r Yi,,~ I;puJ 'd r->v~,-- (~M{~ ~/5h~Y)e ~ ----- tfL/:u;~~~ ~ ~d'~-d .Jr\~~JJ.- LL~~a~~ , h c~ /-1 q,k~""----\t: ":Y:::OiLI.QJ-c , f Ji" .. /(~-7-'~ / J, (i ((j . ,[7 / 'u;, 1/\ 7: << -v1?tfl I" ~t~1<Z-' t3cLmiL-JC q:J (I.J j1W'zr' - ADDRESS 4~~ ~7puL 7 ~7 uJ !77d0:;7 . , 4(/~~<-z-,/~ ~o ~ '\-<O'P C"" \U~-vu': !JOCk ::1as( fie; rh"y<.JC 7~.v ~r-~/~ &'7 A'hA/ fi;Jo6 CJ /( Jl ,'tfvt r Itc{~d' ! "57P4tJL el fo j}jPI/Tue-1( ( / {;"l.y i:c.b' / ,1of\, "j ~ ' 1!'~7 I ( I ( I{. II 1\ fl~~<.~~t~ /v--o 1C~~v ~--:a:~/ ~G~~\~ ~\.V1~ (,;,dO /N<-, ut., WOCyj"X ~, ? 7r({u;tJcL~ ) (\6 vu) PHONE #0 (;;7'; - SC.;;,/ It,j"~ 3</&9 "- ~ o~Gv~ Phone 0?~B-5450 \'JO ~ ci:r'O.(OS~'N -rrrm-I& i~ " tl" NCL/77p rJ...rj(J~.S<::;' . I~N t1f\ f-r- t:t>.f):)x20t.t f'vIAI(-illJCK, NY I 11~\ .. . ._. __6 . ,s~,~ l> AtJt. f2: v-e,.--'~ cR I ( 9'0 I ' \ rv-.. ~e v-"~ ~~ ') Db ()",-vv-JIo' Par+- }J.<;. I \ctJQ.. j;;;::'- (}J r (). ~'( / <;"0 [> IVtJ/; f.-d N Y J / H- "L- ~ .po, h /5"/5 /?/rI, p1( /1<19- 'ti'G -1~'l. (3?(). fBtYX '-If-{, /~) 1)/. 11/5y' IJu. OfirV/~ R.{) ~-rho{O ;"1'(/1971 <)715 ole. J1Le LA, MA'M"','7/..J.'':./<.. )J.y, 1I"t5":J-- / sad- ~ IJ;) ftulJ, /V11 /Io/~L 213'" /Ie. /;2. tbS- 3)15 <Z1t'O(Z-?- Mi~ .f/1~ ~ 765"' Uf'Clc:rt~ Pt1Y1S 41t-q66f- Q~&"Q -I-[,{R.EQ. l'~ ~~ l?-~ - ! p , ' If , II I ' ',>of' U!.fJ Y~J ~ /S~/V11/1~J LG:;~f'.eLL,'4f <;;t. ~Nt'!),e( IJY/19cty 1<.). Ba '/-. 'f4cr"l ~ fV)9=/4-k K ~. . rYj c;J-<t. i-u cK l. 't' . }V ~j~lIJ1; (!; NY ~;~:r:<~~ ~~- fltJ tIY)I / 4t~ P,.w.jykk J Po ~ 6"2.ea. ~ N Lf IPN~ ZQt,21lO IJ..{~~ By.. [{.,[r., ~AI\ ~lVc-K. I D'j ~ \J tr/1-dfJ.J7 ~ ~ dW l3t'oJ M, CceP--t0Jf-, lJ,Y. /(77- Z801 N~~I 5101101 ~-f Clkv..~ jJl! (fiff 731-5014 J-CVlV"\\~/V1<:5~Vl-e-. Fe foy 10240 C~l+O+oqLfc- /4ro -s-the\BS'~~, flIQ.*:~<l (Q ~-'c-__, "",,,,,L ,,,'\. ~'d~ '(IjJ J.~g ~11~ . k~ ~S7o ~ ~&. >19~ . ~J-- ~."o 1f:r rA..:4 ~'I' ~~./r'Jj 7Jt~ /lr'y. . }l~~~~_~g~~7? f$ ~'-IR~< _#{~~/l 'I J-Cd; ~{I{- 16J:!; :JtJr~/?7 ?9~ q, '$ 'f '7tJYO ? ~c.-{ - 'tr:-0 ::?1~-:J79'o "" fJ~ -. ~ < . !-01f<{ ~ ~ I5g!L-6.~ 4v-f/ Er.A1~/jJ'1 /1 .~~ '/ I( ~ d}eu~ )-e~~;~ ~ Atve( 7l#-7'11~~ ff.:Js ~~'-;;;b//Y, /J?A7'5;'~ ~h~ eV] 1/6 ~;C/~/)(:c f1ctMtvc Ie . 2q98~'(0'~~j. (( ?o.8~ fUr.lJ;~ ~YY(l9E2 -I l ( e-t ~53f) 'a'AM ?t !t<Pr2- .\ ~~~B lA tl~QQ u ~ rcP~<ib ~ JlC\.5;L, 1MdUtd -uv.~ ~. /715 ~~~ ~ A"Io-'01~1 \I~/ N G ~lNIS polio)'. ~?y !1A.P,;-r",ucVC)'J';(. /19S-L a.~~-'170~ Ed fI."'JlvS Jr 63,,- t.-vptol\\; Mc<1l-:t,-,,-~ NY /lSt;'.l 7 ~ '5 -i'ft-( J.. J"CV1<e. oPf€- r po . f$<Ji- (27" 5MUr(J Nr Ii or 7 / 7(,,~ ~Y.. '-P"~:J!~ O! <2J$.Ff.1 L7 t. .b~~.~, fir IIi 7( U. ,~~ .. (8?:;:-;::/?XIG).w. M.d:H-fue!.( v.w t~)Z ;).q(-~u3G1 0'Yle(/~cl"- UI'~o.J!.i 1280 SoWN;/. J/tJ-e V/l.o.:itdQcl _. 2]9"1S08V~ #/~ 2..b8C! ~;/dl f)., //I~ ~76-1S1--J ~~ /rl~ ~ ~kA lJ1Iz;r~:/v JiHj;ll JYilire ()cdu fly",-,^= LClJ.U'€1,IN llQl1C p~ 1f))~"~~.. ~~/l'7rP '1-u,tt;'OD3( ~ C<. ~ /oqS- ~61-er c::uu Sou.#x::;Id. /1 'l'1-1 ~ff-lf ~'1"L dl.v!ryl t?.A~6hy (~ hcdU~k ~06~413G hOJl.Q1\..Q SpecK- f4:00\lC 13;}yf3lvc/ m~thh.{U<; 13/--/-63).1- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~..J/b3J!;l'o' L . . .. -' ~ ~ / ( ftffIg r::;;,ftftx . ~ .:291f.3(8 /?(~ J 0265- ff~~~~2~ ~hr:=~~~~JC ~~:;<>Q :~ Q "'~~~~~E:~f~~Jc(~ . . We the undersigned, hereby restaurant on Rte. 25 in Mattituck. protest the construction of a McDonald's As residents of the community that would be directly effected, we cite that this business would : 1, increase traffic on a road ill-equipped to handle the present traffic. 2. "ith a drive-thru, it will also increase air-pollution. 3. having no ucceptable plan for refuse removal produces a siz"a,:)le amount of non-recyclable trash just as our local landfill prepares to close. 4. further increase the possibility of traffic accidents as a result of it being located close to a highly populated resdential area. 5. depress the value of neighboring real estate because of its VE.ry appearance. We therefore feel the construction of the McDonalds is ill-advised and unnecessary. NJ\HE --- J\DJ}RESS _ JC;f//;"- f.~ ",r-: /, C' ' I ~l {?ciw.l / ,/, ( /'if.J!i>l/ ( . i>L( , ;9 n /.~M'J;J--0 Au ><' /J "?If H-~ (/;'~ ;!a{Ck) her , .c" ~ ;/ ,- " , /..h. '7 hlc)/_{~',,' t/rJ! I!ld~~ /?/ti/rr tclditJ I () f; ~xf, . ('..~-7f;""--<~"-'A<' ~ u,. _ .? " ....J "__/'j I , , .. r- ( ,I I , f 1Lt"L!-L (/ . ./ j') ;7/. '. Ii ) i Ie ~~.,.,~ '/// '" .'./ I ' \:7/Ll..'ULJ a " Ii , )'-.-); , - /1""/ /_.c. " /0 j,.' 77/4i1cl1( c/L (j L ._ tN') iCt ((\lfe, ,C I Ii ~/I'l.f ,,~ ~/Y/;frt I k;4{~ JI~()!~~ J /'/, /; I /'/7.-7 / L C:'V t 2, / ~/ u:r..C( . / I t.""<1 / tLll ('A(iit. lc\ '. -;{l: t/ , / ,rf2, ,'n.' ~ b~'? .t?:::,c:.{ /"!:t / J , I " ( if} / I,?, (:! / / '. /, Jr ~.... . /v\.. .~ --r.. ~ ./c.{ " ,', ..c.. r .< c. /'1 /) . / - ,) tttz.:--t:r <"/:1 iZ..__/ V11/~- !JI/9f(qfrv~ il? fJ1<t-f/1+uc);; _f'.~1L ') "'<:).. <(:I ""c-- , I CJ . 0 .> .;#!f{ -1, /1 (J (LJ) ;2. ~j J _'y 2; (f ({ ,,'(. /' :;/ :5 c' L"... 2- Cl r [;-..?-; / /!fJ1/i ;:.: f -?"/ Yt-" JJS -j~~{1 (, 'yC\'-:,1 i I /:J j' . I') ') / ..' '.j /j.')i'; -<I, _.~ 1- '- ,/L' "I"".f r''':l n,/ /q- '"'' //> '/1 / . /' ~/ ' // , ~ i.,/lf' / f ,\ //5/ ~) "f r' - (~/c'J.5 ~/,. (l'1t S5:f h ~'I (0":/ ---- ,'I) (~_h~~Q~ ~", ~~- . ):({~'2U Ljr2ec vv ~ 35~ )~'d~ {~~ J'I'\"" '1'11 r- r (---" //"a1Z7J i.{ C/'Cb, Jtw ' /0ft1 7 ~7 7 -j-') ',^ ~ / ~/ ~,( Uu{/ fLCc;(!"lUe,"'. (:.c "., / O 3iLth)O, lJl-,-t [1/, '. /- c;Z '1 J -1 (, 'l c ;p. -; ~,(J-f<' C/L/ ."! i/VL. . ~ ' 1<Q f Gv r r I t vG' noo Gro. J)~ /1J.-tf: j) ~~<< aJ~'A y;IdI c2LP'7bC? ~ :;Ill ~:/b ( ~ ?:??f'-- /fP07 .. /Ji/S---;-- ~~ /" 16f"'W Is .....-... WIC,(dl1"1__ ../. n;,e/?lj ..... ..... ~ . -_: York State Department of Environmental Conservation Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233 October 23, 1991 Thomas C. Jorllng Commissioner 11971 ern "1'''l\'' " ,:, "'~l :,;A:9U '- v 1,,:,-..1 i~;'i'lI~r.UW~ i.!:I ,::; LS Dear Mr. Goehringer: ii. SOU1llOlD roWN ~, filANNll!ClJIOARD commissioner Jorling has asked me to respond to your letter dated October 3, 1991 regarding the conduct of the environmental review under the state Environmental Quality Review (SEQR) process for the pending application of the McDonald's Corporation ~for the construction of a restaurant in the Town of Southold, Suffolk County. ~~ In your letter you have requested that the Department of '1 Environmental Conservation (DEC) intercede in a dispute between - the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Appeals in the Town of Southold. Please be aware that the DEC does not possess the statutory authority to require other agencies to comply with "\, - SEQR, nor does DEC possess the authority to override the actions ~ of other agencies in their administration of SEQR. However, the Department does, on request offer informal guidance on the proper . llse of SEQR. This response to your letter should be considered ~ as such informal guidance. Subdivision 6 NYCRR 617.6(i) states that at any time prior to issuing its decision, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it determines that a significant environmental -' effect may result from a project modification or that there ~~ exists a change of circumstance which was not previollsly ~ addressed. A conditioned negative declaration (CND) being a type ~::n::;;;:;:~;::;;;::;;;~~;~;;b;;;;~;~:;;:~;;;;;;;;:~~:~i~:o~~e CND to be rescinded. The lead agency must determine if the results of the original analysis regarding solid waste will be affected by the new information. If the original analysis is no longer valid the CND must be rescinded. If following review of the new information the lead agency determines that the original assessment is still valid, the CND should not be rescinded. ~ " ~ . '" 2 The Zoning Board of Appeals, as an involved agency, has acted properly in bringing this issue to the lead agency's attention. From the information provided, it appears that the Town of Southold Planning Board has reviewed the new information and made its decision. If you have any questions regarding this letter please call me at (518) 457-2224. ~inc ely, . cu/tA. ?t~~ - Ja A. Nasca sociate Environmental Analyst cc: B. orlowski, Jr. R. Greene J. Stallmer c. Lockrow , . PAGE 7 ENB-FEBRUARY 20,199, PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FINAL GENERIC EIS REGjO~~ 1-7he TeN.1n or Shelter i$lanct os lead ogency, has comoiefed a tinal genenc E1S Oi^: the propOSed !own of Sheitt2l'r island Final Solid Waste Manogement Plan. The action involves the development of a TO'Nnwice comprehensive solid \Vaste moncgemenr pian iha1 will provIde for the reductIon, recyclIng, processing, ond disj?Osal of m~nrcrpol SOlid woste generated within the Town of S~elter Island, Suffolk Counly CONTACT: Jetti8l R. Simes. Super.il50r. Town HOll. 44 North Ferry, Shetter IsIC:T(j, NY 11964. (516) 740.0015 DRAFT EIS REGiOi\J 1- The Town of Babyicn Town Board. os lead aQ~ncy. hos accopted 0 draft EIS on the proposGd C"mmerclol R,,~ldontlal Recycling foci Illy Site, The action involves tflQ: ccnSlruction and operation of a Commercial/Residential Recycling Facility crt a 14.7 acre ~ije The loclbly would provide sorting, processing, storage and marketlng $EHV,Ces for 011 commerc:~l ,"vasfo {i~cluding non-hazardous indl.istriol and commercial waste; Of'ld SO\Jfce-seporoted household recyclable materlals, The project is iocded in the north we$! portion of the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County, CON1ACT: ;\rtr,vr G Pitts, Town SUP=fvisOL Town of Babylon TCwn Board, Bobl,'!on Town Hall, 200 tOs! Sumisa Highway, LrndeMursl, NY 11757, (516) 957.3072 ' CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGION 1-The Soulr,old Town Pianr.lnQ Board, os lead oQancy, has determined thaI tf1e proposea'51tc plan tor McDonald's Corporation will not have a significant environmental Impact provIded s~cilic conditions ..:Jra met. A 30~day public comment period commances with this notice, The aCllan invol',es a proposed restaurant on 2,98 acres for McDonald's Corporation The project IS localed on the south side of Main Road, east of Bray Avenue, MatflfuCk, Suffolk County, The conditions iflVoi\le Installation of rooowoy modifications to Stafe {<oute 25 to ensure that fraft:c sarety I;; riot compromIsed, and tt'lal rQ<:)d capocity does not faU belOW 1990 sorvice levels, CONTACT. RODen G. KC5.sner. P!t:mrllllg Beard, rO....r'1 Hail 53095 Main r<OOCL PO Box 1179. SOult'lOld, NY 11971, (510) 765,1935, t,* TOTAL F'H-I':;E. Ou2 ** . ~ . f,<<' <? ~ ~) /7/>~ livv--xd- oIe.- o..jI pfVhho()s stCfJned b~ Citizens OPp:r:>l(l:J me OfLI\lrl3 d /li~Oo(lQkr'S on (20u..re-, a ~ In (\{ctl--h tuck. We... \t\M\o bear Nr. ~on.e..hdr) leu"-0 (0(' c..O\~~ e. OJ'Lct C-OlltJ (lO+ c...or-.-h (\ uc...- +~\L--S ~\~hl w~ %liilL '-lou Clr~ Clf\ t(\{.2-lL.{er\t-icd 'f.Q.( "S,O<\ ~ '^' ~ \ \ do Q\ \, ,\D\A COJ'\ -\0 s-\o f {vlc b 0 I'\ct ld '<;) . ?le.Q'S~ aJ.cl +M"Je... \?~ti;ho0S +0 'jc\_d t>V'l{\ -t- _ i~(\UL -to ~r()tesf. WiL Ofpre...ClcJ-e... '-{our \.JJ(){l 4- 100f~ '-\ () '-l. Q.;[ cL S u.cc e ':>5" ~L < -*-* ~ ~ U(r<3~(\+L~ (e.~u.e"'::>t Q(\ L(\\J(foY\r\LtnAal .1 \Y\..fO--<:..J S+\Ad.~1 ~ ~ b<::... CDf\clLtC.h~.d. T-+ r'10 Of\...-L mo.L.es ~ {QcyU.~sJ -R:x- fuls. S+w:!~1 ,it need 1'10+ be..,. 'Per -(?D{\')'uLol. bfl":)+ w;Jhp"'). PI Q~~-0 don'-+- Sl 'J-e... vp b , :22 ~,o,.,......"" , . . , -,"" ~ j; .,.,~... ~q~o. o~ Itt<~<'< ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE BULLETIN (USPS 371,670) published weekly by the NYS Department Of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road, Albany, NY 12233,4500 $12 annually, Second-class postage paid at Albany, NY POSTMASTER: Send address changes to DEC. 50 Wolf Road, Albany. NY 12233-4500. Roam 509 rn fl/k f)cN A-L"D'~ ~ (.~ PU4:.,J FI (... G '"Do ('30( ~..MD \Ie FEBRUARY 20, 1991 ISSUE No.8 . Second Class Postage Paid at Albany. New York II 00 111'5_ PAGE 7 ENB-FEBRUARY 20, 1991 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FINAL GENERIC EIS DRAFT EIS REGION 1~The Town at Shelter Island, as lead agency, has completed a tinal generic EIS on the proposed Town of Shelter Island Final Solid Waste Management Plan. The action involves the development of a Townwide comprehensive solid waste management plan that will provide tor the reduction, recycling, processing, and disposal at municipal solid waste generated within the Town ot Shelter Island, Suffolk County. CONTACT: Jeffrey R. Simes, Supervisor, Town Hall, 44 North Ferry, Shelter Island, NY 11964, (516) 749-0015. REGION 1- The Town at Babylon Town Board, as lead agency, has accepted a draff EIS on the proposed Commercial Residential Recycling Facility Site. The action involves the construction and operation ot a Commercial/Residential Recycling Facility at a 14.7 acre site. The facility wouid provide sorting, processing, storage and marketing services tor all commerciai waste (including non-hazardous Industrial and commercial waste) and source-separated household recyclable materials. The project is located in the northwest portion of the Town of Babylon, Suffolk County. CONTACT: Arthur G. Pifts, Town Supervisor, Town ot Babyion Town Board, Babylon Town Hall. 200 East Sunrise Highway, Lindenhurst, NY 11757, (516) 957-3072. CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~.. ~ REGION 1- The Southold Town Planning Board, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed site plan for McDonald's Corporation will not have a slgniticant environmental impact provided specitic conditions are met. A 30-day public comment periOd commences with this notice. The action invoives a proposed restaurant on 2.98 acres for McDonald's Corporation. The project is located on the south side at Main Road, east of Bray Avenue, Maftltuck, Suffolk County. The conditions involve: installation at raodway modifications to State Route 25 to ensure that traffic safety is not compromised, and that road capacity does not tall below 1990 service levels. CONTACT: Robert G. Kassner, Planning Board, Town Hall. 53095 Main Road, PO Box 1179, Southold, NY 11971, (516) 765-1938. ~ . SIN?) ~I [fc- r'6 I!.t:. - P/I August 2, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman - Planning Board Southold Town Hall Southold,IH 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I would like to join the chorus of fellow town residents who wish you to reconsider the application of McDonald's and their suitability to our fragile North Fork environment. Clearly the recently revealed garbage statistics give us cause to look into the future and imagine what life will get to be like with first one, then another, then more fast food/drive thru operations. Mr. Orlowski, please assume a role of responsibility for the future---on behalf of myself and all of us who refuse to accept the idea that the next generation must inherit a radically altered environment here on the North Fork. We can make a decent living and maintain our quality of life too! As the US/UK Stewardship Exchange pointed out, it's being done in other places where people like you have assumed visionary roles. Thank you very much. tr~1(j7 ci Cr.u.. Ie:. 7 sep A. McKay .0. Box 254 'New Suffol k, 11956 RoberF-> T. Long Tublisher 445 Glen Court @utchogue, NY I I935 SUeFHE ,06 ~t -FYI ~e.O">~~:Q;~'q,.q-..Q" HDMECJROWN-AN laWA MEMOIR THE aLD FORD CDLORING .ODK waaD TYPE & "RINTING CDLLIECTIBLES CANDEINg THE PECDNIC RIVER CANOEING THE CARMAN. RIVER August 6, 1991 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Southold, NY 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: I want to add my voice to the many urging the Planning Board to reconsider its determination regardina the MCDonald'ssaDDlic~tion. TnlS IS ln regara Eo ~QRA flle number NI-473800- 00810. The section of SEQRA that allows for this reconsideration is Section 617.6 (i). Let's keep control of the town the way we want it to be, instead of caving in to the big-money corporation lawyers. Thanks for your good work. - 8 '. . 5u!6PIU; Pll -' 590 Soundview Avenue ~Ic - ("// Mattituck, N.Y. 11952 August 6,1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Planning Board Town of Southold Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 Jr. Dear Mr. Orlowski; Reference: SEQUA Determination File Number NI-473800-00810 I wish to support the recent proposal of the ZBA to the Planning Board to reconsider and reopen the SEQUA Conditional Negative Declaration in the fOllowing areas, which are new under the SEQUA reviews, and to obtain further stud- ies and provide the applicant with opportunities to submit the same and provide possible mitigation measures. The section of SEQUA that would allow for this reconsideration is SECTION 617.6(i). The ZBA has made the statement that a McDonald's franchise in Mattituck would produce more garbage than the town can handle, and needless to say we are all aware of the solid waste problem and the associated costs confronting Southold. Your consideration of,this proposal will be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, l L--t-'-,..-v~ .......-'l ~,'-'-'.-'.. "-, Anne Cremers -. ;B t ~;;OLl( tl (4".\)~<:<: ~ ~ => :..: Q . U> '"" ..., ~ "C:>. ~ \;, ~ ~~'/;! ~~ '0./ + 't-~;iY <'o--e'ZzyJP# BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . Su.zlJF IU /6 i/S tf.k~h Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, J r. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 TO: Planning Board -' ----~:-- - / Board of APpeals5<.:::::'I:'2~:.::?-.:: FROM: DATE: August 6, 1991 SUBJECT: McDonald's Solid Waste Problem Based on our past discussions, we are incorporating the following additional information you requested concerning the waste generation for the proposed McDonald's in Mattituck in order to further emphasize the need for studying this particular process and update under SEQRA. At the March 8, 1991 hearing, the question was asked of McDonald's as to how much solid waste would be generated. The question was answered by the consultant Mr. Randy Bock, that the amount of solid waste generated should be about the same as that produced in their Riverhead stores. In each of the Riverhead stores, Mr. Bock stated, they fill three 30-yard compactors per month. Figuring compacted garbage at about 700 lbs. per cubic yard, each compactor load equals 21,000 lbs. Three compactors then equals 63,000 lbs per month, or 31.5 tons per month, or about one ton per day. Mr. Walter Dunn - McDonald's traffic engineer- stated that the Riverhead units average 1,300 vehicle trips per day and that 40% use the drive-thru window. This 40%, or 520 vehicles, would generate a like volume of solid waste per vehicle or another 1332 lbs. per day. The total solid waste to be generated at the Mattituck site is estimated to be about 3332 lbs. per day or 1-2/3 tons per day. GG: lk \ , ~ r 5lA tJldE fo ,<!/__ - (::: Y I T8-Tfr 2C'Jt~.; Yf?I~ ~ :..",,,,,.,, ,.u.. . ".., ij,J.fr ) ~ul:~-ed~ Id~ ,-J:-u-v? ~ /vzU-~/ ~ II C{7f , . J,..;.i: S~c.-I( fA .JJ.e ,~. IJ 1-1-1']3 500- o07{ cf '5f:QI<;4 "'J~.4 (i) ?---d~' . 1- ~ /t--t- Ii. xtJU/~ ~ , fh.~ ~..-daZ;;'-": ~ '~~~-L~.j~ 4 r ~ t;; cl~ 1-u<U/"; ~ ~ 1~ ~-/ ~ef~d S:Z;~elt f /'Y'A:.eA...v CL</ .Aar~ ksL. g M ...L(J ~~t b- d..J a reA-oJ4 r-e~ ~<{. ~ .e..~ ~~ ~ d---~r ~~-<~ ~- ~<_: f 7~ ~~. ~ ~:7 /ltJ,7 Katherine IJascelle Box 1012 Maltiluck. NY 11952 ". ~- ! ( ( SudFILr;-' /-18 1\,'<.- r,' August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold D'3ar Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 1:22-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly 'undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, -to prepare or rE)quest an environmental impact statement." 617.1. Thank You, p;~. ,t' ,M/ ?? -1 , . 5ue:,fi/...E PI? ~ fr- ~YI " .,. . . 2 August 1991 East Marion, N.Y. Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold Southold Town Hall Main Road, Southold lef: SEQRA det. file # N I - 473800 00810 section 617.6 (i) Dear Mr. Orlowski: Just one year ago, residents of Southold Town learned of the plan to build a McDonald's restaurant on route 25 in Mattituck. ihe project quickly became big news because of the many protests against the very idea of a fast-food establishment on this struggling-to-remain-pristine North Fork (after the first Mac's more would surely follow in different guises...). Supervisor Harris, though basically opposed, apparently felt the deal was unstoppable and reluctantly passed it on to the Planning Board, to work out the details of making the structure attractive and compatible with the local "look". Inexplicably, the Planning Board, after several go-rounds, found "no significant environmental impact" was involved, no SEQRA study necessary. Fortunately, there was still the ZBA to be dealt with on the one remaining obstacle--a special exception needed to allow the drive-through service, a must as far as the applicants were concerned. Two very lively public hearings ensued, several months apart, to overflowing crowds, many articulate and passionate statements by residents, deploring what was about to happen. The McDonalds team was constantly on the defensive. One lone voice was heard in favor, an elderly gentleman who travels thousands of miles each year and who looks for his big Macs at the end of each day. Someone pointed out that those could always be had at one of the two McDonalds in Riverhead, or anywhere just a little west or south of here. Here in Southold Town, we have a serious garbage problem. A landfill now illegal; we face huge fines for continuing its operation. McDonalds makes tons of garbage. With a drive-thru, packaging leaves their premises often in the form of litter, is then collected, arriving finally at the landfill. If and when the latter must be closed, this stuff joins the truckloads of detritus destined for other means of disposal, all at a huge cost to us. Fast-food packaging--even when served on premises-- is not clean and therefore not recyclable. This very obvious truth--a strong factor in the arguments put forth by the North Fork Envi ronmental Counc il, other c it i zen groups and the many individual residents who have opposed this project--is now cited by the ZBA as the prime reason to re-examine McDonalds' application. . , '>-- . - 2 - There are other reasons as well. The recent visit by an international group of planners (U.S. and U.K.) and their perceptive evaluation of our very tenuous ecological and economic situation, comes to mind. The group drew particular attention to the conflict between the stated goals of our Master Plan and '"p reality of our current sloppiness in zoning and in the prevailing attitudes of some of our town officials. The Town's future depends largely on its principal "product": its attractiveness to tourists and vacationers. The latter, in turn, depends on how we handle our abundant natural resources. Preservation of open space and clean up of our bays and water~ays are essential. Every strip development will have a way of expanding. Each time a zoning ordinance is stretched it makes way for further degradation. The idea that increased development "spreads" the tax base is pure myth. More development means higher taxes. It has been pointed out that the $1800 or so that a McDona1ds would be assessed yearly would not even cover the handling of its garbage by the Town, much less add to the coffers. It is hoped that this time around, the Planning Board--keeping in mind the history and special character of this area and its ecological fragi1ity--wi11 insist on a complete, in depth environmental impact study on this project. Sincerely, / ( /1 \ c/ / , ,_[t-I-C- _ /./, ....'-'""P...JL ~L({ Jane Gohore1 , East Marion " . %.~.q\ ". N\tZ- ~.. >tMci~8c\qQ~lA, C~c~.V\A. Y:l >-, : ~UU-~C= 'S?I ~~~~ 20~l'~~ . <Scr~t. "( ,-,'X ~~~ C~cH~ . SUI!:FILl:T fJ/8 ;</c Mil t::4.~ <: ~e.. <9 ."t~.sk,~... ,\2Z ; ~ ~Q Rf-\ ~" "l"'!: '-l'1~ ~00 -00 ~ I 0 ~LLG~~?<' L~ G:?l":1.0(u\ ~\t,~o0Al4LC ~~,('\~'V'\~@'c,~,,~GJ\ ) .. ~" ~'-'o n<;O~"1'~ '. s.;~="'. ...(Q~ c ,c.. c/. t l.).)c'V.t-\~ C:N2-CL~ ~ ). ''J ~' L,,1" ,--1;~,~ -4t<- ~f)LDS. ) ~Jyvr~ ,~ UM\iMWl'''*1 ::.rf2~O ZO,^'1 ., ~S~J~~ 7QJI::~J7~~~L H o LqW=r' .<:D G\l~L->Vl~ a~\ ~~~ RQ O\I('<l'<-U(l~ ~~ L ~ . . :5tc-6F/~ 1'6 "I 1\(,- FYI August 2, 1991 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Dear Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman and Members, With regard to the McDonald's Restaurant, SCTM#lOOO- 122-7-3-1. Please reopen McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the State Environmental Quality Review Act process. Clearly the McDonald's project will have many impacts to our Town. As you are undoubtedly aware, the purposes of the State Environmental Quality Review Act is to "incorporate the consideration of environmental factors into the planning, review and decision-making processes of... Local government agencies at the earliest possible time. To accomplish this goal, SEQRA requires that all agencies determine whether the actions they will directly undertake" fund or approve may have a significant effect on the environment and if it is determined the action may have a significant effect, to prepare or request an environmental impact statement." 617.1. Thank You, ~lfjLlr~ [,I - 6 &//2/ q I I () (~I}u~ t) l.liid:uJA T ~ T~ IU{ S;~ / /vy //9 "1 ! c? ' PHILIP R. MARRINER , I!AiMl BOX 449 :j.~ILORS NEEDLE RD. /li 'MTTITUCK, N.Y. 119~4 . - f:;t/.tU/.. ~'U~U ~ d.l:th-fr11P~fit, A,c /rJa?uJi,' -8W~~ ' 11 , . (~~n.- ~r- ~ ~J::?FIW ;/0 /t.t - rif/ ~"Z-C0 / " j J'i' &. Ju.c, v...d.J.,,;z;d~ Z.lt.J Uaill5 /l-. ,.~/ -tLi.h.L, rJ l;'~./u ~ :ztJ S;::-P/l#- A/.zu.u...- . ,j IjJ74f~j/ij du~ r..!~ ~2Zd .~;;~ dt./i;;::;'?{ F/ldj~ /I1t~~. 10 JEo;~#- -, f-'/ / j \L '~/J~ (fu/u/..I ,("IJ--aJ/'r..."!, t.u...r (j)UAi ;CCU{..,<-Ut-- ~/{ &~ tU<.,f'L , I, /, / .I v ~ . 10..14."1 ...i1vv ~n4 d. hit ~IL: ~4i r'.)~.JA2i lvv' /r~~2..1- 4uJ~ C:lAul ':~> ""} r- /1. IJ../UUJ...<.L.udijzi.tf hi tt.; (~~ ' - 6 I 4 / -~ )~k rJ.~ r ~~.u.dq.V V Il;;~j ((:l:Z<<I?/Udl~/ (-~_--~ '0 ~~ c;;:-~ ~ ./ )u~"'.v~) \~. ? , , I' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 I , , ....J:,_ I ) :- SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor "--'- Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 S4.eF/U: /6 R/L Fyi \ \ , BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 31, 1991 Mr. Henry Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 Re: Application of McDonald's Corporation Dear Mr. Raynor: As an update since our discussions Monday and previoUSly, the Planning Board has been in the process of addressing concerns of our April 10, 1991 memorandum, and described in more detail in our July 22, 1991 memorandum (more details were suggested, in writing, by Planning Board members). In reviewing town records, there appears to be little, if any, documentation from McDonald's Corporation or its experts concerning solid waste generation, disposal and any proposals to mitigate the tonnage of garbage. During the hearings, several questions were raised on this subject. Although we have extracted statements from the hearing record made by the applicant and its representatives, there appear to be inconsistencies in several answers to the questions. Also, in reviewing the SEQRA record, very little, if anything, was offered by the applicant concerning this subject. Thus, no written documentation has been offered by McDonald's Corporation on this subject. Therefore, we are requesting information, in writing, addressing the areas pf solid waste generation, disposal, recycling, etc. and efforts planned by McDonald's Corporation for this particular project which may include mitigating possible impacts This will help to answer questions raised during the hearing process. Please furnish the above as early as possible in order to complete the file. The information requested will help . . MORTH FORK EMVIROMWEMTAL COUMCIL Route 25 at Love Lane, PO Box 799, Mattituck, NY 11952 516-298-8880 PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN BENNETT ORLOWSKI, JR. a non-profit organization for the preservation of land. sea, air and quality of life printed on 100% recycled paper . . OBJECTIVES!INTENT The objectives of this report are to summarize in written form primary objections and concerns to the MacDonald's Corporation application! File # NI-473800-00810. Actions to remediate these objections will also be suggested. Since part of the remedial actions can be carried out by the Southold Town Planning Board, the designated lead agency in this inquiry. this report will be submitted to them as well as to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. It is sincerely intended that these observations and remarks will be viewed as productive and helpful to those who are charged with the duties of deciding both the long and short range future of Southold Town. . . 1. Regarding the precedent setting nature of the application: Attached is a copy of part of the LEAF as required by SEQRA. Note that the response to question 1/48 is negative "No". The question asks if "The proposed action will affect the character of the existing community?". It is obvious from the public attention to this matter that, as far as participating Southald residents are concerned, the answer to this question is "Yes". In fact, the listings below the question 1118 offer the example below: * Proposed action will set an important precedent for future projects. There follows to the right of this entry categories by which an evaluation to this statment can be made. By answering "No" to the main question none of the following examples need apply. Such is not the case as was demonstrated and raised as a major issue time and again at the public hearings, public rallies and in the press. In that there presently exists in the Town of Southold no fast-food restaurant connected to a major chain such as MacDonald's (where a customer can eat in or take out the food) the construction of such a fast food restaurant would be precedent setting. Why? No one has ever seen just one restaurant of this sort (except perhaps in Moscow~). A chain of chain drive-in restaurants follows the birth of one. Open the phone book yellow pages - look up MacDonald's. Note the addresses. Look up Burger King _ Note the addresses. Look up Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, Roy Rogers, etc., etc., etc. The potential future of Southold Town is on display as you let your fingers do the walking. The identical address for these operations is obvious and legend. Information demonstrating the concentration of this type of operation as well as the potential for development in Southold Town was provided at the public hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals on AprilS, 1991. To correct this obvious error in response to question #18 a meaningful analysis of the cumulative impacts of the proposed development should be required. . . 2. Regarding public controversy concerning this application: Refer to question #19 on the attached copy of the LEAF. The answer given to the question is 11Yes'I, The question asks if there is public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts. This answer is absolutely on target and the cont~oversy continues. It remains to be resolved on several major topics as far as the public is concerned. These topics include traffic (both present and future), waste disposal, litter, noise, and loitering. The above list is not meant to be exclusive. The controversy referred to in the question needs to be addressed and resolved. The SEQRA process provides for public input and debate. The answer on the form acknowledges the controversy. This point requires a more in-depth investigation. Adverse environmental impacts need to be identified and reversed before proceeding. Public controversy demands resolution. . . 3. Regarding New York State Case Law - Suffolk County 1980-81: Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation v Cohalan 78 AD 2d 522 432 NYS 2d 25 (1980 2d Dept) aff 54 NY 2d 643, 442 NYS 2d, 506, 425 NE 2d 895 The facts of the case are these: The plaintiff, Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation brought an Article 78 action against the defendant, Cohalan (Town of Islip Supervisor at the time). The defendant had denied a special permit to the plaintiff for a fast food restaurant (a MacDonald's). At the lower court the defendant lost the case but decided to appeal. At appeal the judgement was reversed and the defendant won. This judgement has also been affirmed. Below is a direct quotation taken from the memorandum by the Court of Appeals - (54 NY 2d 643 - New York Reports). lIa severe traffic safety problem would be created by the unreasonable amount of turning movements that the facility would generate; the traffic carrying efficiency of the highway which was already one of the town's most congested roadways would be impaired; the facility would be among the most intensive commercial uses in terms of traffic using residential streets, noise, litter and loitering, and consequently would constitute a potential blight on adjacent residences thereby adversely affecting the neighbor's quality of life: the proximity of the restaurant to residences would adversely affect their property values." There are many obvious similarities between this case and the situation on Route 25 in Mattituck. Route 25 is, indeed, one of the town's most congested roadways and its traffic carrying efficiency would be impaired. The proposed use would generate intensive use of residential streets for commercial purposes. Here too there would certainly be noise, litter and loitering resulting in a potential blight on adjacent residences and adversely affecting their quality of life as well as their property values. The proposed fast food restaurant is not compatible with the adjacent residential use. It is clear then that the courts have addressed this very issue in Suffolk County and that the decision has held thereby establishing a legal precedent which can be applied to the situation before you. . . CONCLUSION In conclusion we are asking for a more comprehensive review of key issues mentioned in this report. We also ask that the present process be suspended until these areas of concern have been adequately addressed and resolved. We thank you for your consideration of these remarks and recommendations. Should you wish further clarification of this material please feel free to call us at your convenience. Submit ted by, The North Fork Environmental Council 298-8880 Contact person: Linda Fletcher 323-3563 '. . " . () IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will propos~d action aff~ctth~ character of the existinll communityl 'iIDlo DYES Eumpleo that would apply to column 2 /". . The permanent population of th~ city. town or villalle in which th~ proi~ct is iocat~ is likely to ll'OW by more than 5%. . The municipal budll~t for capital ~x~nditures or opera tin II ~rvic~s will increa~ by more than 5% ~r yur as a r~ult of this proj~ct. . Proposed action will conflict with officially adopt~ plans or Iloals. . Propo~ action will cau~ a chanlle in 1M &nsity of land u~. . Propo~ Action will r~plac~ or eliminate ~xistinll faciliti~s. structur~s or ar~as of historic importanc~ to th~ community. . D~velopment will cr~at~ a demand for additional community services (~.Il. schools. police and fire. ~tc.) . Propos~ Action will set an important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. . Other impacts: 19. Is there. or is there likely to be. public potential adverse environmental impactsl (e 1 2 3 Small to Potentia' Can Impact e. Moderate Large MItigated By Impact Impact Project Chan~ ........ 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 OY~s oNo 0 0 oY~s DNa 0 0 oY~s DNO 0 0 Dy~s DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNO 0 0 DYes DNo controversy related to DNO ~ES c. 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 RtSj>Onsibility of Lud ^eency Put J must be prepar~ if OM or more imp.tct(s) is cons.id~.,.j to be potentially laree, even if th~ impact(s) rruy ~ mille..t~. Instructions Discuss the followinll for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the impact 2. Describe (if applicable) how the impact could be mitillated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project chanlle{ 3. Based on the information available. decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is imporbnt. To answer the question of importance. consider: . The probability of the impact occurrinll . The duration of the impact . Its irreversibility. including permanently lost resources of value . Whether the impact can or will be controlled . The rellional consequence of the impact . Its potential diverience from local needs and goals . Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (Continue on attachments) ,...... ~- . . P.O. Box 727 Cutchogue,N.Y. 11935 July 29, 1991 ,-,i.,l~l !,r Po ((Ie - Pi{! Bennett J. Orlowski Southold Town Planning Board Town Hall Main St. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Enclosed please find a copy of a Letter to the Editor of the Traveler-Watchman dated April 8, 1991 which I wrote and which was subsequently published in the paper. Since writing that letter, I have learned that the Zoning Board of Appeals now estimates the solid waste generated by a McDonald's could be 3332 Ibs. per day! If only 40% of the customers drive through and take their garbage with them that would add approximately half a ton per day to the solid waste that would be removed by patrons of McDonald's and enter into the waste stream for which Southold Town is responsible. The arithmetic is simple...if one is conservative and takes the 180 tons per year and multiplies by $85. per ton ( the estimated cost of solid waste disposal) that means that Southold Town would be assuming a $15,300. cost for disposing of solid waste generated by McDonald's drive-through patrons...not to mention the garbage for which McDonald's would be directly responsible. So instead of subsidizing McDonlad's garbage disposal to the tune of $10,000. as quoted in my Letter to the Editor, the figure is more like $12,500! As I am sure you are aware, the Town is trying to reduce the solid waste stream to 40 tons per day. I urge you as Chairman of the Planning Board to reconsider and reopen the McDonald's negative declaration of environmental impact granted under the SEQRA process. Solid waste generation and disposal have not been properly addressed. Sincerely, ~ )/ f3-.w Bette H. Ross . . Editor The Traveler-Watchman Traveler St. Southold, New York 11971 April 8, 1991 Dear Madam: At the April 5, Zoning Board of Appeals hearing regarding the McDonald's "special exception" application, new testimony was entered by Mr. Barnes, McDonald's real estate expert. Southold Town residents rejoice! McDonald's expects to pay $8938.per year in property taxes on its completed site! Approximately $5383. of that will be school tax. 11.7% or $1045. is Suffolk County's share. That leaves a whopping $2510. per year for the services of Southold Town---fire protection, police protection and refuse disposal. McDonald's estimates that an average of 1300 cars will drive onto the site each day; 40% of these or 520 will use the "drive through" facility. The occupants of those cars will take their polystyrene coffee cups, their cardboard Big Mac containers and their paper napkins with them. That garbage will end up in the Town landfill or beside the road. This by McDonald's own calculations will amount to approximately 12 tons of garbage a month! None of that will be recycled by McDonald's. If the Town can no longer use the landfill, estimated cost for garbage disposal is $85. per ton. The Southold Town taxpayer is being asked to subsidize McDonald's "take out "garbage to the tune of $10,000 per year! Why is there no public outrage? Sincerely, ~.~ Bette H. Ross P.O. Box 727 Cutchogue, New York 11935 734-7592 -. , . . >,-PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS , Gerarc P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 .),' "\lHiJl ,,' >'_ " '~" '1~, :",t ~ a.~ '~\ ,(.,...'t- ~-\\ dJ...:. .~\< ,(15 :*"-~) Ii f./:) ~ f~ !?J ,:') . ~(.1 , . ~~,(~' ;':,~ ~-~~Jj ~fl; . SCOTT L HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 S'uL3rl(j;; 1'6 t/S ./ JfIC. -ry I BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Board of APpeals~~ July 22, 1991 FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: SEQRA - McDonald's Corporation Project at Mattituck Please accept this as a continuation of our April 10, 1991 written request in order to, in writinq, as suggested after conversations between board members within both departments, clarify reasons for urging the Planning Board, as lead agency, to reconsider and re-open the SEQRA Conditional Negative Declaration in the fOllowing areas, which are new under the SEQRA reviews, and to obtain further studies and provide the applicant with opportunities to submit the same and provide possible mitigation measures. It is our understanding that this area is new, having not been previously addressed in this project under SEQRA (Environmental Conservation Law). We are attaching for your convenience a copy of Section 617.6(i) which permits the CND by law to be reopened where there is significant new information which was not addressed previously. Some concerns which branched questions throughout the hearings were: SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL: This area was not sufficiently addressed. Also, in the LEAF, the amount of solid wastes generated was grossly understated. In one of the ZBA hearings, McDonald's representative(s) stated each of the Riverhead stores generates a ton of solid waste per day. This is generated by the customers who eat at the establishment. It was also stated by McDonald's that 40% of their business is generated by the drive-thru window. This results in another 1332 Ibs. of solid waste per day that must be disposed of. McDonald's also stated that the recylcing program that was initiated to recycle plastics has been terminated since they were going back to paper products and no other recycling program is in effect. This means that the Town would face an increase of 3332 Ibs. per day of municipal solid wastes that cannot be landfilled according to the NYS DEC. Since the Town is ~ attempting to reduce its municipal solid waste (MSW) toc40 tons Page 2- To: From: Re: July 22, 1991 Planning Board Board of Appeals McDonald's Corporation Project at Mattituck or less per day, the amount of MSW produced by McDonalds would be more than 4% of the entire Town's waste stream. This could be a major increase and cannot go unaddressed. ., " ! ( -. ( which may be likely to require preparation of an EIS. Further, Unlisted actions comprise the majority of actions statewide, and thus CND's could be used for a great many actions. The exclusion of Type I actions will help ensure that this minority category of actions is given the heightened environmental scrutiny they deserve. Comment: Authority to issue CND's should be expliCitly stated for agencies laCking express powers to condition a~provals. Resoonse: The provision states that a CND may be issued if "SEQR conditions imposed have eliminated all significant environmental impacts." Also 617.3(bl now clarifies the ability of agencies to impose substantive conditions on an action if necessary. Comment: CND's should be available for experimental hazardous waste treatment tests. Resoonse: Hazardous waste treatment has been specifically cited in 617.14(g) as an example of a topic potentially subject to unavailable information disclosure and is also a likely topic to fall under one of the criteria for determining significance (617.11(a)(7)) as a potential hazard to human health. It would seem unreasonable to proceed with any aspect of such a project without providing opportunity for review and findings through an impact statement. The fact that the action ;s labeled as a test only relates to the duration of the impact which still could be significant and subject to review. A conditioned negative declaration appears to be inappropriate. ... '617.6(i) (was 617.6(j) in Jan. 1986 draft) Rescission of Neaative Declarations Problem: The regulattons'adopted in September 1978 do not address circumstances where, after a negative declaration has been prepared and filed, there is presented significant new information, a project modification, or a change in circumstances which may result in a significant adverse environmental effect. Revision: 617.6(i) establishes a procedure for the lead agency to rescind a negative declaration. Comment: Statute of limitations issue should be clarified with respect to rescission procedures proposed in 617.6(j) of the January 1986 draft. Responses: The wording has been changed to clarify that rescission of a negative declaration may occur prior to the agency's decision to fund, approve or directly undertake an action. This does not establish a statute of limitations, but allows each provision of law regarding limits to function running from the date of agency decision. Clearly. however, if an agency's decision is rescinded or nullified, the supporting negative declaration would be deemed nullified as well. Comment: Rescission undermines finality of a decision. ( '''-. -21- " . Resoonse: The adopted reV1S10ns actually add finality to the process because they allow an agency to correct an oversight only until it makes a final decision to act. If agencies exercise their SEQR responsibilities in a reasonably thorough manner, rescission should not need to occur often, nor should it be a decision undertaken l~ghtly. ,.1 Comment: The rescission process needs a time period for the applicant to respond and a notice to involved agencies. Resoonse: The provision has been revised to require notice to involved agencies and to afford applicants a "reasonable" time in which to respond. Comment: Rescission should be triggered only by sponsor-caused changes. Resoonse: Agencies have a continuing responsibility under Article 8 to consider sign1ficant environmental impacts. New information or changes concerning significant adverse impacts, fro~ whatever source, must be considered. 617.7 SCOPING (Note: Section 617.7 of combined into new 617.6. previously included.) the regulations adopted September I, 1978 has been Section 617.7 has been revised to address scoping, not Problem: A process of identifying the relevant issues which must be addressed in a craft EIS is known as scoping. Earlier regulations have provided indirectly for scoping as a recommended procedure but have not speCifically provided a process. Scoping may take place with or without direction. If the organization or individual responsible for the initial preparation of an application has been provided no direction by the lead or involved agencies, typically a best judgment will be made from the applicant's perspective of the issues to be addressed. Clearly, the most appropriate identification of issues should come from an agreement between the applicant and the lead agency, in conjunction with guidance from the other involved agencies. Guidance from the public and other interested agencies may also be appropriate. Revision: A voluntary formal scoping process has been provided in new Section 617.7 and the term "scoping" is defined in subsection 617.2(ff). A Scoping Checklist is provided as a model in Appendix 0 of Section 617.21. Section 617.7 provides that a formal scoping process can occur either'at the initiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of any draft EIS. If the action involves an applicant, either a written scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provided by the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days following the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. If the lead agency fails to provide a written scope within 30 days, an applicant may submit a draft EIS. -22- r {- e, J- r f. J t f. t ( t ( t r t. ~ ~. e L. ,- I' " ~ , "- l . . ( r -19- ~617.6 ll617.7 a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and allows for a minimum 3D-day public comment period; and (v) the CND has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(9) and 617.1D(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be 'prepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: (i) the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental impacts; or (ii) the need for the examination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an EIS if requested by the applicant. (i) Rescission of Negative Declarations: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. ~~~ior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a ." :.~., reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 617.7 SCOPING. (a) Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to . the acceptance of a draft EIS. If the action invJlves an applicant, either a written s~ope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provideG by the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies, within 30 calendar days followiog the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished through me~ting(s), exchanges of written material, or other methods that will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written scope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that ths lead agency fails to provide a written. scope of issues within 30 f67'~ ~ I ~~tL ~ CU-~'--4-J ~ "'-~"L-L~ r~ ~ ~ /'8 7~y. r~c-~/_~ ~\.-<~1 ~d ~~J ~ [~ 7/.2.3 0.-/. /3<1- S-P'/JY ~ /kuJ L~~. ~.~~ " ':J,L (. ,y( \ / '''-/L Ci.-:"'>, '1- --'-' '""'.- .' (6 Page 7 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - Tony and Marie Kostoulas Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: there anybody else who further comment I make decision until later. Thank you for coming. would li~e to speak? a motion' closing the Thank you. Is Hearing no hearing reserving All in Favor - AYE; CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you for coming in. Appl. No. 3970 Applicant(s): McDonald's Corporation Location of Property: S/S Main Road, Mattituck County Tax Map No.: 1000-122-7-3.1 The Chairman reopened the hearing at 7:40 pm. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would like to welcome everybody here concerning this second continuing hearing for McDonald's Corporation and we would like to ask Mr. Mineo if there was anything that he would like to continue with, hopefully decibel readings and so on and so forth that we asked him. MR MINEO: There is something, can everybody hear me? There is some information concerning the speakers that will be installed in the menu board, Mr. Chairman. The first person, I have three consultants, who are representatives of McDonalds that I would like to address the Board this evening, relating to some of the questions that were raised during the last month's public hearing. There will be Ernest Annabel, a representative of McDonalds; Timothy Barnes, the Real Estate Appraiser who testified last month; and Walter Dunn. Their testimony will not reiterate or revisit all those issues that were discussed last month, I think that's now a matter of record and they're also memorialized in various writings, so it's not necessary for them to repeat all that. But what they would like to point out is some of those, answer some of the concerns that the Board had and some of the people that are present this evening as well. So unless the Board has any particular questions for me I'll ask Mr. Annabel to step forward and. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Fine. MR MINEO: During the last public hearing, there were some questions raised about some aspects of the design. So with that in mind, Stephen Feldman, the projeot architeot, and Mr. Annabel prepared some revisions to the site plan and Mr. Annabel will take the Board and the people who are here this evening through the site. < ~ , , Page 8 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just wait one second. Some of these people sitting in the back cannot see that and I know that , it's going to be difficult. They were wondering if you could move it over there in front of the original site plan? MR MINEO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everybody in the back, if you would like to open those doors up at least there will be room. I know it will be clogged in there. MR MINEO: Mr. Chairman, as they are arranging the easel, Mr. Feldman will be handing out to the Board copies of that revised site plan. MS KOWALSKI: Could I have one for the file please, sir? Thank ydu. MR ANNABEL: Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board I would like to just point out a few improvements we've made to the site plan since we presented it at the last hearing. I think most of them were in response to comments from this Board. First of all, we have added along this exit area here, what we call a grill space or a parking space for an additional vehicle that may go through the drive-through service and have to wait for a long order or something like that. I think that was expressly asked of us and we did have the room to add that. And we've done this same type of operation at other restaurants and it works very well. So we put that in there. Another thing we've done in an effort to try to direct pedestrian traffic across the drive-through lane is to put in a striped cross walk on this side that lines up with the side walks taking the customers into the restaurant. We also made some improvements to the emergency access area. I believe we may have shown two parking stalls in line with that emergency access lane on the last site plan. We have taken those two parking stalls away, so that nobody could, it'll be striped to prevent anyone from parking in there so that that emergency access lane would always be open. Also, we've drawn in here this time the vehicle stacking around the drive-through operation. And again, depending on where you want to start counting those vehicles, from the final pick up window around the building, there are 15 car stacking capabilities. From the ordering staticn back, there are seven car stacking. That basically summarizes the changes we have made. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. " . . Page 9 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO: Mr. Annabel, during the last public hearing there were some questions raised concerning the volume of the speakers for the menu board. Since that time have you had an opportunity to investigate the ~ypes of speakers that are employed and how they are regulated? MR ANNABEL: Yes I have. MR MINEO: Perhaps you could describe to the Board the speakers that are used by McDonalds. MR ANNABEL: Okay. The sole purpose of the drive-through ordering station is to accommodate a conversation between the order taker in the restaurant and the driver of the vehicle who is placing that order. So, it's in McDonald's interest to accommodate that conversation with an appropriate loudness level in that speaker and no more and no less. And I have some information that I will read to you that supports that. But let me also say that there is a volume control for the speaker in that ordering post and that volume control is located within the ordering post itself. It is set by the manufacturer and delivered to the site preset at a mid-range, relatively speaking, a mid-range volume level. It can be adjusted upward or downward, however, it would involve opening the post up and it involves a technician to do it. It's not something that kids could tamper with so basically once it's set it would not be tampered with. The most recent installation of a such speaker that I've been involved with was in New Hyde Park and I've visited that site several times since our last hearing and I've tried to observe what is really happening there and I can tell you that standing thirty feet away from the ordering station I could not hear, not only the person in the car, but also anything coming out of the speaker box. In fact, I stood twenty feet away from the ordering station directly alongside of it and could not hear anything coming out of the speaker box. The closest distance on this site application is eighty seven feet from our speaker ordering station to the nearest property line and so I would tell you that without a doubt, absolutely at eighty seven feet it would not be audible at the property line. I also have with me, I would like to submit this to the Board, this is a catalog cut showing what the ordering station looks like. Part of the wording on there indicates that it would accommodate a Marsh speaker and the reason I bring that up is the original manufacturer of the speaker components for the systems and they have been doing this for McDonalds since 1975 and they are now one of three suppliers that McDonalds uses system wide. I have here testimony from a Zoning Board of Appeals case in the Town of Huntington, dated January 15, 1981, that I would like also to submit to Page 10 -April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: the Board. The issue at case was basically the same as we are discussing now. The audibility of the drive-through speaker aqd I would like to read some excerpts from that if I can. Richard E. Marsh is the chairman of Marsh Communications and he is the person testifying here. He says, he's giving his qualifications, he says, I have a bachelor and masters degree from MIT in electronic engineering and a graduate major in acoustics. The attorney says I would appreciate it if you would address yourself specifically Mr. Marsh to the aspect of control of the sound. Part of the testimony says, this is the witness speaking, we happen to manufacture, it turns out, okay we happen to manufacture, it turns out to be the most complex system for McDonalds most highly sophisticated I might add, they pay better attention and they pay twice as much for that system than anyone else. The attorney asks can a person, can anybody in the McDonald's restaurant, employee or anybody, can they control or in any way affect the sound, the amount of sound that comes out of the speaker and the response is, in general no sir, the adjustment, that's set outside. The volume controls are out doors within the speaker posts under covers. No one normally but the installer even knows it's there. He goes on to say, generally the engineering objective has been to establish a comfortable level of sound for the driver of the automobile and for the passenger within the automobile. While at the same time if you are outside of the automobile, you might want to try it yourself sometime, walking around to the passenger side and standing there, you will, I have difficulty telling when the person indoors is speaking to the driver. I think what you are eluding to also is kind of interesting, if you walk around behind the speaker posts, you have difficulty even discerning that someone, that the someone indoors is speaking to the driver. Now that wasn't really planned to be there; it turned out that way. But it simply turned out that way, because of some of the objects I have. Like anyone interested in the customers is to provide a comfortable sound level to the driver. The attorney asks is it your testimony then Mr. Marsh that the sound from this system will not be audible beyond the property line at worse. And I was just talking about a property line that's eighty seven feet, by coincidence, away and the witness says that's correct. In other words if I was standing at the backyard of the closest house I would hear nothing, and the witness answers absolutely. The balance of the testimony I presented to you is just another witness who testified at that hearing, his name is Joseph Mosher and he's a McDonald's employee and he has been since 1966 and basically his testimony just reiterates that of Mr. Marsh. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Annabel could you, just before you " . . ~age 11 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: sit down, excuse me, Mr. Mineo, could you give us some indication on how many McDonalds on Long Island don't have drive-up windows or drive-through windows? i MR ANNABEL: Yeah. We have that. MR MINEO: Approximately ten, eleven. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ten out of fifty? MR MINEO: Fifty five. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ten out of fifty five, okay. What were the main reasons, objections? MR MINEO: Perhaps I could explain it. Of the approximately eleven restaurants that do not have drive-through windows, three of them are either within walls or within a store. The Sears store on Broadway in Hicksville has a McDonalds and there are two malls. They are internal stores, so they wouldn't be capable of having a drive-through window and McDonalds did not need drive-through windows with those locations. The other locations for the past ten years it's been McDonald's practice or policy not to construct a store without a drive-through window and there is only one exception to that, so, and that was an existing one that could not be retro-fitted with a drive-through window. The other stores are all pre 1981, 1982 something like that. But they were on the boards so to speak at least ten years ago and some of they go back to 1966 the early 70's and at that time drive-through windows were just evolving, in fact they were really starting to pick up speed. I guess Mr. Annabel can tell you better than I can. In the mid to late 70's. So a lot of the stores were built prior to the drive-through windows being a reality. And I've been involved with a number of restaurants in addition to McDonalds and in many of our applications over the last thirteen years I have never presented an application for a restaurant of this type, fast food, quick service, call it what you want without a drive- through window. And I would even go as far as to say a number of our applications have involved retro-fitting existing restaurants with drive-through windows so it's not just the Me Dona Ids but it's the policy of the industry generally. But from what I can see it wasn't, it's not been a question of objections to restaurants with drive-through windows that have created this gap of say eight, ten, eleven restaurants without windows. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. .' Page 12 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO: Have you spoken with Mr. Mosher? MR ANNABEL: I have. I spoke ~o him yesterday. t MR MINEO: And did you reacquaint him with his testimony? MR ANNABEL: Yes. MR MINEO: Exactly what did he tell you concerning the types of speakers that are currently used? MR ANNABEL: He told me that the Marsh system and in fact that the perimeters that were discussed in this testimony are still applicable today. That the study of sound doesn't really change much through the years and a lot of the findings that were the basis of developing the system still hold true today. Therefore, I felt that made his testimony from this Huntington case valid. MR MINEO: You recognize that the Board is concerned about noise levels at the very least migrating beyond the property line. What if anything you have prepared to do in connection other than installing a Marsh speaker and I'm assuming that you're willing to do that or an equivalent speaker. MR ANNABEL: Yes. MR MINEO: What in addition are you willing to do in order to assure this Board that there is not going to be any adverse impacts on surrounding properties due to noise? MR ANNABEL: McDonalds will covenant, if this Board allows that, the volume from the speaker box will not be heard beyond our property lines at this site. MR MINEO: Mr. Annabel have you considered ways of doing that in addition. Marsh's testimony was predicated on mid-range? MR ANNABEL: Yes. MR MINEO: Of the things you can do in addition to lowering the volume below mid-range to insure that the noise won't be heard beyond the property line. MR ANNABEL: There are other things that we could possibly do if that need should arise. Some of the things we talked about were putting on some kind of an additional valance or screen hanging down in front of the speaker box if that should, and that would further defer the noise in a downward . . Page 13 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: fashion and therefore limit the exposure of the noise. That would be one thing that we could do. Also, I would just add that in general on all of our sites we do a lot of landscaping. Our property lines are always landscaped and that just adds additional screening from anything going on in the site. So that would also help. But, I don't think that we would ever get to that point because I think that this is a perceived problem and that eighty seven feet away I believe and I can tell you that you will not hear any noise from this ordering station. MR MINEO: We've invited the Board to visit the most recent location in New Hyde Park and as Mr. Annabel pointed out, those houses are considerably closer to the menu board than would be any houses that surround this particular property. We abutted, in fact, a portion of the restaurant in New Hyde Park is within a residential zoning district. And we're much closer to single family dwellings than we are here. I would also point out to the Board although the dwellings that are in this island that's created by Main Road and Old Main Road are in the general business district that they are non- conforming, they are still of course worthy of protection and the Board is absolutely correct in being concerned about any impacts. But the Board should also keep in mind in considering what it is that we are attempting to do that it's certainly very reasonable in light of the purpose section in Section 100-100, which says that the general business district is, among other things, it is designed to accommodate uses that benefit from large number of motorists that need fairly large parcels of land and that may involve characteristics such as heavy trucking and noise. But, McDonalds can and will limit the noise emanating from the menu board so that it is not obtrusive to any surrounding residents. And we would make that a covenant, a restrictive covenant. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MR MINEO: I have no further questions for Mr. Annabel, if the Board has any? MR ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY: I do. How would you propose to enforce that covenant? How would you propose that we would enforce that covenant? MR MINEO: Okay. is.. . As he pointed out initially, the menu board MR ARNOFF: I'm not talking about the practicalities, I'm saying, what if we have a" neighbor complaint? What would you Page 14 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ARNOFF, cont'd: propose that happens? In other words we would then have a violation that would be heard in court or what is your? MR MINEO: Let me back up the process a little bit. As Mr. Annabel pointed out the menu board can be set adjusted at the factory, it's a sealed unit when it's installed. It can also be disassembled in part and adjusted in the field. My recommendation would be that representatives from McDonalds, the Building Department or whoever agree on what that setting is before a final certificate of occupancy or before a final c/o is issued so the store can never open unless and until that menu board is set to a volume that is not obtrusive to surrounding properties and at the same time consider whether or not an adjustment to the speaker by perhaps angling it somewhat downward, a valance as Mr. Annabel or some sort of a shield, so that what McDonalds is saying it's so sure that it can accommodate the town and the surrounding property owners that it would say hold back the c/o unless and until we satisfy you on this issue. MR ARNOFF: I'm concerned about a year later when the volume gets cranked up and the neighbor next door gets cranked up with the volume going up, from an enforcement point of view. MR MINEO: Sure. MR ARNOFF: What's your proposal then? MR MINEO: Well the good news about that, Mr. Arnoff, is that it's the type of situation since it's the volume, and that can, it's not on a day by day situation such as the activities of an employee. One day they can do one thing another day they can do another. If in fact for some reason the volume gets cranked up, the only way you can do that is if they disassemble it, then McDonalds is going to have to disassemble it again and reduce it back. But if you've seen the stores in action, and as he's, as Mr. Annabel has pointed out, McDonalds has no greater interest in having that message relayed from me to him, four feet at most, in fact Mr. Marsh's testimony in the transcript that's been submitted points out that the convenience and the comfort of the driver and any passenger in the car is very important so you don't want that thing blaring out. It's not like a speaker say in a used car lot that's mounted on a forty foot high pole and is meant to page somebody over a two acre parking lot. It's a very intimate arrangement. What the Board's concern is, the Board's concern is realistic. I would like to call Mr. Barnes to discuss one of the aspects that was of some concern last month and that is the real estate taxes that are . . Page 15 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: projected for the premises. MR BARNES: Good Evening. Yes I do. ! MR MINEO: I'm sUbmitting Mr. Chairman a copy of a letter from Timothy Barnes to my firm dated March 25, 1991. MR BARNES: I'll outline the contents of the letter very quickly. I estimate the projected real estate taxes basically by determining three components. The three basic components of New York State that go into the real estate tax estimation and ad valorem system. The first component, of course, is estimating what the market value of the completed property will be. I did that through normal appraisal practices, given my experience in appraising similar properties including, by the way in the last month the McDonalds up on North Sea Road in the Village of Southampton I estimate the value of the property as completed, real property only, that this does not include equipment and fixtures which are not taxable as real property at $650,000. To that I've applied the New York State Board of Equalization equalization rate, the equalization rate is a rate that when applied to a properties value will give it an assessment that puts it in keeping with the assessment of other properties in the same jurisdiction. The Board takes a sampling of property sales and assessments and establishes each year for the purposes of that town's assessor what the correct defacto ratio is. The town has the right to appeal for relatively minor changes and I believe the current tentative State Board of Assessment ratio is 2.52% I've used 2.5% as the proposed next years, that is upon completion. You probably know that the equalization rate normally comes down each year, although it has been stabilizing somewhat. When the 2.5% is applied to the $650,000 market value it indicates an assessment of $16,250, and then to that, of course, is applied the local tax rate, that is the number of cents per dollar of assessment that has to be paid each year in real estate taxes. Based on an inquiry made of the Assessors' Office I established that at current rates the property would be taxed at approximately fifty five cents per dollar. The rates obviously can go up and normally do as all know but using the current fifty five cents per dollar and applying that to the $16,250 assessment I estimated the taxes at $8,938. which we can comfortably round to $9,000. You will recall that the estimate given last month was $7,500 that resulted from a miscommunication between myself and the Assessor. I understood at that time that the rate was forty five cents on the dollar and I've verified since that it is in fact fifty five cents. So that the property taxes then which is not to say all the taxes generated by the operation, but the real Page 16 -April 5, 1991 Public Hear - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR BARNES, cont'd: estate taxes per say, I would estimate would be $9,000. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yoJ Mr. Barnes. MR BARNES: Thank you. MR MINEO: Mr. Chairman I have two other speakers to very briefly address the Board on certain things that have happened since the last public meeting that I think the Board should be aware of. Mr. Dunn will discuss a letter that he received from the state and Mr. Feldman can very briefly explain to the Board, a Health Department approval that's been obtained. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, sir. MR DUNN: Good evening Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. I've just handed him a copy of the letter dated March 13, 1991, which you should have a. copy already it was sent to the town to Valerie Scopaz by the New York State Department of Transportation, it was address to my office and it presents comments on the traffic impact study that we presented and . discussed at the last hearing. Essentially I would just like to take a couple of minutes of your time to run through each one of the comments and to relate to you some of the discussions we've had with members of the New York State Department of Transportation traffic and safety group which really complies or responds. We are holding up a formal response until we go through the hearing process with the town. The first comment relates to, why did you collect data at the intersection of Laurel Lake Drive at Route 25 and essentially the reason that we do it's a standard practice. We go one intersection to the east and west of the site. In this case we wanted to go through with the important traffic. We were aware of the municipal ball field and the park area on the north side of 25 that related to a possible intense use at different times. So that during the summer time we collected data at that intersection, we analyzed the data at that intersection and we entered traffic from the proposed McDonalds generated by the different hours and concluded that it would have no problems with operation at that intersection with the additional McDonald's traffic. More or less we collected that data to assure ourselves that we were doing the right procedures and right process and was not missing anything that was pertinent to the studies. The second comment that relates to the fact that the westerly, refers to the section to the west, the Bray Ave, Old Main Road the question, why utilize this for one lane approach a north bound direction since Old Main Road comes in on an angle and . . Page 17 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: it creates a wide open intersection and essentially we used the worst case examination of a one lane operation in a north bound dir~ction, it's not striped for anything but one lane, but 'if lt were to be striped we would then analyze it perhaps with a separate left and separate right turn lane. In this case we show that the worst case analysis would handle the traffic that was being generated by the site as well as existing traffic flow. Also we might note that the traffic coming from Old Main Road from that lag is very light and our counts confirm that. The third comment relates to the site plan, it was presented to the state and it shows that there is a driveway connection out into Old Main Road on the south side of the site and the state says that's nice we would like to have that as an access point and what we've said to them in our discussions that we've been working closely with the town and we set that up as emergency access only and we don't feel it's in the best interest of the community and the operations in traffic at the adjacent intersections to allow full access to that site from the south. So we believe we are conforming to the desires of the town in that. The fourth comment related to when we went over and analyzed the intersection to the east of Sigsbee Road factory, we did not have the considerable amount of traffic, there was no traffic coming from the south and north bound direction on Sigsbee and what we told them predominantly is yes there is existing traffic we've added into it but we have not, we do not expect a large portion of traffic heading north from the residential areas of the south. But to make sure that we are addressing the point fully, we've asked the state to select a number, a percentage that they feel, that they would feel comfortable with, with analyzing from the south and we analyze the intersection. Again, we feel certain that with the amount of traffic that would be generated in that direction would be minor and it would not create a major problem with the intersection operations. The fifth comment on the second page relates to the states request for a west bound to south bound left turn lane at the entrance driveway to the site and they are asking us to install it as part of the project and we've referred this comment to apply at McDona1ds. We also noted with our discussions to the state that there are no other separate left turn lanes in the area. When the North Fork Bank building went in there was no left turn lanes there, at the adjacent shopping centers further to the west there are no separate left turns but obviously we .are going to have to satisfy the New York State D.O.T. and they are going to get what they want. The rest of the letter just relates to additional information that they would like to see on the site plan which is not out of the ordinary. Generally when you submit the traffic impact study. it's at a preliminary Page 18 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: stage. Often times with the site plan they are going to be requesting that we incorporate additional information so that they can b~ sure that the range does not go out onto the state roadway. I That we contain all the run off on the site. Now that we indicate the features that they have presented in the letter. They will also show the sketch to show how we should have a beefed up pavement in the area of the access point so it can carry the traffic from the road way with out breaking down the shoulder and the roadway and obviously we'll conform to that, we have to in order to get the permit. So in a nutshell that directs in response to the permit the state has and we just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Board that we're happy we finally got a letter from the state. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Thank you very much. MR FELD~: Stephen Feldman from Raymond F. Feldman A.I.A. office 570 Broadway, Amityville, NY, project architect. I must apologize the last time I was here it didn't click that new Board Member Robert Villa is the Robert Villa. He further faked me out by saying he's the new kid on the block. Mr. Villa has been the head of the Suffolk County Health Department longer than I've been an architect. I have obviously a tremendous respect for Mr. Villa so we went back and stepped up our efforts to make sure that the Suffolk County Health Department is satisfied with our sanitary design for this system and I'm pleased to say tonight that we have received the approval from the Suffolk County Health Department and is given as a photocopy to this Board at this time. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Feldman. MR FELDMAN: That's just a stamp that's affixed to the plan. MR MINEO: Mr. Chairman, that completes our presentation if the Board has any questions for any of us of course we'll hold ourselves available or answer questions from anybody else this evening. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to ask you for two things. We received a nine to twelve page letter from your firm. MR MINEO: Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Citing twenty cases. MR MINEO: I didn't count them but perhaps. . . Page 19 - AprilS, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Somewhere. MR MINEO: It's approximately that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. I was wondering if you could ask someone in your office to kindly photograph the cases for us so that we might have them and send them to us so that we know exactly what the decisions were. I know that certain, there were certain excerpts mentioned in the letter concerning the cases. I realize this is no easy task, it's going to take a little while, but we would appreciate that. MR MINEO: I'll be happy to do that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Secondly. MR ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY: Could you send a copy of that to me also'along with it. MR MINEO: Absolutely. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We would be very happy to. Secondly, I do appreciate the revised site plan. I have visited approximately twenty two McDonalds on the north and south shore. AUDIENCE: Could you be a little more caring please, right into the old mike. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: This system has never been the greatest and I apologize. I have visited twenty two sites and I have all intentions of visiting many more before this hearing is concluded and I do see a serious void in the existing site plan and it's a void that I at this particular time, have not necessarily mentioned to my Board Members, I did mention to them that I did see a serious void. I know that you have worked very very closely with the Planning Board and at the conclusion of this hearing tonight that I will make a recommendation to this Board to send the site plan back to the Planning Board. It may necessitate a meeting with them and us to discuss the specific void. I can tell you briefly I can sketch briefly what my feelings are concerning it. I think we'll wait until after the comment portion of the thing. In other words I'm not trying to drop anything on you. I'm trying to tell you up front, that's a particular problem that I have. I think you people have done a splendid job in reference to the over all architectual you know agreements that have come to be concerning this building. However, the site plan is something that needs some further addressing and I'll discuss that in a i Page 20 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: symmetrical matter at the end of the hearing and we thank you for your presentation and we will continue with the hearing and any rebuttal you'd like to discuss. Okay. The only thin~ I would like to do before we start is to allow everybody to take a look at the new site plan so we'll take approximately a three minute recess. Let everybody take a look at it. We'll have two copies, you have the easel copy and we'll leave this copy down below and we'll regroup here in about three to five minutes. Gentlemen, I need a motion on that. All in Favor - AYE. 8:15 to 8:25 Temporary Break. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need a motion to reconvene, Gentlemen. All in Favor - AYE. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Mineo, I'm sorry I didn't mean to barge in on a conversation, it appears that there are some questions that the Board has before we would like to proceed with the public. MR MINEO: Sure. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: Yes I have some general questions that I would just like clarified. (UNIDENTIFIED): Would you use the microphone please? MEMBER VILLA: We'll give it a try. I have some general questions I would like, you know you are talking about the fact that it's going to be an impact or an economic impact to the town. Who will be building the building? I know you are not going to own it, you are going to lease. Is it going to be a local contractor, do you pull in a contract from outside or what? MR ANNABEL: McDonalds uses general contractors, typically. We'll hire a general contractor to build the restaurant and then they are pretty much free to use who they want typically. Now, in discussions early on here with the Chamber of Commerce we told them that we were going to try to do everything we could to get local people involved. We may not use, we may use a general contractor that we're familiar with who is not from Southold Town, but we can impose on him . . Page 21 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: to use local sub-contractors. So that's really, none of that has really been figured out yet, but I would say to you that we would make every effort to use local people if they met all of our dther qualifications. MEMBER VILLA: Thank you. Another question I have is, you are talking about the drive-in use and you say 40% of the 1,300 car trips would use the drive-through window, but I noticed in the testimony that we had at the first hearing, Mr. Dunn stated that occasionally you see once you get a stack up of cars in the line, that most people would then look at it and figure it is quicker to go inside: would park: get out: and go into the building. I would like to know of that 40% that you estimated would use the drive-in window, if you didn't have one how many of those people would still stop at: McDonalds? MR ANNABEL: A large number of these people would not stop at McDonalds if there was not a drive-through window. And that number could be anywhere from 20 to 30 percent. Every store would react a little different, but McDonalds has done studies to show that gross sales would decrease by anywhere from 20 to 30 percent without a drive-through window and that in itself is what makes the drive-through window an essential part of the business for us. MEMBER VILLA: That probably would be predominantly where you have competition though with other restaurants with drive-in windows where they could go to somebody else. Here you are not going to have any competition, so, you still think it would be that big a number? MR ANNABEL: I really, that's a good question, I don't know what the perimeters of that study were. I really can't answer that. I could find out. ~ MEMBER VILLA: Okay. Thank you. Another big concern I have is garbage disposal. Now I know McDonalds has been talking about recycling styrofoam which I heard recently that they are going out of that project and converting back to paper. Now is that the case? The tonnage of waste will probably go up because paper weighs more than styrofoam. I would like to know how you are going to address the refuse disposal problem? MR MINEO: Mr. Villa, I'm asking Randy Bogg from McDonald's operations to address that question. MEMBER VILLA: Fine. Page 22 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR BOGG: Like you said, we are getting out of polystyrene. We will probably for McDonalds that you knew years ago, we'll reduce that by 90%. As I said ,last time, we recycle, will recycle at this site for sure. ' All the cardboard, that makes up about 35 to 50 percent of our waste stream. MEMBER VILLA: Are you recycling cardboard in Riverhead? MR BOGG: We will begin this month. MEMBER VILLA: You are not recycling anything in Riverhead? MR BOGG: We were recycling polystyrene right now. MEMBER VILLA: Because the reason I ask that is you know your own numbers came out that you are generating about a ton a day of waste disposal in Riverhead. . MR BOGG: That's right. MEMBER VILLA: Now I was just wondering how much of that you are going to be left with, even after recycling. As you know we are facing a big problem out here and we don't need more garbage unfortunately. MR BOGG: We'll reduce by recycling cardboard, our waste stream by about 40 to 50 percent. So what we have now will be reduced in half, will cut in half. MEMBER VILLA: So you are still going to be talking about at least a half a ton a day going through a waste disposal site. MR BOGG: That's right. MEMBER VILLA: Now is that kind of a cost factored into your operations of a business. I mean cost is going up and I'm wondering, this certainly isn't going to be one of your busiest stores and I don't know what kind of margin you work on but, you are going to need, you know you could be spending upwards of $100 a day on refuse disposal. Is that something you factor in a? MR BOGG: Absolutely. MEMBER VILLA: Now I also have heard, when we are talking about employment, you are talking about employing 67 workers and 8 managerial people. _I've heard people say that actually in the Riverhead units, they can't find enough people and they are actually bringing people in from Middle Island or further back west to staff those stores. Is that true? . . Page 23 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR BOGG: That was, I'm a consultant for the Riverhead stores, that was true in the past, with the economy the way the way it is we're able to st~ff with local people right now. We have no, we were busing people in from Coram, as a matter of fact. MEMBER VILLA: You were or you are? MR BOGG: We were. We are no longer for the two Riverhead sites. MEMBER VILLA: I was just curious, you know, were busing people in, the moneys not staying in the local community which is what you are abdicating. MR BOGG: Yes that's correct. MEMBER VILLA: In your economic study. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just say something. For the record that was Mr. Bogg speaking. Go ahead. MEMBER VILLA: Another, just a quick question. What fuel are you going to use at this site, oil, gas or what? MR ANNABEL: It will be propane. MEMBER VILLA: Propane. You are going to have a large propane tank buried or above grade? MR ANNABEL: Buried would be our chose, yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again for the record, this was Mr. Annabel speaking. MEMBER VILLA: Alright basically that's most of my questions. The only other thing I noticed, that in the code we say that you are suppose to eat drive-in restaurant is to be either consumed in the restaurant or in a designated eating area. I didn't see anything on the site plan as a designated eating area. Just assuming you are going to eat in the car? MR MINEO: My suggestion would be this. I have addressed that in the letter. It's Mr. DiConza letter. Mr. DiConza is an attorney from my office. We address the legal status as was requested by one of the other Board Members at the last meeting. And the answer is this: In terms of the operation, there is no proposal for customers of McDonalds to eat outside of the building, either at an out door setting area with tables ahd chairs or in their cars. The proposal is Page 24 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: purely and simply for either consumption of food within the restaurant or to take out off premises, so that there is no confusion at ~his point. Your code is pretty clear that what a drive-'in contemplates is service outs~de of the building, consumption outside of the building. We site three cases to that effect. Talking out the distinctions between drive-ins and other types of restaurants. Now, those restaurants where you see car hop services and things of that nature are somewhat dinosaurs today. McDonalds does not have that type of an operation, but what it does have under your terminology, code terminology is a fast food restaurant and the drive-through window, not a special use, not a special exception rather, but it's merely a component a way of doing business for the carry out of food for consumption off premises. I think that's an important distinction, I know that's what you were eluding to last month, Mr. Dinizio and we've attempted to address'that in our memorandum of law and when we get those cases to the Board Members, by the way did you want six sets or five sets or would one set be enough? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Six would be great. MR MINEO: Okay. six it is. So that you can see this, but drive-in restaurants are an acronym your code refers, there is some language about car hop parking lot service but we don't intend that. MEMBER VILLA: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that it? Okay. We spent several hours going through the text of the last hearing and everybody did an excellent job except that we didn't know who was speaking and so we are again asking you and we will supply again a list after you tell us who you are. What you would like to say and then we will again ask you to sign in. And I'm afraid I'm going to have to stop everybody again the first thing that I will be asking you just as if you were sworn in in a court of law would be you would state your name. We are not asking for addresses. The addresses will be reduced to writing after the statement is made. We also would ask any persons that were not necessarily here at the last hearing or persons where questions were generated at the last hearing to speak first and I think I'll start with my right and your left since we started on the opposite side this last time and the ground rules are somewhat different in the respect that we discuss those persons speaking for and those persons speaking against. Not necessarily in anyone particular order. I will start with this side of the room. I ask you to please use the mike and state your name, we also . . Page 25 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: have a tremendous problem with applauses picking it up with this system and it causes a tremendous problem with the person that's ,recording it, so I would ask you to please, that's why you tiad seen me cup it the last time. I will continue to do that but I ask you to please restrict the app1auses to a specific volume. Or no volume at all. We'll start with my right, is. there anybOdy who would like to speak on the west side of the hall concerning this application? Yes mam? MRS BYERLINES: My name is Clara Byerlines, I'm a resident of Southold. We have a number of restaurants currently in town pizza shops and also restaurants who do a busy take out business. They seem to have no need for a drive-through service and can function perfectly well as I wonder why McDonalds puts such an emphasis on having this portion of their service. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you mam. Mam, could I ask you to sign in please? You can move that to this side so you're not in the way there. Thank you. Does anybody want to address that before we continue? MR MINEO: Perhaps, just one observation. I think Mr. Annabel had addressed earlier about why McDonalds uses this method of doing business, but the area which the speaker was discussing might have been a hamlet area or zoning district in which drive-in restaurants are specifically prohibited. So, that might be one of the reasons. I'm not sure what zoning district she's referring to, she did not identify. But the hamlet, marine II specifically exclude drive-ins. But in addition as we pointed out it's a method of doing business that most restaurants of this type quick service, fast food, call them what you will, utilize. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anybody else over on this side of the room who would like to speak? On the west side. Yes, mam? MS SCOGGINS: My name is Shelly Scoggins, I just have a question about the right hand turn lane and the left hand turn lane. Are these lane going to come out of the same width of the existing road that we have? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record Mr. Dunn is going to address that question. MR DUNN: Essentially what the state will make us do is to widen the roadway to accommodate the left turn lane. That would mean we are widening the pavement area, but not necessarily taking property. It will be within the existing Page 26 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN: the right of way area. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yo~. Is there anybody like in the center of the room like to 'speak? Yes? I'm sorry. MS NORTHAM: Good evening. My name is Johanna Northam. I'm a member of the solid waste task force. There were some questions answered before but I'll go through my statement. As part of the solid waste plan for the Town of Southold, a comprehensive recycling analysis was included to comply with the state mandate in the solid waste management act of 1988. The Town's 75% reduction, reuse, and recycling goals are outlined in this report. In light of this effort to reduce 75~of the waste stream it is important to address the amount of non-recyclable garbage that would be generated from McDonald's complex. Another important issue that must be addressed is the potential litter problem that would be caused by serving customers at a drive-through window. The Town of Southold is a rural community, coping with garbage disposal costs and litter problems, so I question additional commercial waste being added to an expensive solid waste problem. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you mam. MS BERKS: Dorothy Berks of Orient. I'm a Board Member of the North Fork Environmental Council. There seems to be something so realistic about all of this heavy artillery deciding that people should be able stay in a car to get their-' food. We go into a store to buy our food; we go into restaurants and I don't know why a business should be predicated on people who can't get out of their cars. But that not withstanding, how long does it take for one of these transactions to be completed and how much exhaust is let into the air? I think we have a rule about idling, some sort of law: about three minutes idling. We are not talking about the Long Island Expressway where people are trapped. We are talking about people who voluntarily sit in their car and let the motor run while they are waiting for someone to bring them food. And I think that right now with the energy situation the way it is, with the ozone layer tracking, I think there is something rather unhealthy about enabling this type of thing. McDonalds has been in the forefront of taking animal fat out of food and taking plastics out of packaging and it would be nice instead of retro~fitting buildings if they started a movement to stop all drive-ins. Just one other thing. I don't know if there are any numbers of where the 40% pack of packages that drive away and but I would be willing to bet that a lot of it lands on our highways. . . Page 27 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: For the record again, Mr. Dunn is going to speak. MR DUNN: McDonalds has been cdncerned about that, at other locations too, besides Mattituck and we've done a number of studies. A recent study in terms of air quality analysis was done at the New Hyde Park site in Nassau County and a specific air quality study was done to examine the contribution of emissions to the air quality and specifically these studies that were done showed that it met the one hour and eight hour requirements of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and it met all the Federal standards also for the air quality studies. What we've shown also is there is a difference when vehicles are waiting in line for the emissions versus a cold start. So there are factors that we took into consideration and we would be happy to give you any additional information from the New'Hyde Park study that you examine the contributions of the vehicles on the q and y.. We've also shown that at a number of locations, the primary source of air pollution is from the adjacent traffic that exists on the roadway not parked. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will give us copies, additional copies? MR DUNN: We'll be happy to give you a copy of the whole report if you like. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Great. Surely. Thank you. MEMBER VILLA: average length service? If they've done the study, about what is the of time a car sits there waiting for a MR DUNN: Okay. We've done a, it's two minutes would be a figure that the McDonalds has been using which recognizes time it' enters the line to the time it parks. We've also tried to break down some of our studies from the time it enters the line till it reaches the speaker, to the time it goes from the speaker to go over to the pick up area and we have shown it pretty much the two minutes to three minutes is a maximum that occurs which means that it is able to accommodate the numbers of traffic that we have presented in our report for the percentages that you quoted before Mr. Villa. So it can be accommodated and it is realistic and their operation has been enhanced in some locations where they add another booth where you pay at the first booth. After you order you go to the first booth to pay and go to the next one and pick up. So it is quite an efficient Page 28 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: operation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank yo~ Mr. Dunn. Yes, mam? , MRS LEVY: I'm Ellen Ruth Levy from Orient. I'm confused about the recycling. You are changing to paper but a lot of paper produces really can't be recycled, because of the ink on them and because they are plastic lined, so we are still adding a lot more garbage and how are you going to get rid of it? I mean, what, how is it all going to be handled? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just sign in please. The issue basically and correct me if I'm wrong is will there be any recycling of paper? We're only recycling polystyrene at this time. MRS LEVY: recycle: No, it's a plastic and paper combined you can't You cannot recycle it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: will there be any paper recycled? (MCDONALDS): There are plans. Obviously McDonalds is aware of.... . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name again for the record I apologize. MR BOGG: Right now of course as a corporation we are concerned with this. It comes up allover the country. We are using right now recycled bags for take out orders. As I'm speaking I'm sure there are people developing new paper products, like I said recycled bags, some of the sandwich wraps have changed within the last month and they will continue to do so, so that we will be able to recycle. I don't know when I can't tell you exactly what it is. I'm not an expert on that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to admit that this hearing has not only made me an insomniac. I've probably have gained four pounds going in McDonalds at lunchtime. I would not normally admit this okay but I have noticed in my recent purchase of a McDLT which was the largest wrapping that you use to use separating both sides of the hamburger or cheese- burger or whatever that it is now in a cylindrical container, a cardboard container wrapped in a specific piece of paper. I don't know if it's waxed paper or what kind of paper it is. I didn't really look at that particular issue. Is any of that going to be recycled? Can you answer that question? MR BOGG: I can't answer that. . . Page 29 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - HcDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. HEMBER VILLA: He doesn't know because it is in the formative stage. CHAIRl1AN GOEHRINGER: Okay.. surrounds, you said will be nle cardboard recycled? itself that HR BOGG: That's right. Almost ~ll the products we receive at the back door of our building, a case wrapped in cardboard we recycle that. CHAIRl1AN GOEHRINGER: Will be recycled. Okay. Alright. You will not be doing any separating of any trash that is the residue of the purchases that made out the front door or the drive-up if its? MR BOGG: I can't say no to that right now, like I said we're working on those kind of things right now. We are going to recycle; all our buns corne in plastic, we will begin recycling that plastic, the light plastic. But we are working on all those things. CHAIRr-lAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes. For the record that was Hr. Bogg. Could you just state your name for the record. HR WEBSTER: Tom Webster. CHAIRl1AN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? HR WEBSTER: I would just, I'm from Davidoff and Maledo Consulting Company. Eagle Associates. I would just really like to for information purposes let people referring here to a New York Times article dated August 9, 1990 and at that time, this was when it was announced that McDonalds has entered into an agreement with the Environmental Defense fund to undertake a study of its operations with intent of reducing the amount of garbage that is currently dumped into the landfills and much of the what you've seen in terms of the changes in the packaging, you know some of the early results of that agreement and I think we expect to see more forthcoming. CHAIRl1AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. down here and then we will go to sir? Again, state your name for I believe the gentleman the lady in the back. Yes, the record. MR LOWRY: My name is Tom Lowry, I'm from New Suffolk. I was raised in this small town, I spent many years in New York City, but I'm a small town guy again. And I must confess to feeling uneasy when battalions of made flannel suits confront us with words like retro-fit and I feel as though something Page 30 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. !1R LOWRY, cont'd: is going in between my ribs and I don't like it. That's my comment. My question is a simple one, I would like members of the Zoni~g Board to address Warren Goldsteins letter or editorial 'of last weeks issue. Saying in essence that the future which we are all debating so heartily here tonight is already outlined or the problem has a solution already outlined in the town code. Would you address that question please? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't think I will at this time, possibly by the end of this hearing I may. I'll discuss with counsel at the next break and we'll go from there. Mr. Lowry. Could I just ask you to sign in, but I don't you to think that I'm skirting the issue, I assure you. it Okay want MR LOWRY: You are skirting the issue, but I can't do anythin~ about it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well what would you like me say about this? What would you like me to say? MR LOWRY: I would like you to say that Warren is right, whether Warren is wrong. You sound like a Republican, Hedging about the curds and ( ) has been. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm going to be perfectly honest with you. I sat up here the last time and I told you, I told all of you, and I read a statement from Gail Schafer's office, what a special exception is and what my opinion a special exception is. I am continuing the investigation of the standards. At the culmination of this hearing tonight you will see what my basic problem is at this time and that is sir the internal flow of the site plan. I will not go any further with the discussion in reference to this particular situation until the site plan is cleaned up. It will have to go back to the Planning Board to have that done. We will then come back. As the process of this particular hearing will continue, I will continue to stay abreast of what's going on in the paper and so on and so forth. And at that particular time at the complete, the absolute complete end of this hearing, I will still give you my opinion. I do not drop any specific statements usually during the hearing or I don't usually stop the hearing and say I can't continue or whatever the situation might be. I have to continue to disseminate information and I'm going to continue to do that until the hearing is complete. It will not be complete tonight. So you got to give me a little time. ~ffi LOWKY: MY response is. Thank you for being as honest as you feel you can afford to be. . . Page 31 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY: Mr. Lowry, I think I should comment on that, on what you said to some degree. I think it would be inappropriate from th~ Chairman of this committee to give his opinion at this particular time. Certainly, it might tend to influence the other Members inappropriately before all testimony is in and to ask for an opinion on a pending application at this point and its interpretation of law as it applies to it I think would be inappropriate. That's my opinion as counsel and if we took a break that's what I would tell Mr. Goehringer. MR LOWRY: Thank you for being as lawyerly as you have been. MR ARNOFF: I can see your frustration, but unfortunately our processes require certain rights. They have rights and you have rights and everyone's rights will be addressed and will be addressed strictly in accordance with the law and I think t.hat perhaps and there was a case and would be glad to give you the cite, but I can't find it right now. That if he does give his opinion Mr. Goehringer could in fact be precluded from ultimately voting on this application and that might not be what you want or might not be what McDonalds wants. MR LOWRY: You must understand that those of us who have strong feelings are impatient about such things. MR ARNOFF: I understand that there are many members in the community who are exercised by this particular application. I think it's obvious if one just looks around the room. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The gentleman in the blue sweater in the rear. Yes, sir? MR COMMANDO: My name is Mike Commando. My question, I have a few questions, I wanted to ask you Mr. Annabel, regarding the drive-up situation, the latest technology is to wear headsets and use remote control device or remote system to pick up the conversation. What frequencies are they set at? MR ANNABEL: I have that information somewhere on me. I could try to find it in the next five or ten minutes. MR COMMANDO: Could you tell me if it's am or fm? MR ANNABEL: I don't know off hand. MR COMMANDO: Is it possible that these conversations could interfere with residents radios or televisions? Or cordless t.e lephones? Page 32 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL: I don't know the answer to that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. not be concluded tonight. information. Commando, again this hearing will ~,~ sure he can get us that MR COMMANDO: I was asking the questions and he can get the answers back to me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. No problem. MR COMMANDO: My other question is who is going to own this store? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think we established that before, we did not establish this? MR ANNABEL: The store will be licensed to a independent business person, entrepreneur, whatever you want to call it. Normally the people who run the stores live in the community or near by. They're independent operators. MR COMMANDO: Can I ask another question then? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just finish this conclusion? MR ANNABEL: Mr. Chairman, no operator has yet been assigned to this particular. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you a question concerning that since you brought this up. Again let the record state that again that answer was done by Mr. Annabel. Is there a specific list that McDonalds has of people, would it be offered to other people that own stores in the immediate area or in Suffolk County or how, is there a priority list? MR ANNABEL: There is a list, called a registered applicants list that is basically a system wide, a country wide list of applicants, of course the operators, the franchisees or business people who go into our stores tend to be local people. It's very unusual for somebody from California to want to come to Long Island to operate a store. It's more common that it would be somebody from Suffolk County who lives in the area and who wants to stay in the area, but there is such a list I'm not privy to it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And there is also a great possibility that some people own more than one store. . . Page 33 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL: That's a possibility. I can just tell you though that the trend in this area, in the New York area has been to license stores to new first store operators. That has been the trend over the pa~t three to four years. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I don't know if that answered your question. MR COMMANDO: That does. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Annabel. Again in the center. Lady in the back. MS HUNTINGTON: My name is Mary Ann Huntington and I live in Cutchogue and in addition to my reservations about the light, noise, traffic affluence, water, demands on our water, and our waste management I would like to answer that lady who wondered what happens to some of the take out. I plucked this from one of the nature trails in the Hampton Hills area in Riverhead, it does say it's a good news bag and it is starting to decompose, it's very obvious with the help of some I suspect. I want to punctuate my comment with this idea, which is not a McDonald's item but never the less and it's called the sign of the times and this is a real concern of everybody. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes, mam? MS BEER: My name is Cynthia Beer, I live in Orient. I am a member of the Orient Association traffic relief committee. I was very unsettled by hearing Mr. Dunn's comment about adding a traffic lane to Route 25 or any kind of turning lane, widening the road at that point. Fearing that this might become a precedent as our narrow environment between water on both sides gets more and more squeezed as a traffic corridor. I'm sure you are familiar with Cross Sound Ferry having added additional automobile space on its boat and that the traffic flow now is very very heavy and very tragic community. I would also like to mention that phrases such as every effort can be made or will be made and phrases such as their plans are very unsettling to those of us who have a lot of experience dealing with the kinds of things that have happened to our environment over the last thirty years since I've been a resident here. I would like also to mention that perhaps the $9,000 in property tax might be balanced against as we progress in the future what will be lost by people moving away from this community as the quality of life in our town changes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Page 34 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN: In relation to the provisions of the l~ft tu~n lane. I want to make it clear that one, we are m~ pnc~osxnq any widening of for addition of a through lane LID either direction as part of our proj ect. Furthermore, tit:'$; ]l>.aJJtt 0:15 our traffic impact study, we did not recommend tfue' amdlitiJOn, of a left turn lane. New York State Department :n;f! Transportation was requesting consideration here ffo~ an, installation of a left turn lane. What we would }JUte tQ mention here is that it is very important to recmqnm~e that we are concerned with maintaining the rural asp~tr om INTERFERENCE in terms of the highway structwe andj i:cfj it was a desire of the Town of Southold to go along with, McDonalds and myself to the New York State D.O.T. ~o 3a~ we don't want a left turn lane in this area we wouli bE happy tQ go with you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dunn, could you just cJ,~a~ this ~9' for me. ' Could you tell me exactly what you are 2til1.icipll;ting then if you are saying you are going to do it iliJ t.he ex.i!sti.rl9', right of way or what we refer to as taking area. MR DUNN: Essentially, the section of Route 25 iT fluont o~ the site is one lane in each direction. I belie<e fu was one old concrete panel which may have been resurfaced", so we are talking about somewhere between eleven and twelve fo0tt wide, travel lane in each direction. Then beyond that 'tl\,en.ff: 1JS a varying shoulder width. The state can make us do, iis,cQ dlii,!! up part of the shoulder area, re-spray paint it ~:Q; litis full depth asphalt so it will be a depth to accept a rjjdiin~; vehicle over it without breaking it up. Then we woul~ have to restripe the roadway to accommodate a left turn ]ane in the middle, that's separating the two directiorn: Qfj 111Ja'filic'. That left turn lane will help enhance the effidc~n~~ Qf people getting in the site by giving a separate Lan~. Wha~ we are saying here again is that if you look ahn~ tilte entire stretch from Route 25 there are no other left tr~ID ~a~es im the vicinity of the site based upon even the a~futiQID Qf tfu2' North Fork Bank Offices, the additional new bUL\dillnq~ adj acent to the site or to the west on the nortt", s;i:de: and, then to the east on the south side. The existir'lg: s;I!l())pl,]tling, centers farther to the west in Mattituck do not hOW'",' se1PacrJavtte' left turn lanes at the intersections or at the cfriv",way,s and\ they generate a substantial more traffic than a McDDna~s during peak hours of operation. So we think tlnt tthere i~ a means that you could go to the state and have a gptlldJ an,gwnent and we'll leave that in the hands of the Board ('if tlhe 'l'bwm o<fE Southold. CHAIRMAN GOErffiINGER: Let me understand this agai~. GmlliR@ 1m a westerly direction, making a left,turn into t~e W~~Q~ . . Page 35 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: across the street of the.. site, you would be widening the shoulder as well as widening the shoulder in front MR DUNN: It could be another way. It could be done on both sides of the road. Most likely it would be on both sides of the road. It could also be done just on the south side of the road. The state would have the perogative of determining do we widen the roadway to provide this ten or eleven foot left turn lane or do we utilize some of the shoulder area and reduce the shoulder area on one side, so that we may not have to widen the pavement area. But we would be realigning the roadway to accommodate the addition of a left turn lane in the middle of the roadway. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Dunn. MR MINEG: May I just point out one thing, Mr. Chairman. In addition to discussing this matter with New York State Department of Transportation, it would also be necessary to modify the negative declaration issued by the Planning Board. The Planning Board at page 2 of its negative declaration states: the applicant has completed a traffic impact study which demonstrates that the project is not likely to have an undo burden on the road transportation system of the immediate area. The traffic impacts can be mitigated by the installation of roadway modifications such as but not limited to turning lanes, strengthen shoulders and deceleration. So it's not only D.O.T. but also the Planning Board as well. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I am aware of that and this again another situation that would have to be readdressed back in the site plan area because when we send this back we would like it back in its finished form. I understand that. I know SEQRA would have to be readdressed. Thank you for mentioning it. The gentleman over here in the center had had his hand up before so we'll move to east side of the building. Would you like to speak sir? MR MCKAY: My name is Joseph McKay and I am a Board Member of the New Suffolk Civic Association. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do? MR MCKAY: I would like to say first of all that personally I think that a lot of the things that McDonalds has done over the years in other places have been very commendable and I think that their leadership in many areas has been really terrific. Having said that I would.like to make sure that Page 36 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MCKAY, cont'd: all the representatives of McDonalds don't tell Mr. McDonald not to take anything else I say personally. But I think that \he question that we are here to discuss tonight is about character and I would like to urge the Board to turn down the special exception based on the issue of character. It seems to me that Southold Town is a town that still is tuned into nature and not tuned into technology. I think a very very good example of that is what we've done over the course of the past year to reseed the bay with scallops and this year 1991 we expect a bumper crop and two years ago people said it absolutely could not be done. We are tuned into nature out here. We figured out how we might continue agriculture when potatoes were becoming a problem and we've gone to grapes and prevails. At the opposite end of the spectrum is a place like New York City where I come from. A friend of mine who works for the M.T.A. recently told me that he was part of a panel to hear complains about the conductors use of the speakers in the subways. How many people use the subways in New York City? .And when people raise their hands at a hearing to talk about complaints that the speakers are too loud and they were really just problems they made riding the subway very very unpleasant. The complaints were handled based on a premise that the character of New York City is such that crime is so bad that the annoyance of the noise is small compared to the benefit that it provides in making criminals constantly aware of the presence of authority. Well you know that's the character of New York City and complaints and decisions are based on that character. I think character is something that we ought to think about. Just what is the character of this place right now? It's something that changes little by little and it becomes the premise for other decisions that get made in the future. For example widening roads, once the road is widened and once this happens than the character of the place changes just a little bit so that the next time we have a decision to make based on character of town it's based on a slightly different character than it was before. So I would like to urge the Board to turn down this special exception based on the character of this town. I think it's possible for us to evolve without changing our character. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. There is a gentleman in front of you first. Sir, would you like to speak? Yes you, I hate to point to people, but you'll be next. MR CALLAHAN: I was on the wrong side of the room when you chose other sides. My name is Pat Callahan, I'm going to be a resident of Mattituck pretty soon, we're going to build a house on Depot Creek. We've been in New Suffolk for thirty years as part time summer residents.. I'd like to first just . . Page 37 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR CALLAHAN, cont'd: read some written, some comments that I have and then if it would be acceptable, it's kind of we have a little joint venture here with Linda Fletcher and Nancy Sawastynowicz. Again I'm a professional engineer in traffic and I've had lots of experience, well over thirty years and so on, in planning, environmental, and traffic, a member of the I.T.E. who we will hear and we're I'd just like to comment first on the study, on the Dunn traffic study. I think there's actually it's a very study. The over all report again in supplement writes a very creditable picture of the potential impacts of the fast food chain restaurant. I believe it adequately addresses safety, grade, site distance, took into account all the technical things that we do in our business. I would call question to a few things. The percentage of 7.3% with respect to the peak hour of utilization of the drive-through, I would just not even to be answered tonight, but I would suggest that that be relooked at since that impacts on the total volume in and out in accordance with the projection methodology. But tonight we heard in cowment with respect to a two minute service time and if I recollect correct, in the report it was mentioned that a queue of eight vehicles was on line waiting at the drive-through. Now if you take, I think there's thirty two minute segments in an hour so that in essence would kind of represent at a two minute service rate a 240 vehicles per hour, so I think that may be subsequently different but I'm sure it's not that much, but it may be about half that or again maybe it would deserve a little test because I think that the McDonald's data was kind of a nation wide data and probably not applicable here. I think it just should be looked at. Not a major point, but should be looked at. Now what seems to be very conspicuously absent from the report I find is any meaningful discussion of the cumulative impact. What do I mean by that? This, you folks are reviewing the McDonald's proposal but it's really in essence it's a whole hocks of other proposals which will certainly be on their way, we'll address that more specifically later. Again, I say the a, take into account the parallel additional similar fast food chain restaurants near by. I say I would just like to point out there are numerous locations along Route 25 which are highly susceptible to being developed. So now we're looking at this one, it's a rather handsome building, but it's more then that building that we are looking at and it kind of ties in with the common respect of the character of the area. We're going to see these little places popping up allover the place. At now, again, as we know it's most unlikely that we find a single stand alone, fast food chain restaurant like McDonalds without also finding a Burger King, a Roy Rogers, a Wendys and a Pizza Hut at its side. But you have to deal with that arid wouldn't. necessarily want to be at Page 38 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR CALLAHAN, cont'd: your response, it's a hard thing to deal with, I recognize that and respect it. Another concern with respect to the traffic st~dy is the lack of projection of traffic volumes with the traffic increase on Route 25. The report only addresses current traffic and ignores future projects, I think, unless I missed that in some place in the report. Now, again I would respectfully recommend that the Board require McDonalds to focus on the cumulative impact and the projected traffic volume increases. I don't know either in the Town of Southold, and I want to look a little closer, what is your projected year? What kind of a cycle, what is a planning cycle that you expect the facility to have to be adequately servicing? You would do this, you would design it, water supply you do this if you are designing highways, highways you do this in designing, any utility, any infra- structure, as I say I really do think that they should expand the report to take it into account. Now, someone along that line, t say, I believe some of the conclusion in the traffic report may change if these two factors are taken into account. Specifically, it would appear that a roadway improvements would be needed as, particularly if bypass traffic is maintained. Now, I think something totally independent of that it would seem that the D.O.T. somewhat reached that similar conclusion with respect to the letter that Walter had. Now, all I'm saying is that perhaps it will be other changes, other modifications if in fact one look of the full projected volumes over whatever the acceptable planning cycle and the impact of accumulative, other developments. Now, I just want to quickly run through the secondary impact of any development has to really truly be considered. McDonalds is they do a very nice job on the building and so on. But they somehow are notorious with respect to their signs. And I just sort of if you would even pass around with the folks that are here, this I would review is probably a typical sign that we may be faced with seeing out here. The other thing I just had the horrible thought driving out tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Callahan, Could I see that first before you pass it. MR CALLAHAN: I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No problem. MR CALLAHAN: The other situation I have a major concern with and it kind of gets to be resident here. The concern is the bridge, the Long Island Railroad bridge over Route 25. If you were McDonalds what would you do with that bridge? The, I would just like to comment another report which was also . . Page 39 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. ~R CALLAH_~, cont'd: submitted here and it's kind of totally out of my daily wick but I just kind of perused it. It's the Eagle Associates report, and I ,just kind of came away with a little, kind of like grinding my teeth a bit. The, in that report it kind of talks about, it implies that we have a myopic view of community needs and we suffer from that not in my backyard syndrome. Well I kind of like, I guess that's true. Like our point of view as expressed by others, it's hard to imagine a McDonalds in Mattituck without imagining other far reaching any good affects. Now again, that's a fine looking building and I'm not kind of like criticizing that, I just think there's more to it when you take the over all picture. And again the Board's job is very difficult and you sure are aware that there are strong feelings and I would just like to close by again, urging that if you could take a cumulative impact and traffic road issues into effect from a SEQRA point of view, with the respect that the fact that the package'has to go back to the Planning Board, I think there has to, the North Fork Environmental Council should get council with respect to seeing if you could open up the SEQRA proceedings, because under SEQRA cumulative affects are required to be reviewed and it was involved in your INTERRUPTED BY CLAPPING. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Pardon me, if you remember at the conclusion of my last hearing I said that anything that you refer to that from the public that would be as a matter of discussion here can be reduced to writing and anything that Mr. Dunn would like to answer let's do that for the sake of brevity. MR MINEO: I'm not going to bother the Board now in a discussion of SEQRA and what constitutes cumulative impacts and what a Board is obligated to review cumulative impacts. I would just like to point out a couple of things. First of all, as a negative declaration that's been issued by the lead agency which is the Planning Board. Second of all, cumulative impacts aren't based upon speculation. It's based upon active projects that are also being considered, that are on board. Unless Mr. Callahan can point to those rather than guess at what might occur on into the future then cumulative impacts play no part. I'll address that in a subsequent letter to this Board, actually a memorandum of law in the form of a letter, but I don't want that to, now we're going to carry this and we are going to convert this into a SEQRA hearing. It's clearly not what the intention of this is. SEQRA has already been addressed by the Planning Board and Mr. Callahan eluding to speakers that are yet to come that they in fact are going to talk in terms of cumulative impacts, SEQRA requirements, my suggestion to this Board is Page 40 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation 5outhold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: that their comments are misplaced. Mr. Callahan, I'm sure you've seen the sign that is proposed for the McDonald's restaurant, it's on the rendering, it was in front of you during your entire; presentation. Right here. Now there also will be another detached ground sign. (UNIDENTIFIED): Excuse me, I would like to make a comment. MR MINEO: If I might just complete my presentation. AUDIENCE: I would like to make a comment. We did not interrupt while the McDonald's reps were giving their proposals. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I allowed Mr. Mineo to continue. I don't know if you realized that. AUDIENCE: No I didn't. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Mr. Callahan walked to the back of the room, I knew that it was a presentation about to ensue. However, I thought for the point of clearing things up as you can see we did go back and forth. I did allow Mr. Mineo to continue. 50 he didn't do it freely. AUDIENCE: But in the future, when the pUblic comments have to be abutted every time that someone. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Not every time. No. MR MINEO: It's not my intention to. I would prefer to sit here and not make any comments whatsoever. But I don't want INTERRUPTION BY CLAPPING. But I don't want the Board and the people that are here this evening to lose sight of what the law is and what this Board is required to do. Cumulative impacts is a and it's being loosely bandied about, I will address that in a memorandum of law, but that should also be born in mind by the speakers that are yet to come if they intend to talk about speculative effects. CHAIID1AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR CALLAHAN: If I'm out of order, please tell me. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are not out of order. MR CALLNIAN: I don't want to get into the terms of speculation to any great degree, other than you kind of will do have a certain action in one place and a certain mode of operation well than you kind of say well maybe the . . Page 41 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR CALLAHAN, cont'd: same thing can happen again. And just sort of show, let's consider it a simulation that in our minds eye which is certainly our myopic eye and not in my backyard syndrome mentality, Iiwou1d like to invite Linda Fletcher oh I'm sorry Nancy. I'm not going to try Nancy's last name again. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sawastynowicz. MS SAWASTYNOWICZ: Good evening. I did a study on my own and I'm not going to mention the SEQRA process at all thank you. I went to the yellow pages and I looked up all the McDonalds and I got all the fast food restaurants that are really close to the McDonalds and I have it for everybody to look at. And I don't want to go to Pudgies or B1impies or Roy Rogers or all the little things they bring along with it. This is for everybody in the audience to look, and it speaks for itself. I don't'have to say anything. You can just look at how close some of the addresses are and I did have two questions, when you talked about the noise level, New Hyde Park and Huntington don't even corne close to the country of Mattituck and the other thing when they say they are going to recycle forty to fifty percent, they have the wax paper on the cups, I know the mentioning of the ink and I just I think we should really address that issue. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS FLETCHER: I'm the second part. My name is Linda Fletcher and I'm a resident of New Suffolk. I would like to address some of the issues that Nancy was speaking of. Actually they are not issues but they are facts and I would to provide you with a update on the recent developments on Middle Country Road in Ridge. As was mentioned at the last hearing, a new McDona1ds opened in Ridge, late in 1990. A conversation last week with a staff member of the Brookhaven Town Planning Board revealed that the Brookhaven Town Planning Board received an application in December of 1990 for a Taco Bell to be located within one quarter of a mile of the newly arrived McDona1ds. A Taco Bell hearing will take place on Monday afternoon of next week. Also of interest is the fact that the two parcels of land on which the fast food restaurants are and could be located are owned by the same company. The company is called M.T.K. Enterprises. At least two of the principals are a man George Lewis and Martin Kosmynka. These two names are found in the copy of the McDonalds lease in the applications file before you. Although the land in Mattituck is as of yesterday recorded as being owned by Cofam Realty it is possible that Mr. Lewis and Mr. Kosmynka are going to lease or buy that property from Page 42 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS FLETCHER, cont'd: Cofam. The main point being here is that the pattern has already begun in Ridge. The pattern all over Suffolk County is indisputable as Nancy has demonstrated and we have prepared a map to show you how this pattern could develop in Southold Town. So we'll show you our visuals are not quite as good. These the zone, the red colors that you see are all the general business zones in the Town of Southold. It's more graphic cause the lines aren't on it. All of these zones could potentially become operations for a fast food operation of chains such as the McDonald's corporation and Taco Bell, all the rest of them that Nancy has delineated up here could come before this very Board and ask for the very same thing. This is a legal fact and these are undisputable facts. MS SAWASTYNOWICZ: They are in the yellow pages, Blimpies. MS FLETCHER: Now I know that you are bound to judge this application on its own merits. But I think you should understand and I think that we all know here that this is not just one vote for one fast food chain restaurant. Granting this special exception permit will set in motion changes the likes of which Southold Town has never know before. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir? MR SIMON: My name is Michael Simon. I'm a resident of New Suffolk. Perhaps after these subsitive presentations I don't have a whole lot to add. But I would note that I do not question sincerity of the representative of McDonalds when he said he would like to keep the rural character of the Town of Southold. I'm sure McDonalds would like to be the first and last fast food restaurant in Southold-McDonalds. If that is unrealistic that is something that I think would upset everyone here who lives in the Town of Southold. But assuming that they could be the first and last then we come to another point. There has been a lot discussion about the drive-through facility. Now as I understand, what a drive- through somebody does is it provides a competitive edge to one fast food restaurant over other fast food restaurants. Whether those ones do not yet have those or they already have them. But if there is only one fast food restaurant here then there is less economic need for the drive-through facility and I think McDonalds could probably follow its own conduct in making impressive'accommodations to the needs and the requirements of the area if in fact they do get this sp~cial privilege which many of us are not in favor of. Of being the first and last fast food restaurant in Southold Town. . . Page 43 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir, right here. I'm going to take two gentleman in the back we'll take George and Excuse me sir you have to sign in. You have been waiting for a long time. more spe~kers, gentleman on the wall, we're gOIng to take a break. Maybe then we'll take a break. MR GEIER: My name is H.W. Geier, I'm living in Southold together with my wife. We retired just a short while ago and I never had a chance to speak up here in Town Hall, this is a first time for myself and I also came along completely unprepared tonight. I wanted to speak a little earlier but unfortunately as one of the last speakers you know you see that most of your questions have already been raised and you feel a little frustrated so whatever reason I would like to more or less dwell on generalities. Before we retired, you know we had a choice between retiring in one of the South side, the Southampton area because we have friends that have been living there for a long time, of course you know they went out a few years ago and settled down in the southern part of the United States because this area was built up tremendously and it was to them it was unfit to be a retirement area. So we said we will settle then on the Northern flank in Southold, you know which is a beautiful place and we have know this place for quite some time because we came and spend our summer vacation here with our children they more or less considered this as their second home for the last twenty five years and we more or less developed a feeling you know for this area and we are hoping we have a lot of company on the thought that this area should remain as much as it used to be you know during the last ten or fifteen years and with some changes or minor changes and unfortunately, with the development which is showing itself, which is already casting its shadows we have some doubt that the character of this particular area will be maintained unless we have a lot of support also from our representatives, from our political representatives. Now I spent a lot of time on business in the City of New York, I'm not against you know companies like McDonalds, as a matter of fact I considered even buying stocks. Just recently I bought Pepsi Cola instead but and I steadily persuaded you to buy McDonalds, but it seems you know that every business has its place and being very familiar with this particular area, there myself, I have a very great doubts that this is really the best area for McDonalds. Which ends to another question, the gentleman before me addressed. You know my concern that thirty or forty percent of the business of McDonalds depends on the drive-through business and I think this a terrible thing to happen especially in this rural area because each day, I'm walking my dog twice a day, I find myself picking up a lot of garbage, I do this because I would like to keep my Page 44 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR GEIER, cont'd: neighborhood clean and I'm pretty sure that McDonald garbage might be added to what I'm picking up already. As a matter of fact ~'m carrying with me a plastic bag in order to carry these beer cans in my hands because people might think I'm a drunkard. And so for that reason I would say we all, we are living in this area. We should really make a choice. Would we like to you know to remain an area which is tranquil and reasonably protected you know from the terrible over flow of garbage of which we have plenty already and this can only be done you know in cooperation with our elected representatives in office and this is a question which we all have to face and this question will also be brought up you know more frequently as business is trying to get into our area. I'm not against business at all we need, our nation needs business and see to it that it increases and gets more employment and more employment, but the areas have to carefully chosen, you know for such enterprises. And another suggestion I would like to make is you for more people to speak up then just a few you know that came up into the microphone. I would suggest that everybody takes a little drink here before we come to the next meeting to their inhibitions. It might help. Thank you very much. MR NENTZEL: My name is Charles Nentzel and I'm probably one of the few people here who lived on Bray Ave in 1932. So anyway, I know the area pretty well. I still live within a mile of where this McDonalds plans, is planning to build. I would like to make the following comments though. And I'm going to read this if you don't mind. McDonalds has applied for this special exception to establish a fast food restaurant and a drive-through window under two separate and clearly defined sections of the code and while the fast food restaurants are permitted by permitted use by special exceptions drive-in restaurants are not permitted in any zoning district with or without special exceptions. This is been a little redone. The legal notice states that the Zoning Board approval is subject to the code requirements set forth in Article 10 Section 100-100B which addresses fast food restaurants. And 100-101C which deals with accessory uses, drive-in, drive-through, drive-up are not listed or permitted use by special exception in either 101B or C. This is a clear distinction between fast food restaurants and fast food restaurants with drive-in windows. Pizza Huts and Friendlys both operate fast food restaurants and they do not have drive-in facilities and they are operated solely as fast food restaurants. McDonalds has already testified that the chain operates both types of restaurants. It is also distinguished that two types of uses by telling that one of their operations is sUbstantially more profitable than . . Page 45 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR NENTZEL, cont'd: another. At March 8th hearing McDonald's representatives said that between forty and forty five percent of the companies Qusiness is generated from fast food restaurants with drive~in windows. McDonalds has also told us about litter patrols, traffic flows, noise levels from its window speakers and dozen of other problems associated with fast food restaurants. But with not with fast food restaurants, but with drive-in, drive-up, drive- through restaurants. It cannot be implied that fast food restaurants and drive-in restaurants are ones that use windows are the same. They are not. Fast food merely refers to the speed at which food is prepared and serviced and not into the matter in which it is served. Drive-ins and drive- throughs specifically address the manner in which food is served. Going back, Webster, if he defines fast food as a business that offers food prepared and served quickly. It defines drive-ins designed to render its service to persons who dri~e up and remain in their cars. However, drive-in restaurants are not permitted in the zoning district. The Town code specifically states that in a general business district restaurants excluding drive-in restaurants are permitted. In a general business district fast food restaurants are also permitted by special exception, provided that eating on the premises of the fast food restaurant shall be permitted only inside the structure or in areas specifically designated and properly maintained outside the structure. The code does not say fast food restaurants and drive-in fast food restaurants are permitted. And it distinguishes the two uses and prohibits drive-in restaurants. The code also, the code further separates the two under the definition 100-13, restaurants when it lists, drive-in or not and or fast food restaurants. The second part of the application is for an accessory use and it is defined in the code as one that is incidental or subordinate to the main use of the lot whether an accessory use is conducted in the principal or accessory building. One could hardly call a drive-in window incidental when McDonalds has already testified that it will serve as a principal use to derive income or revenues. There is ample precedents set in the court and in this Town as to what constitutes an accessory use. On August 18, 1988, the Board ruled on a meaning of accessory use. The Board of Appeals said "this Board's decision is that the accessory use either in principal building or accessory building does not permit any service or sales activities even though the establishment may require such a similar activity such as active uses may be considered as part of the principal use." McDonald's has clearly tested that it intends to use the window to serve and sell which the Board's own ruling means that the window cannot be considered as an accessory use. It is a principal Page 46 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR NENTZEL, cont'd: use. The application does not meet the requirements of the code. I request that the Board reject the application o~ the grounds that it is without authority to grant special ~xception becahse the project fails to comply with zoning code. Thank you gentlemen. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Nentzel. Second to last speaker before the break. You're on. MR ZWEIG: Good evening. My name is Michael Zweig. I'm president of Southold 2000 which is an organization in Southold Town that's a couple of hundred residents dedicated to the application of sound planning principles in the town. McDonalds has made a big point that they try to conform with the needs of the community when they come into the community. The problem here however is that McDonalds clearly doesn't want to conform to the needs of the community as those needs are expressed in our zoning code. That's why they are here looking for an exception, because the rules of the Town don't allow them to do what they want to do and they are not willing to live by those rules. They want to change them and I think most people here don't want to see that change made. And we have to ask to whose convenience is the change being made and what does it mean to the Town and to what are the principles of planning that lay behind that change. I think that it's pretty clear from the climate in this room and in the Town over the last little while that people in this Town don't want the kind, of town that accommodates fast food restaurants with drive-through windows. The accommodation would not serve an interest of the people in this town it seems. I think that from our point of view, from Southold 2000, we look at the principles of planning and try to see how we can preserve this community here through the application of sound zoning and in particular to loathe the development of strip commercial districts and also to make sure that whatever development happens here is consistent with the character of the area and when many people here tonight have talked about the question of character of the area, I think that that's a very real consideration and the character of the area means not just the architecture of the building, it means what kind of a place is this. Is this a place which is like any other place in the country where there are McDonalds and Burger Kings and HOliday Inns and everybody else or is this place the North Fork? And when you come here you are coming to a special place. That's a real question. Now I think that the town has zoning ordinances which are designed to help to promote that special character of this place and some of us hope that the town zoning or code can be changed to make it even more consistent with those special characteristics of the town. The principals . . ?~ge 47 - April 5, 1991 Public Rearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ZWEIG, cont'd: here that McDonalds is trying to promote seems to go counter to our interests in sound planning and it seems to go in the interests o~ over turning what are the zoning codes of this town. And if McDonalds wants to come it seems to me that if they really want to abide by the principals of the town they should come on the terms of the town and if they can't do business on the terms that the town provides for its own character than perhaps McDonalds can't do business out here. Well that's their problem not ours. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Mr. McCarthy? MR MCCARTHY: My name is George McCarthy, I was born in Laurel, literally, that was before Riverhead hospital was thought of. So I consider myself a native. Never in my life have I ever thought any of you people who are not native, excuse me, who are not natives should not come here. In fact I made a living from either you people or your parents. I was the only excavator in Southold Town for fifteen years. I have my crane, bulldozer, dump trucks and so forth parked in my baCkyard. You won't want them in your backyard. I've been very active and I've seen the change and the change is going to constant whether we like it or not. When I first went to Laurel post office there was one man part time. I asked Mr. Fleshmen for my mail and a loaf of bread. The combination post master and deli operator. Today they have three people in Laurel in the post office plus rural delivery. So I've seen change and it's going to come in spite of everybody here that hate McDonalds. I've been all over the United States and I may I could make a bet I've eaten in more McDonalds then anybody here or almost any group. I did it for 200,000 miles all forty eight states. I could ride around on an eighteen wheeler or my now recreation vehicle and never us a map until I get local. What am I saying? I'm saying we have to be tolerant, I think McDonalds is a wonderful thing. I'm going to show good manners in spite of ignoring bad manners and showing good manners. They landscaped, our delis around here that serve sandwiches and so forth, I'd be embarrassed to go in the kitchen and I've been in the kitchen. McDonalds have excellent restaurants. So I think the change comes, now you may say oh he doesn't want out of towners. I have to want them. I brought my wife from Brooklyn. And I've had her for 51 years. I've been very active in school boards and so forth. Underneath, that's why you haven't seen or heard me here. Tonight I said from what I read in the paper I'm going to go down and see. I'm seeing, the point I'm making is this. This change is coming regardless. If we can prolong it, we all want automobiles, we come from somewhere and moved in here by the thousands. We want automobiles, we. don't want a tire Page 48 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MCCARTHY, cont'd: shredder, we don't want a junk yard, we don't want an asphalt plant, we don't want a sand pit. Okay if we can get away with it okay. My son just left Long Island after making a good living here in Southold Town, he's going to Florida, I would be totally embarrassed, really embarrassed and ashamed if he came back and said, Pop, I don't know what to do I'm going to have to come back there. They won't let me in. In spite of McDonalds up in Middle Island, they are allover the country. 7-11 is here. Excuse me, I carry a bag when I go to the post office to pick up the garbage. I do get a nickel a can. I do pick up the crushed cans. And find 7-11 garbage, I find McDonalds, but I can't blame McDonalds for garbage in the street. That is you people, your children or not mine now, one is in California and one is in Florida so I can't blame, but it's your children or grandchildren or what have you. So I say to all of you who are Johnny come latelys. You are totally welcome. I said t was active in the, I'll say I was active in the Chamber of Commerce in Mattituck, that's the people you, that's the reason you people are here. My vice-president came to me and he said George how do you feel about, by the way that was Fred Moore, I think he lives in Southold, he says how do you feel about zoning. Riverhead voted it down. Are you for it or against it? I said I'm neutral. He said why? I said from what I've seen and heard it can be wonderful if it's properly used. If it's abused it can be horribly crude. Fred Moore said if it rules in your favor. it's good, and if it rules against you it's bad. I said to a degree that's the way most of us are, I hate to admit it. We held a meeting in Mattituck High School. We had over two hundred people present. They decided to appoint a committee, hold a meeting in the Cutchogue Country Club and Mattituck Chamber of Commerce dropped out. Zoning came through. Riverhead had voted it down all five eastern towns voted zoning in oh as quickly as they could. So I still say I don't envy you people boy you can make this honest decisions, they can be wrong decisions. We are human. So the fact that I have 200,000 miles recorded on speedometers, on eighteen wheelers and RV's according to our RV last year I added 22,000. I'm leaving for California in another month so McDonalds has been good to me. I like them and I would rather have a McDonalds come in than some of the other local restaurants. You said it, people say oh McDonalds is going to grab our money and run. Sure they are. The more they can grab the better. Doesn't A & P grab our money and run. Same thing. We need A & P and I think we need McDonalds. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you George. George could I ask you to sign in. I need a motion. We will take another five minute recess and we'll be back to discuss some of the . . Page 49 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: completed TURNED TAPE OVER. Temporary Break All in Favor - AYE. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I promised Mrs. Fletcher that she could continue her discussion with us. MRS FLETCHER: Thank you very much. I'll be pretty brief and to the point. I'd like to discuss an issue that was raised at the last meeting of McDonalds as the good corporate neighbor. I found that an interesting comment and I found that an interesting phrase. And I will refer to page 55 of the transcript from the March hearing. It was Mr. Annabel, an employee of McDonald's Corporations said and I "McDonalds I believe is a good corporate neighbor and I think we can stand tall against any other corporation on the Island as far as that goes" so I decided to see just what kind of a corporate neighbor McDonalds was. So I took myself down to the law library on the second floor of the Riverhead court house and this is a partial list of recorded cases that I found. From Colorado to Massachusetts, from Indiana to Pennsylvania, to Vermont, this nation wide corporation is involved in litigation. The cases were two general types, the first type were instances where McDonalds was denied permission to build for various zoning reasons, they would than sue the city, town or board in an attempt to have the decision reversed. In Colorado, they commenced building in a residential zone without permission. They did the same thing in Rutland, Vermont. The second type of case is after McDonalds has arrived, having agree to certain restrictions initially, such as a sign height in an Indiana case they re-apply a few years after arriving to get a variance pleading the either practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship as the case may be. When they are denied, they sue. In two separate cases in Pennsylvania, they argued to the Appellate level over the meanings of words. One of them being playground, the others drive-in and drive-through. Are these the actions of a good corporate neighbor. I hardly think so. But the good news is this, McDonalds lost these cases. Other people have survived a big mac attack and I think we can too. I will provide you with a list of the cases and where they can be located. Finally, during my research I came upon a set of volumes entitled West New York Digest Third in section 36 under zoning the heading is autistic Considerations. There follows a list of cases in which the opinion is expressed by the courts that community autistics is a valid subject of legislative concern and one whose regulation represents a valid. and permissive exercise P3ge SO - April S, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MRS FLETCHER, cont'd: of the pOlice power. I can provide you with a list of the cases under that section also. One of them was a case that was taken,a1l the way to the Supreme Court, decided in 1978 Penn Cerltral vs the City of New York. The City of New York won. I want to bring these to your attention because I think it's important that we understand, we have heard tonight about covenants, we have had promises made to us, I also want to mention that the cooperative venture between E.D.F. and McDonald's Corporation was a forced venture. I am a member of E.D.F. and I can provide with the newsletter, which tells me that if they had not gone in on this venture, they were under threat of litigation from E.D.F. So, this is the corporate neighbor that we are dealing with. You decide. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anything that you would like to submit? MR MINEO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Okay. MR MINEO: Did you say submit or? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Any rebuttal or anything? MR MINEO: No. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. Okay. You want to say something mam? Okay go ahead. I was just going to get up and address. No, I didn't realize there was still people that wanted to speak, I apologize. We'll be with you in a minute Warren. Oh, you want to speak too Jeanne? MS HALSEY: I'm Cynthia Halsey from Southold and I didn't want to bother you again earlier. I spoke last time and I wanted to say a couple of things that are in reply to what came up last time. The first step although I think I should tell you that my parents and I have been paying taxes in Southold for more years than I care to admit to and if we're talking about times old and times new I can refer to some interesting tombstones dating from the 1600's, so I think I could say I could speak for some old time. First of all, I don't live within the boom box range that will undoubtedly pollute the air in Mattituck, but we all pay taxes. If they contribute a poultry $9,000 and they take out what is something for one service only, I believe last time, garbage, that happy word, $31,000 they are aSking us for one service not police department, not fire department, not any other service the town could provide. A subsidy from all of us of . . Page 51 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR HALSEY, cont'd: about $20,000 per year as things now stand. For every year this place, if it managed to succeed, which it might not, we would be stuck if the landfill cost went up they would probably double, that would be something over $40,000 a year that the town's people would have to provide whether they wanted it or whether they didn't want to. And also, the question of corporate neighbors, they're expensive. Everything the franchisee buys from MCDonalds, and they buy practically everything I believe, goes back to Oakpark, Illinois which is not my hometown and to pay their thirty four cent a share dividend. They aren't on the Dow Jones because they're fun to have around. Thank you. CHAIill1AN GOEHRINGER: Could I ask you to sign in? Thank you. MS MARRINER: Jeanne Marriner and our family has been here since 1913, if we're getting into that. This is in my opinion,a question of the law and it's evident that there is a clear distinction in the Southold Town zoning code between fast food restaurants and fast food restaurants with. drive-in windows, they are not the same. Drive-in restaurants are not permitted in any zoning district. The Southold code definitively separates restaurants under Section 100-13 when it lists drive-ins or not and fast food restaurants and as for the second part of the application under consideration which attempts to disguise drive-in restaurants as an accessory use, accessory use is defined in the Southold zoning law as one that is incidental and subordinate to the main use. One could hardly call a drive-in window incidental or an accessory use when McDonalds has testified at the March hearing that 40 to 45 percent of its revenue is derived from the drive-in. There are precedents in the courts and in the Town of Southold as to what constitutes accessory use as Mr. Nentzel stated. The application under consideration does not meet the requirements of the code and gentlemen I ask you to uphold the law. Thank you. CHAIill1AN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mrs. Marriner. Yes mam? MS ROSS: My name is Bette Ross and I wrote a letter to each of you on the Board of Appeals last week and I'm not going to bore you by reading the letter, but I would like to address a couple of issues. One of them is the special exception category under Article 26 says that the effect that the location of the proposed use and the location that entrances and exits may have upon the creation or undue increase and vehicular traffic congestion on public streets, highways, or sidewalks to assure the public safety and whether adequate prevision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of refuse which the proposed use will generate. Page 52 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MS ROSS, cont'd: Those are the questions that I would like to address. Now, these are things are to be taken into consideration when, if a special exception is granted. By the McDonald's testimony, they are suggesting that 1,300 cars will turn into the site each day. I don't know how many hours the restaurant will be open, but if we assume that it would be open from 6:00 am to midnight that would be 72 cars per hour on the average. If 40% of those were using the drive-in, that would be about 29 per hour. Now these 40% of the cars that go in there, if my figures are correct, if they generated one ton of garbage a day, the people who drive into McDonalds are going to take their garbage away with them. They are not going to get out of their car and throw it into a McDonald's container. So that the burden of the disposal of that refuse falls on the Town of Southold and if they would generate one ton per day under normal conditions than 40% of that would be 800 pounds a day which would go out of the McDonald's area. And for 30 days that would be 24,000 pounds of garbage or 12 tons a month. At $85.00 a ton that's $1,020.00 a month or $12,000 a year. They are only paying $9,000.00 in taxes and of that $4,500.00 is going to go to the school district, half of it. So $4,500.00 is what they would pay for all of this garbage that is being generated and being taken out into the community, either back to your home or on the street and the taxpayer is asked to subsidize that and that's wrong. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Over here? Okay. MR GOLDSTEIN: My name is Warren Goldstein and I'm the executive director of the North Fork Environmental Council. It's almost six months now that I've been trying to think up things to say about McDonalds and the astonishing thing to me is that every time I either think about coming to hearing or think about writing something, that something new seems to come up. I came to this hearing tonight excited about it because of the out pouring of eloquence last month and wondering what new could be said and in fact what I've seen tonight is a whole slew of new things. A whole set of new ways that people have found to talk about their town and about the threat that's posed to it by this application for a special exception. So I was trying to figure out as I sat here tonight, why that is? Why is it that this one corporation, this one application seems to draw out of the people here. So it's really exceptional creativity and imagination and eloquent and I think it's because, at least one reason, is that McDonalds seems to lie at the intersection of a whole bunch of stuff in our lives right now. McDonalds represented a whole lot of trends of the fifty and sixties and may have peaked at some point in the . . Page 53 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR GOLDSTEIN, cont'd: 1970's. It seems to have been a culture based on the unlimited use of the automobile. A culture based on the unlimited manufacture of garbage. The unlimited manufacture of styrofoam. The anticipation we would always have places to put it or that we could burn it and it wouldn't matter, that we could create as much waste as possible and it wouldn't finally matter. That we could eat as much junk food as possible and it wouldn't finally matter, but there are some things that are changing in this society and we've been changing in a lot of places around the country and when you see what's happening right now here before this board with this application, you see a lot of things in conflict. McDonalds is a corporation, there's the corporation of a era that's over. It's an era that is beginning to die. Why else does McDonalds reverse in a couple of days something that they were proud of pioneering for years and years, the production of styrofoam. That wonderful material. Why else does McDonalds under pressure invent the Mclean? McDonalds is a corporation and a restaurant that was founded on the Mcfat. It was founded precisely on something different then that, but things have changed. Our concerns about nutrition have changed, our concerns about the environment have changed. McDonalds was founded on that big M out there. Those golden arches that I grew up with, that's also changed. They represent something that doesn't, that is not in a growth spurt right now, in fact even the business section, the front page of the Time's business section in the last month had a article on how the corporation isn't even doing very well, especially domestically. It seems that all the growth for McDonalds right now is with the foreign McDonalds, so it's opening in Budapest, Moscow and Leningrad. The people of this country seem to have had about enough and that's one of the reasons why you see this kind of outburst I think of eloquence and creativity here, where people have something to protect and they understand the two eras. The things that Southold represents, the character of the North Fork, the character of this town that makes it special are in conflict with what McDonalds has represented and continues to represent around the country. It's why people don't want it. It's why they don't want it for so many reasons. It's why it's of a kind of historical significance that they want to come here and people don't want them here. You have a chance to decide. I understand you're not going to do it tonight, but there is something terribly important that's happening here. Something that is people standing up for the character of their town and also standing up for their future which McDonalds isn't part of. Thank you. MR PILLAI: My name is Bryan Pillai, I'm a resident of Laurel Page 54 - AprilS, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR PILLAI, cont'd: and I live just off the corner of Bray Ave where the proposed McDonalds is planning to be. I'm going back to what Mr. Mineo said about what the Board is required to do and I have here with me a quote from a section of Congress dated July 4, 1776, it's know better as the Declaration of Independence. To hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men. Clearly the pursuit of happiness is not being followed here and you are a government that has been instituted, must do your duty and in securing our rights deny a special exception permit to McDonald's Corporation. Thank you. MR LOGAN: My name is Pat Logan and I work for Econo's Foundation, I'm not a resident of Southold Town, so be that as it may, I may be welcome, I may not be. But I do spend a lot of my working time here and where I work is with some of the endangered species, especially sea turtles in this town. I work and thank you for the commercial fishermen who support that project. I also work along the beaches and I don't have to go to Riverhead to find the trash from McDonalds, I find plenty of it here in Southold. Anytime anybody wants to take a walk any mile stretch of beach anywhere in the Town of Southold, especially on the north shore, you can find the plastic lids from McDonalds and other Burger King and other kinds of trash that washes up on the high tide mark. This town already has plenty of their trash. The other thing is that I also find is trash inside the animals that I have a , the animals that I cut open. I'm not going to blame anybody for that trash being there, in particular and since that we are all responsible for the trash that we have, but if we have a discussion to be made about any changes about evolution in any community, we should be concerned about lessons of the past and lessons of today. The sea turtle for example is about the most endangered species in New York. The only place we find it is out here in the east end of Long Island on a regular basis and that's one thing I don't think we can preserve, but it's a lesson to be learned when we find little plastic caps from coffee cups and other pieces of trash inside these animals. The other end of this is, is in a sense that because I work with commercial fishermen, I had to look at one of the industries that have really built this community. Fishing and farming are the production industries that have supported this area. McDonalds as a restaurant is basically a service industry. It is not the baseline economy kind of industry that supports an entire community, like fishing and farming is. I believe the french fried potatoes come from Idaho and I'm not sure .. . . Page 55 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR LOGAN, cont'd: where the whaler or the, that's not pardon me, the fish sandwich comes from, but I don't see it really as a support to this community, Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We've got to wrap this up by quarter of eleven, we still have an agenda that we have to follow ladies and gentlemen, so. MR MELOSH: My name is Arthur Melosh and I'm from Mattituck. I've heard a lot of questions asked tonight and I heard a lot of responses by the, I would say the second or perhaps the third team of McDonalds. I don't know, I can't say, and I'm not sure. But ladies and gentlemen they do have a first class team too. So you better be careful, they may come in. I also heard tonight an article or a comment made, that there are not playgrounds, well I've traveled from Maine to Florida and I can assure you, there are many playgrounds connected with McDonalds and tables outside, now I don't know what the law is here in Mattituck, but I don't think it's a good situation from what I have observed, especially this past winter down in Daytona Beach, Florida. They do have McDonalds with tables and very amusement apparatuses, play toys for the kids and it does bring an element in there which I would say is noisy at times. Now secondly, I had a restaurant in Floral Park which is the next town from New Hyde Park and you know they gotta say there is some good things about McDonalds. They took a building there because they were forced to renovate this old, it was mansion from years ago. It was a restaurant for many years. They did a superb job. A superb job, it's in keeping with the neighborhood, it's in keeping with the type of building that the town wanted, however, I was there Wednesday and I went into the block in back and I spoke to three people, now they don't have as much property there as they're going to have here true. The backyards are right up against the drive-ins window. Now from what I understand, if you have six cars, say five cars waiting for their burgers and so forth, I'd have five more cars on line, this is at peak time of course. You have ten cars there and let's say two minutes a piece that's twenty minutes. From what these three neighbors told me, that the smell at times of gasoline is quite extensive. It's a small matter but it's important. I made a few notes here. Well I know if I was to open up a business, I would not want to open up in a town where I saw the actions of the last meeting and tonight hostel to my coming into a town and I would give second thoughts. Thank you. MR ISAACS: My name is Bruce Isaacs, I guess I would like to talk about an aspect of the traffic problem, in particular the Sound Ave, North Road corridor. Now I suspect there is a Page 56 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. ~ffi ISAACS, cont'd: lot of transit traffic on that corridor going either from the ferry from Connecticut, both ways and to Riverhead and beyond. Now i~'s almost certain that there are going to be at least two signs on the North Road and Sound Ave directing people to turn south on one of our lanes to go to the Main Road and ultimately to McDonalds. Now that is seriously going to effect the traffic on one of our lanes or several of our lanes and I live on Alvah's Lane and I certainly would not want that sign on, directing people to turn down Alvahs because it would seriously impact on our area. We would have, it would probably increase the traffic on Alvah's Lane or whatever road that they chose to put the sign on. Probably three or four times and as citizens of Southolds would we have any right to not allow signs directing people to travel on our road and disrupt our community? I don't know if anybody address that yet, but it's a serious problem with me, and if anybody who would effect ~he flow of traffic down one of those southbound lanes and again on the garbage, obviously we all know here that this town is in a garbage crisis. I mean we don't know where it's going to end up literally and we don't know how much it's going to end up costing us and now the figure today is a ton, I mean a half of a ton, last hearing it was one ton. But even so, even at a half a ton, to me that would probably be equivalent to the garbage probably of a hundred families. I mean this is an incredible amount of garbage at the time when we're here and in the midst of a garbage crisis. It seems ludicrous to allow this at this time. I mean, just on that basis alone and that's all I have. MS BROWN: Good evening, my name is Betty Brown and I'm the President of the North Fork Environmental Council. The North Fork Environmental Council opposes the application of McDonalds for a special permit to operate a fast food restaurant. The special permit teChnique is employed to control uses which are regarded to be especially troublesome. The uses are in the Southold code and the fast food restaurants are listed among them. The issuance of a special exception permit for McDonalds is a duty imposed upon the Board of Appeals, provided of course, that the proposed use meets with all the standards provided in your code. By any stretch of the imagination does this fast food restaurant meet all those standards and unless the applicant can prove that the standards contained in that code can be met, the Board of Appeals is without the power to approve this permit. A very serious issue that must be addressed is the subject property, is the subject property that fronts on two roads. The north frontage being Old Main Road is contiguous to a residential neighborhood. Certainly a fast food restaurant, next to, and near homes is unsuitable. Would anyone here .. . . Page 57 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS BROWN, cont'd: tonight want to live next to McDonalds? It will adversely affect property values as well as the character of the neighborhood.. I would ask the Board to note the unique location of this patcel. Please visit these homes, their quiet backyards, the gardens, the natural landscape and all the privacy. Do you think that a fast food restaurant would be a good neighbor? Another important consideration is the proposed use will increase traffic and traffic congestion. The traffic issue is relevant to each of the general standards stated and is specifically addressed in 100-264C of your code. We urge the Board to require a supplemental traffic study as the Dunn report is not adequate. This supplement should address cumulative impacts of traffic when all the vacant parcels are developed. A fast food restaurant will definitely generate more traffic than a permitted use in that zone. It should be noted that the area is only partially developed, an anticipated traffic projections for years to come are necessary for the decisions your Board makes now. Gentlemen, Southold Town is going to have their hands full solving traffic problems when permitted development takes place. How could we consider compounding that problem by allowing traffic intense businesses to be permitted there as an exception. I would like to point out to the Board that courts uphold decisions in regard to traffic and I would like to just mention one short one if you can bear with me. In a 1980 Appellate division case, Franchise Realty Interstate Court vs Cohallan, the Appellate division upheld a determination by the Town Board of the Town of Islip denying a special permit for a fast food restaurant based on the fact that the proposed use would aggravate the existing congestion on Sunrise Highway because of the necessity of turning movement at neighboring intersections. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Environmental Council feels strongly that McDonalds fast food restaurant is not in keeping with Southold's rural character or the neighboring community character. The area in which it will be situated is clearly a commercial zone. Largely made up of small town businesses, vacant parcels, and several residences. We also ask the Board to consider thoroughly the issue of solid waste and litter. This is covered in your code 100-264D. In summary, I would like to say that I don't believe that we're here tonight to talk about McDonalds as the recycling giant of the east end or the beauty of the site plan that we have before us. We're here tonight to talk about the roads that will become congested. Making decisions carefUlly now so our children do not inherit traffic problems that they cannot solve. It's about stopping what we have on Route 58 in Riverhead from coming to Southold Town. It's about maintaining the character and the order of Southold Town and its future. Please deny this application. Page 58 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Betty. Two more speakers please and then I have to address the McDonald's people for a second and then we'll conclude. the hearing. Is there anybody else that has not spoken? I MR LOWRY: I have a very brief ps. I used to live in New York City and I was a foot soldier in a battle against McDonalds in our neighbor in the upper west side and this is a garbage ps. We finally won our case and pushed the restaurant from west 86th to west 96th on the basis that McDonalds brings rats and we have enough rats already. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Mineo, I did tell you that I'm just briefly going to scope out some of the concerns that we have, or I have, I'm not speaking for the Board concerning the existing site plan and this is, I'm not the Planning Board I don't do site plan approval, we don't do site plan approval. We are,'I'm just briefly going to mention that to you, to these people here. We will refer this back to the Planning Board, they more than likely will have to reopen their negative declaration to deal with the specific questions and issues as per that letter from the D.O.T which I have not fully, it was nice of Mr. Dunn to go over that, but I haven't fully, we just received it conceivably, we received it at 4:55 this afternoon, so I have not, I have not really let it digest to this particular point. The main concern that I have which I considered to be of most importance is the internal and external flow of cars in and out of the parking lot and as those particular cars do the loop around the building, primarily through the proposed drive-through window and the individual persons who are going to use this establishment are dealing with the ingress and egress going to and from the building. I \~ill admit to you that this second plan that has been proposed is a better plan, but it does not significantly address those issues. It only takes care of about 10 or 15 percent of my particular feelings concerning this project. Again, this has no bearing on the normal, actual, look, style, or conception of this particular plan. It is an area that I construe to be a problem with health, safety and welfare for our residents in this town and I will leave it open to any other Board Members that would like to address any issues or scope out any other particular areas at this point. It may involve a meeting with the Planning Board, we may have to have a meeting with them, I'm not sure. But we will refer it back and hopefully we will conclude this hearing when everything comes back from them. MR MINEO: One question I have, Mr. Chairman is what happens in the event that the Planning Board respectfully refuses to change its position. You. eluded to. the fact that the .' .' . . Page 59 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: Planning Board might have to reconsider its negative declaration in spite of the letter that Walter Dunn received. I would say that the letter that Walter Dunn received confirmed what the ne~ative declaration requested. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Okay. MR MINEO: So far from changing the position, from what my concern is more procedural, in the event that you say well we have concerns about the internal layout and we want the Planning Board to review it and the Planning Board now says, well guys we looked at it, we liked it, we made a lot of changes initially so we really don't want to change what we've already, a negative dec. What's the mechanics then? What happens between the Boards? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The mechanics are as such that hopeful~y they will address a specific plan that we would normally, that I would normally care to recommend to the Board. MR MINEO: Will you be giving the Board a specific recommendation? The Planning Board? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Nothing more than what I've just discussed with you in particular. Truthfully, I would still love to see an exit out on Old Main Road, but I don't think that's going to be for an emergency one way exit. Okay, for an emergency vehicle that we've of course, they have told us that they are not interested in and so we have this entrance that will support a fire vehicle, which is of my concern, being a member of the Mattituck Fire Department since 1969. Okay. That is not a issue. The issue of the drive- through is the issue and the ingress and egress of car over people is my main concern. Now, to answer your question, if they so chose not to change the plan than we will close the hearing and make a decision based upon this. I have no intentions of forcing anybody to do anything. I never do. I'm just going to make that suggestion. In reference to my discussions concerning the negative declaration, I have no idea what they are going to do. I was only, it's only a hypothesis on my part, alright? If they are going to continue with the negative declaration that's fine. Pardon me? (UNIDENTIFIED): Could you build it under ground? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's basically where we are. If I've somehow clouded the issue in reference to the negative declaration, then this letter, I assure you I didn't mean to t Page 60 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: alright. MR MINEO: No, not at all. I was just concerned that I didn't want to be stuck between two boards, if the boards had different ideas and then neither board was going to act, but you've answered that question for me. . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yeah. And we certainly will re- advertise when we come back or they come back and we'll conclude the hearing at that particular point. MR MINEO: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Alright? I'm just telling you that based upon what we have right here I don't think that's adequate for me to address this particular project in my opinion. We thank you all for your courtesy again, we wish you safe trip home. Yes. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would just like to make a comment. I did this last meeting too. My only, and I don't .want you to take this as a yes or no kind of thing, I'm sorry, I particularly have a problem with that forcing people to walk through traffic constantly. In this particular site plan. I'm not asking you change it, but that certainly is a problem for me and that by no means says you change that and you have my vote. I hadn't had a time to read this, it just came in today or yesterday, but that is a particular problem to me in that several restaurants that I did visit, the traffic, the cars were parked near the restaurant and the drive-through was on the outside, I'm speaking of one in Medford in particular, seemed to be a nice way for that to follow through. It had two windows, by the way you pay at one and you receive the food at the same one. You don't drive up and, no I was boldly told that I don't drive up and basically I had already made that mistake. But I would have to read this and certainly when Jerry eludes to the Planning Board I just think that this partiCUlar site plan, with this particular flow of traffic doesn't make any sense at all to me and I would like to see that addressed by probably the Planning Board. Okay, thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I should point out for the record also that our comments to the Planning Board during this process were comments that mainly concerned the safety factor of getting vehicular traffic into the site for the purposes of fighting fire or ambulance personnel, so on and so forth, of which I'm not a rescue squad person but that was our main concern at this point. We did not discuss with them the internal flow of the vehicular traffic to the site at that . . Page 61 - April 5, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: point, okay, to this point, I how far this individual site plan is completed. assume it's complete, fairly c9mplete and. , have no idea I going to MR MINEO: Well there was a subject of extensive discussion and revisions with the Planning. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I know it was, right, okay, but you have to understand that since March 8th I have spent a great deal of time studying this and this is the whole purpose of my thoughts at this particular time, that's why I'm saying I have to, we have to continue with this process. Okay. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, I need a motion to recess the hearing. All in Favor - AYE. Hearing'concluded 11:05 pm ~~' {,-\ /" . \ I" , ,/ vlt ' - BY ( , (:CZ-L)(, c' j (~JJ Transcribed from Tape (Not Present at Hearing) "- ---- -------- ',y' , l ,:.j '--" '--_.~._----- -----_..._""-- ~--~- '. . . TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING SOU~HOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS SPECIAL MEETING OF FRIDAY, ~CH 8, 1991 , Board Members Present: Chairman Gerard P. Goehringer Members: Doyen, Grigonis, Dinizio and Villa Linda Kowalski, Z.B.A. Secretary and approximately 150 persons in the audience. Appl. No. 3970 Applicant(s): McDonald's Corporation Location of Property: South Side Main Road, Mattituck County Tax Map No.: 1000-122-7-3.1 The Chairman opened the hearing at 7:30 pm and read the notice of hearing and application for the record. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a copy of the site plan. I have several site plans in the file. We will be presenting this site plan to the audience tonight to look at before any comment after the presentation. We will be taking a 5 or 10 minute recess and it will be placed back down here so everybody can digest it, for those persons who have not come into the office and looked at it. We have a copy of the Suffolk County Tax Map indicating this and surrounding properties in the area. Could the attorneys identify themselves? MR MINEO: Good evening Mr. Chairman, my name is Peter Mineo. I'm not sure if everybody can hear me, I won't bother to use the microphone. I'm the attorney for the applicant, McDonald's Corporation. My office is at 120 Mineola Blvd., Mineola. I have with me a number of consultants who will be addressing the Board this evening and several consultants who will be available to answer any questions that the Board might have. The first to address the Board will be Ernest Annabel. He is a project engineer and he's from the McDonald's Corporation and he will in essence be submitting the maps and plans and the renderings that have been prepared. As a matter of fact three of the consultants will be submitting written reports or studies as well. Walter Dunn is a traffic engineer and he will be testifying next. He has also prepared a traffic impact study which will be submitted to the Board. Dr. Carl Figliola, who is the Chairman for the Department of Public Administration at C.W. Post and a member of Eagle Associates will address the Board concerning the economic and community impacts of the proposal and he likewise will be submitting the study. Timothy ( , Page 2 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: Barnes will be the last to address the Board. He is a Real Estate appraiser and he has likewise prepared a report in letter fo+m to be submitted to the Board. Also present this evening and available to answer any questions that the Board might have are Judy Padsqucci, a Real Estate representative of McDonald's; Randy Boch, an operations consultant from McDonalds; and Stephen Feldmen, the architect who prepared the plans, the site plans that have been submitted to the Board. The premises will be described in greater depth by those that will follow me. But, so that it can be located for the purpose of discussion, it is situated at the South side of New York State Route 25 also known as Main Road, and it's east of Bray Ave. There is a frontage of 371 feet on Main Road. It runs all the way to Old Main Road and has a frontage of 317 feet on Old Main Road. It is currently vacant, almost 3 acres of total area. It is situated entirely within the general business zoning district. McDonald's application is to construct a restaurant with a drive through window which requires two approvals from the Town. The first is a special exception permit for a fast food restaurant pursuant to building zone ordinance Article 10, Section 100-100b and in addition site plan approval from the Planning Board pursuant to building zone ordinance article 25, Section 100-250. On February 5, 1991 the Planning Board acting as the lead agency pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act made a determination of environmental significance. It first found that the proposed action was an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA, and then went on to make what's known as the conditions negative declarations and the condition which is contained in the determination of significance related to traffic improvements or modifications, and Mr. Dunn will discuss that in greater depth. It's is my understanding that the Board of Zoning and Appeals as an involved agency communicated with the Planning Board and indicated in a letter dated October 1, 1990 some of its concerns-the things that the Planning Board should consider in making it's determination of environmental significance. The site plan from which the negative declaration was issued depicts a total of 83 off street parking stalls; 55 of which are to be installed immediately; 28 will be land banked pursuant ,to building zone ordinance section 100-254 or in the event that it is approved by this Board and the Planning. A total of 65 off street parking stalls are required. If the Board has no questions from me from a legal standpoint, I would like to call Mr. Annabel to address the Board and to begin the description of the site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I would just like to mention, Mr. Mineo, in about 35 minutes we will be taking a break, if you . . Page 3 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: don't finish your presentation anyway. Ive will again place this site plan down for anybody to digest it and if need be, if people need .extra time we will corne back and do the same thing again. Just one question? Stan yes? STAN Would it be possible for the speakers to use the microphones and so that you may have the benefit and also the people in the back may hear. Because it is very difficult to hear the speaker. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Stan. MR ANNABEL: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and Board Members, my name is Ernest Annabel I'm with McDonald's Corporation, I'm a construction project manager and we have offices at 70 East Sunrise Highway n Valley Stream. I want to just talk to you a little bit about the site as we have proposed to develop'it and then a little bit about the building-the proposed architectual design of the building. As Mr. Mineo stated, the site is a 3 acre parcel which by most standards is a very large parcel for an application such as this. The building that we propose sits relatively at the center of this site. The building area is 3222 sq. ft., which represents approximately a 3% lot coverage which as you know is well below what would be required by code. The percentage of landscaped area is 59% that is the green areas that we will develop on this site will be 59% of the total parcel. Again that will far exceed what the code would normally require. The parking requirements are calculated based on one parking stall per 50 sq. ft. of building area, gross building area. In this case that would translate to 65 parking stalls. McDonalds feels for its purposes out here that it would not require 65 parking stalls but that 55 would be more appropriate. And in discussions with the Planning Board, the Planning staff, it was agreed that McDonalds would develop or propose to develop 55 parking stalls and thereby land banking not only the additional 10 that the code would require but in fact we would offer to land bank a total of 28 parking stalls. Just so that if the need in the future should arise in anyone's mind for additional parking we would dedicate such land for that parking if that need should ever arise. However, we feel comfortable that 55 is an adequate number of stalls. That would bring the total capacity of parking on the site to 82 stalls. Again far beyond what would be required. Just to describe the site in a little further detail there are two driveways proposed on Main Road. An entrance driveway and an exit driveway. One way operations each. You would enter along the westerly driveway and traffic on the site would be one directional in a counterclockwise direction around the site. The parking Page 4 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation 50uthold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: layout was designed again in as a result of discussions with the Planning staff as to what would be the best way to layout parking,being that we did have alot of area to work with. We tried to come up with a scheme that was most efficient and most practical for a parcel as large as this and so you will see along the westerly property line that we have actually moved the parking away from the main traffic isle. Such that the traffic that intends to park in that area would not interfere with through traffic traveling around the building either for the drive-through service or to get around the building to exit the site. We have provided in the rear of the property a bus loading and unloading area. This was in response to concerns that potentially a bus, whether it be a school bus or a tour bus or something that might enter the site and would not have a place to park and be out of the way of traffic. So it was felt that there may be a need for this and again we were willing'to provide that and it is located at the rear site, you can see "it on the site plan. Immediately next to that is the out door trash corral which would be totally enclosed, it would be a masonry structure 8 feet high actually in excess of 8 feet high, totally enclosed. It is normally designed to match the architectual style of the building. Again I would just stress that the amount of landscaping here, being that it is a large site, it's an extensive amount of landscaping, there are street trees proposed along Route 25 and trees also proposed along the rear property line as a buffer from Old Main Road. That is pretty much all I have to say. MR MINEO: Perhaps you could describe to the Board the provision for exterior lighting. MR ANNABEL: We have designed with the help of a lighting designer lot lighting for the site and it is shown on the site plan. The poles will be 18 feet or 28 feet in height depending where they are located and they're designed in such a way as to light only our site. This is a concern that McDonalds has addressed in the past and there is a light fixture that we use that masks the light in any direction that you choose to. In such that the light would shine only on our site, only down onto our site and would not shine onto adjacent properties. MR MINEO: Has provision been made for emergency access to the site to other than Main Road? MR ANNABEL: Yes. We have done that. This was a concern raised during discussions with Planning staff as to how a emergency vehicle might enter the site without having to do it from Route 25 or at least having a second way should that . . Page 5 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: be necessary. We do have a provision for that coming off of Old Main Road. We would not pave this driveway but it would be there ,in some way. We figure we might use some kind of a paving stone or something so that a truck, an emergency vehicle could travel safely on it. However, it would be in a landscaped area and it would not be conducive to a customer or anybody else using it. It would strictly be there for emergency reasons. MR MINEO: Perhaps you could describe at this time the exterior design of the proposed restaurant. MR ANNABEL: There is rendering on your left showing what the proposed restaurant design is. CHAIID1AN GOEHRINGER: Could you actually raise that to the next leyel, I don't know whether that is fixed within that area. . MR MINEO: I have asked Mr. Annabel to speak loudly and to stand at the rendering because I think that will be more instructive to the Board and to those people that are interested in the application. l1R ANNABEL: OK, this is the design that we are proposing, it is of course as you can tell not a standard-looking McDonalds by any means. We feel that we have responded to concerns that we have heard from the Town as far as designing a building that would be in keeping with the traditional flavor, if you will, of the area. In fact on my out here I took a good look at the building that was just constructed just to the east of us and I was pleased to find out that this is very much in keeping with the design used on that building. What we show here is a gabled roof design with four dog house dormers in the front. We were proposed to use a cedar siding, real wood cedar painted gray. Again this was in response to some feelings we heard about what color would be desirable. It would be painted kind of a driftwood gray and we would use a black or a charcoal colored shingle. Again giving it that kind of traditional feel. The windows would have these cross bar muttons that you see depicted here. It has this front porch overhang, again almost giving you the feeling that it's almost like a house. You know, more than a restaurant when you look at it. We also do not have any signage per say located on the building. These are our logo windows which are standard on most of our restaurants. We were asked if possible to remove the roof sign that you would normally see on McDonalds from the building. And we feel that a good way to accomplish that would be to put that sign or a sign in a landscaped area at Page 6 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: ground level, plant it and dress it up very nicely in a wood treatment that would compliment the building exterior. And this was discussed in some detail also with the Planning staff. 'The possibility of doing that. MR MINEO: Mr. Annabel, How far set back from Main Road is the building? MR ANNABEL: I believe it is in excess of 140 feet set back from the building. From the Main Road. There are two reasons why we did that. The first is that we have a three acre site and we felt that would be a good compromise on this site. You have a lot of site to work with and that gives a nice curb side visibility of the store and the second reason is there is a significant difference in elevation from Route 25 to the center of the site. So we are accomplishing a by product,of that is that we need to gradually traverse this increase in .grade in order to get to the main elevation of the site. The restaurant will sit up on this site and that's two benefits I think of it being off set so far back. MR MINEO: I have no further questions for Mr. Annabel. If the Board has any questions? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: None at this time. Thank you. MR MINEO: Mr. Chairman, I would like to call Walter Dunn. Name and address please. MR DUNN: Good evening, Engineering Associates. NY. mY name is Walter Dunn, from Dunn 66 Main Street, Westhampton Beach, MR MINEO: Mr. Dunn, at my request did you prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed McDonalds? MR DUNN: Yes I did. MR MINEO: And have you also prepared a supplemental traffic impact study? MR DUNN: Yes I have. MR MINEO: Have you brought them with you this evening? MR DUNN: Yes I have. I would like to hand them to the Board. I'm sure the Board feels a little bit like I do. Generally on Friday nights we're winding down the work week, in fact, at this time I'm still in a happy hour down in Westhampton Beach. I'm going to try to make a brief . . Page 7 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: presentation rather then going through the whole document. My office looks very nice with all the greenery for the parade tomorrQw in WesthamptonBeach. In preparing the traffic impact study we contained really the methodology that we use in all typical traffic impact studies. We [laVe also gone through a very detailed review for the internal traffic flow as well as the external traffic flow. The study has been reviewed by the Town Planning Department and by the Town's Consultant, Cramer Voorhees. They have done what I believe is a very thorough review. We have responded to the comments of Cramer Voorhees and we believe that we have satisfied all their comments. What I would like to do is just take a minute in terms of the external traffic with the review of Cramer Voorhees. They agreed with the methodology that we used. In other words we used the standard type of a traffic impact study, however we make sure we collected the data during the summer time, being fully a0are of the seasonal fluctuation of traffic flow. And we have designed the site, I looked at the need for the driveway locations, the design of the driveway locations as well the need for any external improvements. We faced that all upon the worst case conditions of the traffic during the summer time. Second what we have done, I would just like to lead you through a little bit of the internal traffic flow Mr. Annabel has described the situation. We set up a one- way operation as he described with the westerly driveway being the entrance and coming back around the site there is room for the drive through operation and the easterly driveway being the two lane operation having a separate left turn lane or exit lane and a separate right turn exit lane. In terms of the site we have designed the layout of the drive through so that it will accommodate at least 7 vehicles stacked in a line. Now predominantly what we have found in the studies of other McDonalds through the Metropolitan area is that once vehicles get up to about 7 in line it is situation that we generally go through when we you go to bank. Once you get on a line you see that it's going to longer waiting in line then going inside, you get out of car and go inside. So it is kind of a balancing effect. really have not seen except in some rare occasions the traffic going greater then 7 in a stacking lane. The operation is set up to be very efficient. I would like to stress that to the Board. The McDonald's operation is based on approximately 40% of the traffic going into the site utilizing the drive through. It is really based in part on convenience to the customer. It functions extremely well, we have designed the site so that it doesn't interfere with the flow of traffic. It is a separate bypass lane to go around it so it's not backing up or inconveniencing any of the other onsite traffic. I would be happy to go over any other points a be your We Page 8 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: internally but some of the major aspects that we say is that we have presented the project and the detailed reports to the New York State Department of Transportation. They are curr~ntly reviewing it as part of Cramer Voorhees' project they have more or less said that the Town would go on the basis of whatever the requirements D.O.T. is. It takes a long time to review it we understand within the next couple of weeks they will be finishing up their review and I would like to emphasize again that whatever external roadway improvements that the State has we will obviously have to comply with it. We believe we set up a good design for both the internal and external flow of traffic. Our examinations have shown that there are sufficient gaps based upon having the two separate driveways to accommodate the vehicles particularly left turns out of the site and left turns into the site. The main other aspect that I would like to point out is what could be on the site besides 'a McDonald's operation. In a supplemental report that I have handed out you can see that we have four different tables in there that look at three other alternative uses. The first alternative use that is permitted on this site is a mixed convenience store and a retail use. If we look at that table we'll see that this combined use will generate substantially more traffic then a proposed McDonald's restaurant during the am and pm peak week day hours as well as a Saturday peak hour. During the am peak weekday hour the convenience store use will generate nearly five times more traffic than the proposed McDonalds. Furthermore, the convenience store will generate over four times the traffic during the pm peak week day hour as well as over three times the traffic during the Saturday hour. Now the second use that we looked at was to eliminate the convenience store and have a fully available retail development on the site. In this case the proposed McDonalds restaurant will generate the same number of cars during the am peak hour as the alternative permitted use of what we have shown of the 22000 sq ft retail stores. In other words we haven't just picked these numbers out of the air, but we have looked at particularly what could go on this site to meet the code of the Town of Southold. During the pm peak highway hour the retail stores would generate more then double the traffic then the proposed McDonalds. Furthermore, during the Saturday peak hour the retail store will generate approximately 139 more trip ends per hour than the proposed McDonalds restaurant. The reason we are making these comparison is that it can be seen that there are other permitted uses that can be developed on this site and will have an equal or greater traffic impact than a McDonalds restaurant. Thus the proposed use of the McDonalds restaurant will not have a greater traffic impact, will not . . Page 9 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: have a greater impact on safety and accidents than the other permitted uses. I think that is an important aspect. What was shown in a nut shell by our comprehensive report is that the site with the McDonalds on it will have no adverse traffic impact based upon the design of the interior of the facility and the proper design of the driveways. In terms of the sUfficiency of the stacking lane the 7 spaces that we have that vehicles can stack is more than sufficient to handle the needs of the McDonalds. Even under the heaviest and peak hours of the McDonald's operation. Again I would like to stress the human aspect of us all waiting in line that our observations have confirmed that once it gets up to the maximum that we are saying can be accommodated, people will get out of their cars and walk inside and then come out again. In terms of the adequacy of parking as Mr. Annabel had explained before, we are providing more parking than is required by the code. In fact we are following the guidance in proposing to land bank a number of spaces. If there is a need for more spaces, we will come back and provide additional spaces. In conclusion I will be happy to address the Board and any of your questions that you may have. Obviously we are ready at any time you would like to meet. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mr. Dunn, concerning the specific area where the drive-up or drive-through window is to be placed and I assume that is on the east side of the building. It's not so designated and I know that you didn't necessarily do the engineering of the building and that you are more or less doing the ground engineering. It's indicating on the plan that it's approximately 24 feet in width plus 10 feet 10 inches which is about 34 feet. The parking spaces are slanted as so indicated on the site plan. Do you feel that that is an adequate amount of width to accommodate through traffic and for the possibility of all those cars backing out? MR DUNN: Yes. In my professional opinion it's more than adequate. In fact, what we have done here as you can see, is first, we have made a separate lane for the drive through of a width greater then a car width of 10 foot 10 inches and the 24 foot aisle is really meeting the Town's code, but what we have found is with the angled parking spaces you could go down to a 16 foot wide lane, in fact most of the Towns and Villages on Long Island permit that in a case of angled parking. So by providing a 24, the 24 is handling the worst case situation of right angle parking. The vehicles can accommodate particularly the angle that it's laid out with, So we see that there would be no problem with the interference of either the flow of traffic or the drive Page 10 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: through operation. We believe that the drive through operation has been designed to make sure there is no traffic impact internall~ in the adverse traffic . t I ~mpac . CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: In reference to the place where the speaker post is or the menu is supposed to be placed or proposedly placed. Is this a traditional place for all McDonalds to be placed? Primarily in the rear of the building? MR DUNN: I would be happy to draw that question to an operations person. Our observations is that they have tried to locate the speaker so that it is most convenient and does not interfere with the operation of stacking so that they could have the maximum stacking and the maximum efficiency of a lane operation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any other questions? MR DUNN: By the way if there was a problem that you perceived it can be moved somewhat to go inside. But I would like to defer that to the operation's people. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Jim, Did you have a question? MR DINIZIO: Yes. In reference to the stacking where would the, could you point out to me where the bumper of the last car would be if there were 7 cars there? MR DUNN: What we do is because you can see I think it's best when we come in with the stacking lane, the stacking comes in this matter and it comes into it separate, it is actually separated as you go around the back of the building from the parking spaces. So essentially again, also with the aisle coming in, there is an island here so that anyone parking on the west side of the building would not be interfering with the through flow of traffic going around the building in this counterclockwise direction. What we have provided is some space in here if there is ever bus operations. In all frankness, I rarely see a bus operation coming into a McDonald's site. But the Town had some concern and we provided space for the bus operation. Under the worst case situation we have a space for the bus to park. My feeling they may pull a little further away and let everybody get out and then get out of the way and try to go around the other side if they were using that technique. None the less we provided it. In essence by counting this 7 we would stop somewhere in this area here so the rear of the bumper is all within the sheltered area as we are going around. That is . . Page 11 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR DUNN, cont'd: based upon having a length of vehicle between 18 and 20 feet long so that we could accommodate that number around it. Obviously in this situation if there was no bus it could go way out beydnd that to the end. So we think we have designed to make sure that we don't have any problems with that drive through operation. I must admit I have been working with McDonalds on a number of projects and they all seem to listen to our recommendations on the internal as well as the external traffic because it really enhances their operations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR DINIZIO: Could you tell me. I've worked across the street from McDonalds so... ~ffi DUNN: In Riverhead? MR DINIZIO: . Yes. Sometimes they don't get the food out and they tell the cars to move up forward. Is there any kind of provision here for having cars parked waiting for food that hasn't arrived yet? With the exception of at the window? MR DUNN: I think again that's not really coming from the expertise of a traffic background. I would like to defer that to operations people. Perhaps I could have Ernie explain that now. MR ANNABEL: The answer to that is that it never happens at McDonalds. I would answer that by saying that McDonald's site planning manual does not allow us to design that in for that very reason. We do not teach our people that there is a space there that people can wait for their order. From time to time it comes up as a concern and we try to alleviate that concern. So if that is a concern of this Board we have plenty of room in this landscaped area here where we could cut in what we call a grill space to accommodate that. But the reason it is not here is we are not allowed to by McDonald's standards design that in. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Who are we deferring these questions to? The engineer? MR DINIZIO: I just want to know the land banking of the parking spaces. If you were to put them in, where would they go? MR ANNABEL: They are shown in this site plan in a hash line fashion. They are shown along the west property line and there are some additional ones shown in the rear there. Page 12 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: These rear ones would be accommodated by, I mean it would require some site modification to do it. But we have proven to ourselve~ and the Planning staff that we could make these work by creating an aisle back to these. In fact the aisle itself is shown dashed also. Even should those parking stalls ever be developed, they would still be in accordance with required buffers. MR VILLA: Gerry, I have a question. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Go ahead Bob. MR VILLA: I'm still a little bit confused on the stacking areas. The stacking area from the pick up window or from the area where you place your order? MR ANN~EL: That's a very good question because there is some variation in those two numbers. It's a good question because there is stacking and there is stacking depending on what piece of information you want to know. Now McDonalds again let me just tell you what we would normally design for is 7 to 8 car stacking from the window service. Now when Walter, Mr. Dunn, was eluding to the 7 car stacking he is eluding from the ordering area. We actually have 7 cars measured from the ordering area back to this cut out where the stacking lane begins. But from the ordering area forward is also important to use because those cars are still involved in the operation. All they have done back here is ordered their food they need to then drive up and you will see at our newer locations there are actually two windows, you pay at the first window, you pick up your food at the second window. That is a more efficient way of doing things and we found that to be very successful. There is an additional five cars minimally and I haven't measured it to be honest with you but just looking at it of additional stacking that we normally call stacking so I think you could depending on whose asking the questions we could say we have 12 car stacking here. But we have approximately 7 from the speaker post back and at least another 5 from the speaker post forward. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Any other questions Bob? MR VILLA: Yes. If you have 7 cars stacked up from the ordering post it means then that some of the people are parking and actually walking through those cars to get to the building? MR ANNABEL: I can address that. That can happen in certain situations. We have, there is an entrance doorway here at . . Page 13 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: the part of the building where people can choose to enter the building from that area without crossing the drive through ope~ation. But it would be a true statement that there is another entrance door along the side here that people would cross the drive through lane to do. It's not an uncommon thing and normally these vehicles are basically stopped and people usually make that maneuver quite safely. However you can, you are not forced to do that on this layout. This front entrance here where you see the sidewalk shown would really allow you access without having to cross that. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: OK. Alright. MR ANNABEL: Name and address please? DR FIGLtOLA: Carl Figliola, P.W. Post College, Chairman, Department of public's Administration also a Consultant in the area of Government Relations and a Member of Eagle Associates. MR ANNABEL: Dr. Figliola, have you prepared a economic and community impact study? DR FIGLIOLA: Yes I have. MR ANNABEL: Can you submit it to the Board please. Dr. Figliola perhaps you could summarize to the Board and to those people that are here this evening the study that you have prepared. DR FIGLIOLA: Sure. Our study is a study of both economics as well as community impact and we felt there are several questions that we wanted to take a look at. The site selection, why this particular site? Whether the site selection is a economically wise decision both in terms of the community as well as in terms of McDonalds? What would be the great impact in terms of it? First let me just go to the selection of this particular site. Why here? There is the McDonalds you mentioned in terms of Riverhead. Why east between here and Orient Point and based on the way we look at the demographics and the way we looked in terms of the economic advantages. This is a fairly good site because you have a population base. You have zoning that permits it. You have places of employment. You have locations in terms of shopping areas and schools. McDonalds, if McDonalds were to come in I guess one concern that people raise is, is will it attack other quick service restaurants? We don't believe so because, let me explain a couple of reasons why we don't believe so first of all. This is a unique area it's North Page 14 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. DR FIGLIOLA, cont'd: Fork it's not Riverhead, it's not a hub, it's not a central location. McDonalds represents in the area of quick service restaurants 36% of the market. If there were another such chain restaurant here we would have to reevaluate the decision itself but since there is not we are able to take a look at it and the fact that we will be here will also be a decision factor for others to take a look at and so. It's not necessarily one that it's going to create now. Is there a market niche. McDonalds does have a unique product. It does not negatively impact in terms of other types of businesses. Delicatessens for example. So that we don't see a negative impact in terms of other types of restaurants because one will go to a diner, one will go to a restaurant for a particular type of meal. On the other hand one will go to a McDonalds or some other type of quick service restaurant for a different menu. That's one consideration. I think it's a rather important consideration. Secondly, given the economic climate, McDonalds being a very large and successful corporation it does have the economic and financial strength to handle the downturns in the economy. Today as you probably all heard the pUblic record in terms of unemployment it's 6.5%. That does not take into consideration the numbers of people who are no longer in the job market which is probably going to total that up to nearly 12% at this point in time. Retail sales are still down. The area in terms of real estate is not as stable. So a business like McDonalds coming into a community provides stability in terms of the location and provides certain economic benefits. The question becomes and we address this in some detail in the report whether the alternatives in terms of what can you do with this particular site. You could put in without asking for any special variances a 26000 sq ft retail store. But given the fact that right now in retail locations you have more than 20% vacancy. That doesn't really seem quite possible. You could do an office building but again you have more than 20% vacancy in office buildings. You could put in a combination retail and convenience store. That would create a convenience store that could stay open 24 hours, serving other types of beverages that may be less than desirable. Looking at the alternatives this becomes a alternative that fits well within the plan. In terms of economic contributions, McDonalds will be adding approximately 75 jobs to the community. We'll have an annual payroll of about $500,000. When you look at paying individuals and they go out ~!".d ~1P:ch?,s; l""I,,=," i~ o+-_'b~rcor stores that has a multiply which at conservatively is twice that so that by having an employee now getting a paycheck and going into a retail store or a food chain. You actually have a one million dollar impact in terms of the economic depository. On that $500,000 that will . . Page 15 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. DR FIGLIOLA, cont'd: be generated in terms of employment it will also generate $80,000 a year personal income tax. It will pay as a business profiti~g $7,500 a year in property tax. Half of that goes into the community schools. In terms of sales tax, this McDonalds will generate over $140,000 year on sales that will be about 1.8 million. In short McDonalds represents in many ways given the different alternatives a smart decision. Given the economic benefits that it can bring into a community. A decision that has benefits for a whole host of people. Both in terms of the corporation as well as community people. We have strongly recommended to McDonalds the selection of this site. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Dr. could I just ask you before you leave and no way am I questioning your credentials but I just wanted to.. Would you normally do feasibility studies for lending,institutions also? That are looking to finance projects such as this? DR FIGLIOLA: Would we do it for a lending such as a bank? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes DR FIGLIOLA: We have not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The only reason why I ask that question is do you work specifically for McDonalds? DR FIGLIOLA: No I do not. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: What percentage of your business would normally be done on the bases of... I know that you are a professor and so on and so forth. I'm talking about you mentioned Eagle Associates or something of that nature. DR FIGLIOLA: Well we represent a series of of business itself? do government relations work and we other clients. We will look in terms CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. DR FIGLIOLA: I would say it's a minority share of my business. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR VILLA: Dr. Figliola, there has been some indication here that you are trying to show that if McDonalds doesn't go in that there can be a worse scenario. Page 16 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. DR FIGLIOLA: Yes. MR VILLA: You came out and said that McDona1dswo~iliill ~te 75 jobs and $500,000 payroll. 'What about these ~~ options? Did you do any kind of a study as tmwnw~ t~ would generate in the way of income or taxes? -DR FIGLIOLA: Given the fact that the economy c:i;gj1ti nmw, halS a pretty significant vacancy rate. The probabil:tttyi -<lrfl h6lWi:hI1ll!Jl' somebody come in right now and put up a retail cDl1Tl1illeli'. \We would have more than 20% of that space vacant means' tha~ ~t would not be feasible at this point and time. MR VILLA: You are just saying at this time it La nott feasible. There is no comparison at this time,-. DR FIGLIOLA: No comparison at this time. MR VILLA: OK. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much Dr. lit WBE al pleasure. Mr. Mineo it is a cross just past tit!i 4S mimutte, mark. What I might ask you if it I S not in an LncclllVemLe!ll(i:ei to you and the people that came with you is PO&s~o~ym@v~' ttfue easel over to this side so that we could utilj~ the ]~~W b~ and let people who are standing in the back WID hawe tt<lr JidJ1L down during the break. At this particular tin~witim everyone's indulgence we will take approximate'~y a,. 5, or 71 minute recess at which time we will furnish Ue' pul3>ilJic' W<i:t'llll a copy of the site plan which we will place dow! here'. All in Favor - AYE. 8:23pm CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ladies and gentlemen it was bDQ~ 1l::111' my attentiQn that some people are still havin~ tro~-l~ hearing. We do have four or five seats left ~n' tih~ j~ ~ if anybody would like to come up here there VN,lllJJdJ. De' <il. 1riilm9l side seat. We have moved the easel to the oV~si~ ~:h~_ Is there anybody who would like to utilize this Ji\gl he:37e?' <lll'i:_ Mr. Mineo? MR MINEO: Mr Chairman the last witness to adif.!Jr.ess tthe'llll:mill:I'lli will be Timothy Barnes. MR BARNES: Good evening. I also have hand CRllJtlS, ttlta>t1: I lIl:mml!iI the Board is so looking forward to receiving. G0~ ~n~ Members of the Board. My name is Timothy Barnes" 2'!J: mmniiJl1bmm Street in Sayville. 1'm a Real Estate ApprahelJ <aondi ttllril!l Managing Director of Marchitelli, King, Barne~ ~~~ttesw Inc., ~"'.:;::;r::::"':2r:: ::.::.c. ~.:::.~ ~::';"'::-':e Consult3.!"'+:s. ] ha1Ve lineeml . . Page 17 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR BARNES, cont'd: asked to address certain questions primarily concerning this application from a planning and a Real Estate stand point. Particularly with a view to the effect that this application or the proposed application of construction might have on surrounding properties on the general character of the area in particular and the value, viability and habitability of the adjoining properties. I have reviewed and I won't bore you with explaining again the nature of the application. I would stress from a Real Estate stand point and a planning stand point this is an extremely low density use of the site. In my experience I have never come across the construction of a 3,000 sq ft building on 3 acres of land in the past. But of course that has worked to the advantage of the applicant and I think to the community as well. Because it has made it possible for them to put in the number of onsite safe guards that are not typically possible on more crowded sites. This is a site that is currently zoned business B or rather general business. Some of the onsite measures that have been taken, extensive landscaping which from a value stand point of the effect on the surrounding community is very important because it provides a sort of screening that I think any adjoining property, commercial or residential would appreciate. Certain things one for instance at my suggestion the refuse corral that was mentioned early was moved from the southeast corner of the site to the point where it is now which is about 150 feet from the nearest property line. That's another luxury not every site affords but this site did. Some people address the question of light and sound emissions. Again the size of the site tends to minimize the effect that this on site emissions would have on surrounding properties. The property's immediate environment can best be described as a mixed use area but primarily a somewhat developed highway commercial area. I stress a highway commercial area because this is as distinct from what we would call in the Real Estate trade central business district. What people just think of as downtown, as the hamlet. This is somewhat removed, approximately a mile to the west of the hamlet of Mattituck. Anyone driving along this stretch as I have thousands of times can immediately appreciate the difference between what they see on both sides of the road up until the point where the road bends north and then back east where you actually enter the hamlet. This is a use that typically one associates with a highway commercial location as opposed to a hamlet location. I would suggest to the Board and if I may have your indulgence I will read the preamble to the general business section of the code. Section 100 Chapter 100. The general business district is to provide for retail and wholesale commercial developing and limited office and industrial development outside of the Page 18 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR BARNES, cont'd: hamlet central business areas. Generally along major highways. It is designed to accommodate uses that benefit from large number~ of motorists that need fairly large parcels of land and that 'may involve characteristics such as heavy trucking and noise. From that stand point quite honestly I think this use is not only compatible but I think the code is doing it's job here. This is a very large parcel that experiences as much traffic exposure probably as any parcel east of Riverhead. And this it seems to me is a perfectly legitimate use. Now while I've said that the area is suitable for it. That does not necessarily mean that there is going to enter into this area an unlimited number of competitors that's of course how these things work. The permitted uses and the application here as of permitted use as it is subject to your review and a special use permit, has . been permitted for some time in this location and in some similar highway commercial locations in the Town of Southold. Nothing'has changed to entice McDonalds to enter into the market. McDonalds did so simply because from a business stand point they feel that they have determined that the demand now exists sUfficiently for their product to make a profit. I don't think it follows from that. That now any or dozens of competitors will necessarily spring up around them. The economics have to make sense. There has to be an economic and population base to sell the hamburgers and the like products too. It is not a zoning matter that would invite this sort of use into the area. The Board of course is charged with the responsibility of regulating these applications and if I may paraphrase your own code, so as to determine that they will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of an adjoining property not adversely affect safety, health, wealth, and comfort. That they will be in harmony of the purposes of the code and compatible with the surroundings. I would say briefly I think that I have some familiarity from a professional stand point, where some of the features of the Town of Southold that make it the unique place it is. I was retained and have in the past appraised for open space acquisition purposes a number of the most notable parcels in the Town that have been acquired in recent years. I will mention the orient Point property that use to have the old hotel on it at the ferry dock. I was also the Countys' appraiser for Robins Island and their on going attempts to acquire the property. I appraised for the appropriation, all the wetlands located along the Long Beach Bay for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as well as some Richmond Creek wetlands, so I think I know something certainly from a professional stand point and as a viewer from an amateur stand point about the open space character of the Town. That's obviously a voidable thing to preserve and I think to the extent that . . Page 19 -March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Southold Z.B.A. Corporation MR BARNES, cont'd: that that can be preserved and still support a certain amount of development. A 3% lot coverage of this sort is exactly in the.spirit of the Town code. It's also in the spirit of the County Health laws Article 7 and 12 which have been put in place to regulate water usage, discharge and the like and this application is perfectly in keeping with all of those regulations. I don't believe that the construction of the restaurant really can have any negative impact on the value of surrounding properties. Quite honestly from a planning stand point for a highway commercial district this area has a way to go. We all know what it looks like as you drive through. There are alot of older free standing commercial properties; a number of gas stations. What North Fork Bank has done with that building is an improvement, I remember the old building, but again I don't think this is an area that is demeaned by the presence of a low density restaurant. As far as some of the other safe gu~rds, I mentioned light and noise, the property is not in close proximity to any schools, churches, parks. I don't see where any passive uses of that sort would be in anyway affected. I mentioned the safe guards that have been put in place in terms of water usage, discharge. I don't see that any public utilities can be in any way strained or over strained by this application. A number of people have mentioned what could be done as of right on this site. I would stress again that 26000 sq ft building that was shown on someones rendering over there could be 26000 sq ft of office space which under your own code would then require 260 parking spaces. This is an application with 55 parking spaces and 3000 sq ft of building. It is not as of right which is subject to your review, but from the stand point of the effect on property values and from its appropriateness from the planning stand point I see nothing in this application that's objectionable. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you very much sir. Any questions to this gentlemen? Board Members? Not at this time thank you. MR MINEO: That completes our presentation, Mr. Chairman, if the Board has any questions throughout the balance of the hearing, we'll hold ourselves available. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have a few questions. I just wondered if that rendering could be placed back on top of the easel so that we could refer to it. MR MINEO: Sure. The site? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes. Mr. Mineo, I have spent a great Page 20 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: deal of time in the Northeast corridor and in communities like the great Town of Southold and communities' even a more agrarian and areas of smaller population and although it is not my job to prejudge an application and I have not prejudged this application and I have been asked in particular by one of the persons ' associated with you if I was against this application, I am not necessarily against this application and I will read a specific statement from Secretary of State we use as a basic handbook so to speak in zoning, before we get into the actual comment period. There is one thing however that I do have a tremendous problem with. That is, we have a site that is zone B-it is commercial site everything to the east is zoned of commercial nature-everything to the west of it is on a commercial nature. However across the street we have residential zoning and I am referring to the south, and to the immediate west toward Bray Ave, we have a non-conforming house. 'We also have a fairly narrow island at this point between the Sound and the Bay and we have a substantial amount of houses on Bray Ave, we have a substantial amount of houses on Sigsbee Road and we have a substantial amount of houses on peconic Bay Blvd. My basic problem is that of the speaker post and talking into the speaker phone and then having the person who is in McDonalds come back and ask you if you want fries or whatever the additional normal rhetoric that comes out and again I'm not in any way charging this in a pro or a con fashion. I had mentioned this to your consultant Mr. Raynor way back and I have also mentioned it to other people on my Board that I cannot live with a speaker of that nature of which you speak into and then they come back out on a very, very calm evening that probably could be heard for a mile and a half and I'm being, having lived in a proximity of this and grown up in a proximity of this particular site it is one of my upsetments and my question is really a two-fold one. Would you or your clients be willing to construct this restaurant without a drive through window or could you in some way solve this particular dilemma assuming myself and my Board Members would be willing to vote in favor of this particular project so to speak? And in no way are we taking a yes or no vote at this time. I will again very simply charge the public with what I construe to be a special exception after we finish these particular areas. Yes? MR MINEO: The answer to the first part of the question. Whether or not McDonalds would consider constructing the restaurant without a drive through window the answer is no. As far as the second portion of the question relating to the ability to remedy what you perceive to be as a problem I would first like to have that question addressed so that you . . Page 21 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: are comfortable with the fact that it will not be a problem and perhaps we could go on to discuss what might be done. The good news 9bout decibel readings is that they are sUbject to almost mathematical certain. There are any number of studies that have been done that will indicate t~at approximately 80 feet which is the distance in this case from the nearest property line that the decibel reading is very very low and that's with the McDonalds speaker box at what's known as mid range. Now Mr. Annabel perhaps can discuss it in greater detail then I can, but at the very least there can be a further reduction of the speaker box volume so that the decibel reading at the property line which is not to say at the nearest house by the way, is even lower. I believe that we can resolve that issue. Whether or not there's anyway to modify the site so that the speaker box is farther away or other type of devices are used I can't say. Perhaps ,Mr. Annabel can address that, but I think the threshoid question is whether or not it actually is a problem and studies have shown that it is not. I don't know that we have that data here this evening but since the Board is not going to make a decision this evening we could certainly submit it on very short order. Mr. Annabel, do you have anything to add to that? MR MINEO: We will submit for the Board further documentation concerning the speaker boxes and what we might be able to do to reduce it. We will also see if there is anyway to relocate it. I don't know that that is the case. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The other thing, Mr. Mineo, before we are to get into the other area and that is this Board has also traveled quite extensively in looking at, searching out other particular restaurants of this type and of course in this particular situation we would limit it mainly to McDonald's restaurants. Now I know you recently constructed one in Middle Island, you recently constructed one in Miller Place, and so on and so forth. All I assume apart from the architecture that they are traditional McDonald's restaurants. Are there any that have been constructed in the Northeast corridor that do not have drive through windows? Can you get that information for us? MR MINEO: We probably can answer that question this evening. MR ANNABEL: There is, I don't have the exact numbers but I can answer it and say that there probably are or is a small percentage of McDonald's restaurants today without drive through windows. That usually happens in a case where there was a pre-existing restaurant possibly long before the drive through concept was ever invented and site restrictions at Page 22 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: that location would prohibit us from having a drive through, either the property is not large enough or the lease for whatev~ reason wouldn't allow it or something of that nature. McDonalds will not and has not for quite sometime gone ahead with building a new restaurant without the drive through. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will supply us with that information? Where these are? MR ANNABEL: We can. Yes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I wanted primarily in the rural areas. I think the most Metropolitan area-where I have seen a McDonalds that I thought was very very traditional was in Freeport, Maine. MR MINEO: That was a historic restoration. I might point out that in a recent historic restoration that McDonald's has undertaken in New Hyde Park, Town of North Hempstead, that an historic house was let's say retro-fitted with the drive through window because the Board recognized that it's an intrical part of the matter in which restaurants of this type do business and I think the Board has an opportunity to see that particular restoration. I think you would be favorably impressed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you give us the address of that one? MR MINEO: It's 2045 Jericho Turnpike in New Hyde Park, it's the Cormer Denton House. Mr. Denton was the Supervisor in the Town of North Hempstead about 100 years ago. I might also point out to the Board that in Mr. Barnes' reading of the purpose clause for the business B zoning district clearly indicates a legislative intent that the type of uses that are most appropriate to that district-those uses which the Town Board saw to encourage-relied heavily upon motor vehicles. That dovetails very neatly with what McDonalds is proposing to do with the drive through window. I believe that we will be able to satisfy your concerns concerning the decibel readings for the speaker posts. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I thank you very much for your presentation, sir. I don't know how you are going to handle the remaining portion of this meeting maybe what we will de is probably address four or five of the residents and then if you want to address them or if you want to indicate to me that you want to address them, give me the "hi sign" or whatever. As for the residents there was some concern . . Page 23 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: concerning how this project came to be as you are well aware that on January 10, 1989 through a comprehensive master plan, the ~own Board of the Town of Southold adopted a master plan of which this was one of the zones. The zone since the inception of the period of time that I have been coming to Mattituck, and I am a resident of Mattituck, has been business zoned since I can ever remember and I have been coming out here since 1948 when I was a year old. Quite honestly around the mid-fifties I had always remembered it to be business zoned. I had always to remember it to be wooded. Secondly, I just want to mention for the public there have been many misconceptions concerning our particular end of this project and that is this. This is not a variance application, the Zoning Board of Appeals has a two-fold purpose. Yes true we do grant variances, this is not a variance application. This is an application for a special ,exception which is used synonymously with the words special 'permit. I read from a text that Gail Schafer has prepared for us that we use as a hand book and it says the difference between the two is substantial, the granting of a special exception does not entail the. making of an exception to the ordinance but rather permitting certain uses which the ordinance authorizes under stated conditions. In other words a special exception is one that is allowable when the facts and circumstances specified in the ordinance is being those upon which the exception permitted are found to exist. Unlike a variance a special exception does not involve the varying of the ordinance but the compliance with it. That is what we are looking at, ladies and gentlemen tonight. Secondly, I would ask you-for the real basis of cost-cutting measures, we no longer have a court reporter; and it becomes a little difficult for the person that does the transcribing- who does an excellent job transcribing-to catch everyone's name. We are going to ask you to voluntarily come up after you have spoken and sign in with your address so that we have everybody's testimony along with their name even though you are spelling your name into the mic because I'm going to ask you for that also, because we have to go back and reduce this entire meeting to a fixed hard copy. The next issue is that of courtesy, I have to commend organizations like the North Fork Environmental Council and other organizations that have spoken before this group, this Board so to speak, as being extremely courteous and I expect everyone to be as courteous to your neighbors as you are to the Board and to the gentlemen and ladies that come before us tonight. Thirdly, if there is a spokesperson for a specific group we sincerely appreciate that you would ask that person to speak on behalf of your group and lastly I again have no intention and I'm recommending to my Board Members to hold this hearing off until April 5, which is another Thursday or Friday evening in Page 24 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: the first part of April and I have all intentions of recessing it giving the Board time to digest everything that has been receiv,ed tonight and secondly time to definitely go to New Hyde Park and look at this particular building that has been just constructed. We are open for all opinion and any controversial issues that may concern you we ask you only to present them in the most expeditious manner. I will now ask if there is anybody else, anybody who is in favor of this project that would like to speak? MR ARANEO: My name is William Araneo. I'm a resident of Mattituck. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board in my opinion, this is a matter of economics, and the balance of development and economics. The taxes in the Town are not decreasing. It's becoming increasingly more difficult for people to live in our community. It's essential that we restrict development but sensibly. It's also essential that we enable people to develop property that they have purchased and have legitimate reasons to develop to do so. I don't see any relief in sight for taxes to decrease and the only way to do it is to encourage business/and or housing. I think that the Town in it's infinite wisdom does a tremendous job in both areas. I think you are protecting our community righteously. I think that there is increasing evidence that there is a, this is a special permit and it has nothing to do with the emotions of quote unquote changing our Town. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Mr. Araneo. Could I just ask you if you wouldn't mind to place this down here. I know this is a little awkward asking you to sign in but it is a problem it's saving us $650. Thank you so much sir. You can leave it right down there. Is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of this project? I would like to have a show of hands in favor sir. You are welcome to use the speaker the microphone on either side. It doesn't make any difference. Thank you again sir. MR SCHWARTZ: My name is Benja Schwartz and I'm an attorney in Riverhead. I used to be in the culinary field before I was an attorney and at one point I lived around the corner from McDonalds and I actually tried working there just to see how, what it was like. I think first I would like to compliment the Board, I think you are doing a wonderful job of handling this particular application. Second, I would like to say that I think that this is a very significant event for the Town of Southold. No where else in my life have I been where they measured time by a hundredth of a second. When I worked in McDonalds they were paying me by how many hundredths of a second I worked. It wasn't a whole . . Page 25 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. !1R SCHWARTZ, cont'd: lot for a hundredth of a second. So I do think that this is significant although possibly not in this particular specific. Thi9 one McDonalds is not going to change the nature of the Town of Southold, but Southold is changing and this is an indication and I hope that the Board and the people who are here tonight will consider what kind of responses might be appropriate so that we can guarantee that other fast food chains, Burger King, etc. won't be across the street at least we can space them out through zoning. We can tax drive-ins and I, the last point if I could make drive-ins I think we don't need half the ones we have, the banks step drive-ins should be taxed too and they should reduce the number of them it's an abomination that we are an automobile dependent culture. This was at the root of our problems in the Middle East and it's not doing anything to solve it. CHAIRMAn GOEHRINGER: Thank you again Mr. Schwartz. Again is there anybody else who would like to speak in favor of the application? On this side of the room which is my left, is there anybody on this side who would like to speak against the application? Yes mam, in the back of the room, would you kindly come up and use the microphone if you wouldn't mind, at your leisure. Thank you. MS HALSEY: Thank you. Good evening gentlemen. I'm Cynthia Halsey. I live at 50 Oaklawn Ave and that is three doors from the Town Hall. I would like to speak to what you might call the hamburger fallout. I live on Main Road and frequently I will find on my grass in my hedge and one time even on my front porch the evidence that there is a McDonalds in Riverhead. Sometimes I'm fortunate and these bags are empty. Sometimes I'm very unfortunate and they are not. The contents are sometimes in deplorable condition owing to the attentions I suspect of the neighborhood cats. Possibly the neighborhood raccoons. I don't see why I and people around me, of whom I think there are more than one should be trash collectors for a hamburger franchise. Also leave it to raccoons they probably carry the ticks that carry lyme disease. I don't like the idea of vermin passing through my grounds and possibly endangering me and other people who might come there too. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Could I just ask you to sign in if you wouldn't mind. Thank you so much I'm sorry about this. MS HALSEY: That's alright. $650? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody else again on my left Page 26 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: that would like to speak? Yes Jeanne? MRS MARINER: Jeanne Mariner f~om Mattituck speaking both as a private citizen and also a Dfrector of Save the Bays. As a resident of Mattituck I would just like to say that the proposed McDonalds is certainly not needed in Mattituck and most definitely not in the best interest of the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Mattituck. We have enough traffic problems on our two lane Main Road right now without adding more. We are definitely not a highway there either. We also have enough fast food places with all the deli's and restaurants currently available. To grant a special exception would certainly not be in keeping with the purpose of the Board of Appeals to act in the best interest of the residents and might set a precedent. If you deny the . special exception your decision will certainly be legally defensible as you will be acting to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents. And speaking for the Bays I would like to note that Save the Bays Members are involved in several beach cleanups of the Bay beaches in Mattituck and the most frequent and steady stream of litter we find are cups with the McDonald's logo. Gentlemen, we have enough garbage on our beaches and roads along the Bay from the two Riverhead McDonalds without adding another one to contribute more and I really believe the people of Mattituck are tired of being the dumping area in the Town of Southold. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: ask you again to sign second row there yes? Thank you Jeanne. Jeanne this. I apologize. Nice Would you like to speak? could I just lady in the MS DICKINSON: This is dejavu for me because just about a couple of years ago I stood before you and I made, I pleaded with you not to allow the building across the street from us on the wet lands in the Cove. We now look over at a virtually tenantless waterless mess. And I just beg to remind you that sometimes people are right. Also I live on Bayview Road on the corner and far from Main Road and we almost always have McDonalds debris on our lawn. Although it is different but are we brave enough to keep it different and be the only Town in the world without a McDonalds. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to ask you for your name also. Could you just give us your name. MS DICKINSON: Agnes Dickinson. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is there anybody again on this side that would like to speak against the application? Yes mam? . . Page 27 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS FLETCHER: Is it permissible to ask a question? My name is Linda Fletcher and I'm a resident of New Suffolk. I would like to I guess I would ask yo~. because you would know or the I attorney. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You will pose it up here and we will bounce it over to him. MS FLETCHER: I would like to know if the applicant, McDonald's Corporation is the owner of record of the site? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That question was asked before. MS FLETCHER: And the answer? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you divulge who the owner is? MR MINEd: The owner, we have a contract, a conditional lease with Cofam Realty. I understand Cofam Realty is in the process of purchasing the property, so McDonalds will not be the owner it will be a long term lease of the premises. But Cofam Realty is the entity with which McDonalds has entered into this. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can you tell us who the principal is of Cofam Realty or the principals? MR MINEO: George Lewis and Marty Casmaca. MS FLETCHER: And who is .the owner of record now? MR MINEO: Cofam is the actual owner at the present time? MR ANNABEL: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And do you have address is or where they are located? of the lease in the file but. any idea what their I know I have a copy MR MINEO: It is the Sunrise Highway, Bohemia, but we will get the Board a specific address. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you I have a copy of the ground lease which I think was given to us but rather than going through the whole ..OK. MS FLETCHER: I would just like also to address a few comments that were made by the people who did the presenting. I couldn't see I was in the back but the gentlemen who spoke from C.W. Post spoke about this area being unique and I think Page 28 -March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS FLETCHER, cont'd: he was certainly right when he spoke about this area being unique and I would like to say that I hope that all of you will cons~der it's uniqueness and help us keep it that way by denying this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MS FLETCHER: And the last thing that I would like to say is someone here spoke also about the economic contributions that this establishment would make to the community and those economic contributions are going to be very low paying jobs for a relatively small number of people. The big money for McDonald's Corporation does not stay in the community. It leaves the community and goes back to the corporate headquarters. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think the gentlemen in the rear of the room. Yes. MR ONUFRAK: My name is Joseph Onufrak, I'm an attorney, I also happen to be a Real Estate Broker and an appraiser and I would like to comment very briefly on the testimony of Mr. Barnes, McDonald's expert in a couple of areas. I intend him no attack and I'm not Mr. Barnes credentials. If he is a Real Estate Appraiser however, there is nothing in the nature of being a Real Estate Appraiser that offers any expertise or wisdom to the Board in laying public record here that suggests that Mr. Barnes would know whether or not any other store would be interested in moving in here. A goodly portion of his testimony I believe the tapes will show is an economic analysis not of Real Estate but of a commercial venture and I know of no reason and nothing I have heard here tonight that suggests Mr. Barnes has any expertise on that. The reason for stating this is that this is this Board's purpose is not only regulatory but is educational. This is a public forum and an extremely volatile issue with the community and the community is talking about these questions at some length. We have heard nothing tonight from McDonald's that substantiates an argument and a contention which should be before the Board and that is,what impact does this have on other ongoing commercial ventures? Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Leaving this side for a moment. We will ask Mr. Mineo if he would like to address any of the issues. MR MINEO: The last issue that was raised about McDonalds potential impact on other commercial operations. I'm assuming that the speaker was referring to the question of competition. He didn't elude to that more specifically. Is . . Page 29 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: that in fact sir what you were eluding to? MR ONUFRAK: Yes. MR MINEO: As an attorney I'm sure he's familiar of a whole lengthy line of cases involving special use permit applications, many involving restaurants and a question of competition. I would address the Board, rather refer the Board to a case titled SUnbright Car Wash vs Board of Zoning and Appeals, in the Town of North Hempstead. Where the, where not only does the Board of Appeals deny Sunbright's standing because their only injury was an economic injury as a competitor but it went on to say zoning laws do not exist to insure limited business competition. There are many cases and I will provide those to the Town Attorney for his review and for his further discussion with the Board. But I would venture to say that if the Board is looking at the issues of limiting competition in any way, then it is looking at an improper stand upon which to judge this application. Zoning laws were not enacted for that purpose. It's very clear from Town Law and to be used in that matter. The courts have often and very vigorously defended free enterprise. Especially when they are being hinged upon by the use of zoning laws. It's putting a law into a use for which it was never intended. I'll leave it at that, but I will be in touch with the Town Attorney about this issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: will you supply us with a copy of that please sir? That decision. MR MINEO: Absolutely. In fact I'll submit all the cases. CHAIRMAN the room opposite GOEHRINGER: In to a discussion side. no way am I limiting this side of but I want to shift over to the MR ARNOFF, TOWN ATTORNEY: Mr. Mineo. Perhaps, just so to clear the air, I think the Board's intent here was to follow the law and I'm certainly, I certainly would welcome any input you may have as to what you may think the law is, however I think your comments directed at the Board might better have been directed at the other speaker. This Board is sitting here and is only here to digest what people have to say. Take it back evaluate everything in light of our ordinances and in light of ~pplicable laws and then make a determination. MR MINEO: I didn't mean to indicate that the Board had predetermined this on the basis of competition. Page 30 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MR ARNOFF: No, but I think your comments about the law and what you are lecturing to the Board on what the law is I think are inappropriate. That:s my comment. , MR MINEO: Well unfortunately, I.'m constrained to advocate my clients case. And we must at this junction point out so there is no misunderstanding at the Board level or for those people that are here interested in the application as to what the applicable standards are. And if I was too forceful I apologize. MR ARNOFF: Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again over to the... I just want to zip over to the other side and then....Ok. Go ahead. MRS MELLENDER: Good evening my name is Yuette Mellender and I live in Mattituck. I look at all these big shots that came in from McDonald's Corporation but they don't intimidate me. We're a small Town here. This is my presentation. I didn't bring cartons full of studies and I want you to know that I'm going to speak is from my heart and not from my pocketbook alone. I live in Mattituck and I live in paradise, and to me they're synonymous. This morning as I drove into work on Route 25 I thought about the plan changes to the nature and character of our area and I cried. I travel 100 miles a day round trip. I work in Hauppauge and when I come home this is where I am. Each day I'm so grateful, I'm so grateful for the area that we live in. I feel sometimes like I'm living in a Walt Disney Movie. The big item that we had in the newspaper you people may not understand this is that a deer broke into the Carvel and when the police came they thought that somebody had broken in. My husband and I went away for two weeks and forgot to lock our car and the car was still there when we came back, but that's aside from this. We love to live here it's charming, it's safe and we have all the hamburgers we need. I'll tell you where we go. We go to Fisherman's Rest. We go to the Half Shell Republic. If we want a hamburger we get a $2 hamburger at the Elbow Room. And we go to the Jamesport Country Kitchen. And these are the Mom and Pop operations which will be a very very great loss to us. Sure we want to stop this competition. You know what's happening to the small businesses out here. They are holding on with their fingernails. This is not a tremendous place. Anything that you take away is going to hurt the nature and character of the area that we live in. It will be a terrible loss. Now once you come in and they grant this whatever it is they can grant and I would like to ask question about that after. . . Page 31 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Special Permit. MS MELLENDER: What is it? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Special Permit. MRS MELLENDER: This special permit, the small businesses that not only will they be the first to go, but the big businesses they are going to be coming in. We are going to have..Unless you could tell me how we're going to stop it. We can't stop anybody else from coming in once we do this. We don't need the big city chain operations out here. We want our area to remain quaint. We love the farm lands, the nurseries, the wineries. These are the reasons we live out here. I asked a question of the secretary before, I wanted to know if these were the people that we elected and she explained to me and I was sorry that I didn't understand it. That we'elect Board Members who appoint these people and I said when you get ready to vote remember that we are the people who vote those who came out tonight and the people who appointed you, do I have it correct. The people who appointed you are going to be responsible and if you've lived in Mattituck a long time you know. Just like the people who clean the roads are responsible for the roads and those who are suppose to do a job, do a job. As you vote, we are going to be watching and we're going to see who votes for and who votes against and when we go out to vote we'll remember that. I did right a couple of other votes. I thought about as we were talking, we had a terrible accident out here. There was somebody on the back road that was hit by a truck because the truck was racing to the ferry. But now we are not going to have to worry about that on our back road because they are going to come to McDonalds on Route 25 and so our charming Route 25 is going to pick up all the traffic and I did ask McDonald's people during the break. Are you going to put a sign at the ferry. Can you image this guys, that's going to say McDonalds 7 or 8 or 10 miles Route 25 in Mattituck. Why would they not do that. They are here for business. And what I wanted to ask here just one more thing. On what grounds can you refuse to grant the special exception? I know that you said the attorney spoke about case law. So the case law will say you can't grant it on this. But what grounds can you grant it on this? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: By my discussion of what I had mentioned in reference to the special exception as it applies to this district. A special exception is a special permit that is inducive to this zone. Ok. It's a permit used in this zone. So, for some specific reason this particular application will be approved in some manner, some fashion Page 32 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: with certain restrictions. What those restrictions are, what exists, how it will exist, is too premature for myself to give yqu an answer or if my fellow Board Members would like to answer, they are very welcome to, but I have to again reiterate the fact that a special permit is permitted as a matter of right in this zone with certain restrictions. MRS MELLENDER: So that we might be losing no matter what we say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are never losing no matter what you say. You are only adding to our specific volume and volume of information that we will have to go through when we successfully feel that we have retained all the information that we need in order to make a decision in this particular application. Yes. I have to ask you dear to sign in if you would. . MRS MELLENDER: Ok sure. MS GIBBONS: Just one simple question. Can you deny it because of the will of the people. That being the only reason? No other reason given, the will of the people, we don't want it therefore you deny it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I have to ask you also to sign in if you would and just state your name for the record. Again we're saving money here, this is a ...Just state your name. I really want to go on to this side and then come back to center if you don't mind. (AUDIENCE): Are you going to answer us? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'm working on it. To answer your question you are aSking me or my fellow Board Members to prejudge this application and at this particular time I can't do that. MS GIBBONS: I'm asking is it permissible just in case? Do you need.. what do you need to deny it? Is it not the will of the people? We the People. We are the people we are the government, we don't want it. For that reason alone can you deny it? Or can you not? Is it possible? That's all I'm asking. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Well what you are basically asking for is a permissive referendum. And that is so many people saying yes and so many people saying no. And the people that say no would out weigh the people that would say yes. I . . Page 33 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: mean that's conceivably what you are asking for at this point. I don't have that jurisdiction and you are asking me to prejudge ~t. I'm not in .any way being evasive to the question but in my particular opinion as what I have read in reference to case law and I'm not an attorney, I don't prove to be an attorney. Being perfectly honest with you. It is permitted in the zone, the special permit is conducive to the zone and I can't physically see how it can be denied under the present situation. Mr. Dinizio has a comment he would like to make. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to comment, however that we would probably, basically have to grant a permit however the restrictions that we determine may be restrictions that perhaps people could not live with. I have to say because to try to answer your question mam if they are permitted this by right t~ey have to meet the criteria set in the law. In other words for a special permit in that zone. If they don't meet that and they don't prove that to me personally then my vote goes accordingly. However, I do have to listen to each and every person and to what they say. The time for the will of the people is at the voting booth and when the laws are being made. They're not at this particular time. It is in my opinion, too late for the will of the people at this point. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just hold on one second, Deb, the Town Attorney wants to address this. MR ARNOFF: I think I can address one thing. The will of the people should be addressed to the legislative chain what this Board has to do is to enforce the legislation as it exists. So I don't know that that answers your question but I think that really states the purpose of the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Mrs. Brown you had a question, statement? MS BROWN: Hi, Good evening, my name is Betty Brown and I wanted to reserve possibly an opportunity to come back and speak with you later, but I just wanted to speak on these comments. It's disturbing that there is not an answer for this question. The Southold Town Code, I have it there, a check list, but I have it quoted and I might be able to read it for you. There are 14 special permit uses in the general business B zone. Of these tonight we are concerned about the fast food restaurants. I would like to quote here, the provisions of Article 26 under purpose are designed to provide for administrative review of selected types of proposed land uses. These uses which are allowable under Page 34 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. MS BROWN, cont'd: zoning are never the less so likely to significantly affect their surroundings that they require individual review to assure compatibility with existing land use patterns, community character and the natural environment, before being committed to come into a distance. Under 100-263 general standards they go onto say that no special exception approval shall be granted unless the Board having jurisdiction thereof significantly finds and determines that the safety, the health, the welfare, the convenience and the order of Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and that the use is compatible with the surrounding and the character of the neighborhood. In that they are not automatically able to have a fast food restaurant here. There is a possibility to say no it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are referring to those sections as basic criteria that we would use for denying this special permit. ' Is that correct? MS BROWN: A possibility of denial. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That certainly is within the scope. There is no question about it. MS BROWN: I don't think anyone here understands that. They are talking about.. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think that was very astute of you to mention at this point. My question is are you representing yourself or the N.F.E.C. or both at this point? MS BROWN: Both. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Could I just ask you to sign in also. Yes you will come back no problem. Let me just go back. Debbie you had a question, a statement you want to make? MS SIDLAUSKAS: Well I had a statement saying with the laws and everything. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Just state your name for the record. MS SIDLAUSKAS: Debbie Sidlauskas from Mattituck. I recently had written to Supervisor Scott in reference to his statement made a good six months ago when this all came to light about, because there are no specifications in the code for a drive through restaurant that we quickly put something to eliminate the possibility. And we waited and waited and nothing was done. I recently wrote to him to find out if indeed anything . . Page 35 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS SIDLAUSKAS, cont'd: had been done and I received a letter from Mr. Arnoff's office from Matt Kiernan and they want to do a full examination of the re~evant issues. So I think if you allow it to come through with the drive through you are setting a precedent and will make it that much more difficult to do anything with the code. I mean if we yes to them we have to say yes to Burger King and Roy Rogers and everybody else. I think a precedent has to be set here. I have so many things to say. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know there is no problem. You can come back and say what you want to say at this point then come back. MS SIDLAUSKAS: Well I would like to say one more thing while I'm up here. You know from the beginning I've been getting so many people say oh and it's been in the papers, it's not an enviionmental issue. So I decided I would look up the definition of environment in the dictionary, Webster's dictionary and I would like to read that for everyone. Because it doesn't only mean your water and your air and everything else. The definition of environment is the aggregate of social and cultural conditions that influence the life of an individual or a community and I think this will definitely influence the life of a lot of individuals and the community. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Again reverting back to my right and in this particular case the west side of the room here. Is there anybody on this side that would like to speak against the ....Yes mam. Would you kindly come up and use the mic. Take your time. Just state your name for the record if you wouldn't mind please. MS HUNTINGTON: Mary Anne Huntington, Cutchogue. I moved here two years ago from the thriving Metropolis of Port Jefferson. I have watched Port Jefferson sort of slowly sink into the Sound under the weight of overdevelopment. The master plan nipped at the heels of development. So whether it's a moot point at this time I urge everyone concerned to take a much longer view of a better master plan. That's all. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Could I just ask you to sign in. Again on this side sir I will be with you in one minute alright. Yes sir. Kindly state your name for the record please. MR FLATER: Tom Flater from Mattituck. Apparently, although unfortunately the McDonald's corporation has the right to build an establishment in the Mattituck community despite Page 36 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR FLATER, cont'd: enormous local opposition. McDonald's restaurant will cause irreputable harm to the character of the community. The Appeals Bo~d has the power to prevent additional harm from being bestowed upon the community by not approving a special exception to allow a drive up type restaurant. Fast food establishments thrived for years before drive up arrangements evolved. I can't imagine that the new restaurant will suffer that severe an economic hardship without the addition of the drive up window. The drive up will subject the community to the possibility, probability, of additional traffic and traffic safety problems as well as additional trash related problems. Traffic safety will suffer negative impact when people depart the facility onto the Main Road while putting away change, handing out food to family and friends and trying to eat their latest purchase. Obviously these same events might occur w~thout the drive up but the frequency will most certainiy increase dramatically. The people can just drive from a window and be on their merry way. More trash will depart the McDonald's site if a drive up is utilized. We all know that this will lead to additional trash littering our neighborhood. Whether by accident or on purpose. Trying to deny this is ludicrous. We must make every effort to keep our community beautiful. A cliche yes but true. I urge you to deny this special exception in an effort to help reduce the impact upon the Mattituck community due to the impending arrival of McDonalds. I also have another thought based on Mr. Mineo's talks about decibel readings with the speaker you were talking about. I have to think back a number of years ago when the Federal Government was running noise tests on the Concord for JFK. As a former resident of Southwestern Nassau, I don't like to tell you about it. The Concord made no adverse noise, was no noisier than any other jet coming in and out of the airport until you had one go over head. It was a totally bogus concept. Decibel readings are not reliable. That's a fact. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you to sign in Tom. you so much for your opinion. Is there anybody else this side? Thank you sir for your patience. Thank again on MR NINTZEL: My name is Charles Nintzel I live in Mattituck. ~wo questions came up and this is discussions of other people. One was how many tons of refuse does McDonalds put in their little compactor back on the corner and where does it go? That's a question I haven't heard anybody address. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: your stand. We'll have that answered for you after . . Page 37 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. r1R NINTZEL: The other one was that kind of mystified me is that the property tax that the people here estimated was $7500? That was the property tfx for this, it was estimated to be $7500 and I based that on discussions with the gentlemen here and he said that was based on all the facts. Now to me $7500 for a 1.8 million operation doesn't sound right and I would just like to leave those addressed to the Board. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you sign in sir. Is there somebody from McDonald's that would like to address that issue? MR BACH: My name is Randy Bach. I'm a Consultant for the McDonald's Corporation I live at 5 Gerald Drive in Holbrook, NY. As far as trash. Starting April 1st of this year, McDonalq'sCorporate policy is to recycle all corrugated cardboard in the business. That will reduce our trash volume by up to 65%. Right now there are many stores on Long Island that are in that program and the recycled corrugate is being brought to a plant in Brooklyn. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: So what portion, would be retained or landfilled at this point? MR BACH: Well a comparable site is the Riverhead store that we've talked about. That store gets three pick ups a month. I asked the owner of the carting services, Riverhead Sanitation, he said they don't measure it in tons, they measure it in, we have a 30 yard compactor. He picks that up about 3 times a month now, however, corrugate is not being separated at that site as of this date. Come April 1st we hope to reduce that by up to 65%. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. ~ffi BACH: A question was talked about polystyrene as everyone knows we've I guessed buckled under and have decided as a corporation discontinue use of polystyrene. Right now we are depleting supplies that we have and hope to be out of up to 95% less than where we were let's say a year ago. We have not found an alternative use or substitute for coffee cups and some of the breakfast foam packaging that you see. We should be out like I said up to 95% reduction in polystyrene by June of this year. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes mam. ;'IS HARDY: I live on the r1ain Road in Mat'::~'::'-':':::~':" :-"2:-:;::::':' especially in the summer 1 have to pick up trash that is on Page 38 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS HARDY, cont'd: my lawn, a bunch of it from McDonalds. But I wonder have McDonalds done any study if their Mattituck store is successful, when will "they start to open in Orient and in Greenport. I think that is something else that the rest of us should consider not only the people who live right in Mattituck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you state your name for the record? And I do have to get you to sign in, if you can't we'll bring it back to you. MS HARDY: I will sign in. It's Beatrice Hardy on the Main Road in Mattituck. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: How do you do. Thank you. MR. MINEO: Mr. Chairman, McDonald's would represent that in the event this application is granted it would seek no further approvals for any restaurants of any kind in the Town of Southold. That's a representation. (UNKNOWN): How about Greenport? MR MINEO: Or in I understand you're talking about the Village of Greenport? The same would be true and if the Board feels that a restricted covenant to that affect is appropriate or representation of any type by McDonalds. McDonalds would be happy to make that representation. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Yes mam. MS WACHSBERGER: Freddie Wachsberger, I'm president of the Orient Association. I have first of all a question, because I found it very interesting the description of the legal aspects of this particular this kind of special exception and I might have misinformation but I had understood that special exception basically was granted when the applicant could show financial hardship if it was not an issue. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's a use variance. MS WACHSBERGER: What I wanted to say about the application obviously it is the drive in window that is the problem for most people. Mainly because it does mean traffic and it also means that people then pass through with their garbage and simply drive through. It is really a traffic problem. Obviously nobody has anything against a restaurant where people park and go and sit down and enjoy their meals and we have many such restaurants. It is the particular aspect of the drive in quotient drive in part of a fast food restaurant . . Page 39 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS WACHS BERGER , cont'd: that is upsetting to the community and I think as many other speakers I feel very strongly that it is setting a precedent that;is a real problem here. Because obviously once that is done there is a much weaker basis for denying it to anybody else so McDonalds might guarantee that they won't open one any place else but suppose somebody else wants to open one. In Greenport or Orient or East Marion, already the precedent has been set and there is really no reason to grant this special exception. There is no reason to do it. This is such an important moment and you have the responsibility on your shoulders. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: A big job. Thank you so much. We are back to the center. You already spoke so just wait. You want to touch on that issue. I'll be back to you alright. Sir? MR SCOT~: I'm Peter Scott I live here in Southold and I think it's shame that we're all picking on McDonalds. For they are in the process of bringing progress to our sleepy little North Fork. They promise us that we will have more taxes never mind that there may be less taxes coming from the other restaurants that are hurt by their business. They will bring us more trash. Styrofoam and garbage but could push us that much closer to our having to solve our landfill problems in this area. They will provide us with more jobs at miserably low wages yes but it might keep the kids off the street. All that we have now in this area is locally owned restaurants and this would bring big business to the community and we should rejoice. We should be proud that such a mega corporation as McDonalds is interested in us and has brought in this a wonderful array of hired help to convince us of this. We should indeed be humble. They are spending a lot of money to win this exception and we should be honored that they are. And finally I would note that the promised advent of McDonalds will have the joy of bringing more variety to the food that is offered in our area for all we have now in this area are good restaurants. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I hate to point at people. It's the only way to do it. MR NINTZEL: I would like an answer on the tonnage that is produced in compacted trash and I would also like to know where it is taken,that trash and I know where Riverhead takes it but where is it going to go here? And also I would like to have some sort of an answer on this $7500 in property taxes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I didn't address that issue because I'm Page 40 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: not aware of it. Maybe they went to the Assessors. MR NINTZEL: Well that's what ~hey told me but it just seemed to me to be something. If they are going to contribute $7500 to our community I think that we should be blessed. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Excuse me sir, your name is Charles Nintzel again right? MR NINTZEL: That's right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. In the back sir? MR ISSAC: I'm Bruce Issac from Cutchogue, I'm just going to reiterate some of the points that were made already probably but. Supervisor Scott Harris has publicly stated that he has initiated a process to eliminate drive through restaurants in the Town code. So does it make sense now to just push this one through when there's a legal process under way already trying to stop this. And why should McDonalds be the only one assuming this legislation does go through. It's not fair. What's the rush? let's wait and see the outcome of this legislation, that Supervisor Harris has stated that he wanted to put through. Another point is that their master plan warned about the sprawl going from Hamlet to Hamlet and I think this McDonalds is going to enhance the sprawl from Mattituck to Laurel which is already under way and pretty soon we're going to have a sprawl from Hamlet to Hamlet throughout the North Fork. It's not what we want here. We're a tourist area, we don't want it to become Centereach again. Of course you know there's going to be more and more garbage on the streets, we have it, we've been attested to already that it's already here and it's going increase much more. Another point, since McDonalds wants to help this community out economically so much how about purchasing all their potatoes from Long Island, from local growers. How about that. Also most of the money of course that McDonalds is going to generate from their sales is as other people said going to leave the area, not going to be in circulation in our area. As with other local restaurants who do in turn, turn it over. One other question, are there going to be any stipulation on the hours that the McDonalds is going to be open? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We not asked that question. this time. are working on that also. I have We have not addressed that issue at MR ISSAC: When they are .closed are those lights in the . . Page 41 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ISSAC, cont'd: parking lots going to remain on? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I'll address that issue. I MR ISSAC: That's all I have for right now. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you to sign in. Thank you so much for your opinion. Ok. Yes mam? MS ROSS: My name is Bette Ross and I live in Cutchogue and I would like to ask the McDonalds representative if the $7500 in taxes is really the figure that we heard? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Surely. I-IS ROSS: Is that true? MCDONALDS: Yes. MS ROSS: I pay close to that on the house that I own and so I don't think McDonalds is doing me any favor by coming. That isn't even enough to pay for the trash that they generate in a month in terms of what they would put in the landfill. The other thing that I would like to address, is that one of the gentlemen who was talking about use of this property, was talking about an office building and the number of parking spaces that they would have to provide for the office space and it would be a great deal more than the 55 that McDonalds has. However, the traffic implication of an office building would not be the same as the drive in because in the drive in we have constant going in and out so that there would be constant traffic whereas if you had an office building or other type of building there it would not be constant traffic. I'm against it. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Before we take any more questions, Dr. could you just again tell us how you arrived at that $7500. Did you do that by contacting our Assessors' Office? DR FIGLIOLA: The Tax Assessor. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: And that's what he basically derived the assessment to be on the building and on the vacant land. DR FIGLIOLA: That's the number we received. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Is that a dollar of assessment or is that the total figure that based upon the normal tax rate today. Page 42 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. DR FIGLIOLA: Based on the total today. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Everybody, hear that? That assessment was based upon the normal tax rate of today. That is not necessarily the assessment. The assessment would be probably a figure that would be either higher of lower than this particular case in this Town, 60 to 70 dollars worth of assessment so it would be probably be lower than the assessment. MR CALIBRO: Is it possible that that tax is just on the building since they lease the land, that the owner of the land pays fee taxes. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: No. It's probably a net net lease anyway. Is that correct Mr. Mineo? MR MINEO: Yes. I believe it's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I need your name for the record sir. MR CALIBRO: Paul Calibro. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Ok. Thank you. Stan do you want to speak in the back? MR PARKIN: I thought I was given the understanding when you gave the rate before that $7500 was based on being considered as undeveloped property. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: The present assessment as it's under developed. No. As improved right Dr? MR PARKIN: That was my understanding the 7500 figure which is ridiculous. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. For the record that's Stan Parkin from Mattituck please. Ok. MEMBER VILLA: I would like to get something .on the record here. I have couple of questions and well I'll talk loud. So those of you who don't know me I'm the new kid on the block, well I was a kid a long time ago. But I'm new on the block and I've been given a lot of data and I've been looking and reading a lot of material that's before me. I have some questions before I want to read something but. A question I have is I think Mr. Barnes stated that or in his text here he said the proposed uses is an extremely low density utilization of this site in keeping with both Town zoning resolutions and provisions of article 7 and 12 of the Suffolk . . Page 43 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MEMBER VILLA, cont'd: County sanitary code. Having just retired from the Health Department I know you left out the important article here which is, article 6. Article 6 controls the density use of property which without public water inside, limits it to 300 gallons of sewage per day which dictated that you had a three acre site basically to put your system on. That leads me on to say that the statement that you could put a 26000 sq ft retail store on there is not legitimate. You could only put about a 2600 sq ft retail store on there with the same kind of flow criteria. Because of the Health Department again dictates that without public water you have to meet the 300 gallons of sewage discharge per day. So I just wanted to clear that up. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Did you want him to reflect on that before ~ou go onto the next thing? MEMBER VILLA: Sure. MR MINEO: Rather then have Mr. Barnes answer that question I would rather have the architect Stephen Fellmen address that. Mr. Fellmen, name and address please. MR FELLMEN: My name is Stephen Fellmen with offices at 570 Broadway, Amityville, NY. I'm the project architect here. The point you raised is a good one in terms of whether or not there is public water or whether it's well water. If there was public water available we're allowed to calculate it at a rate of 600 gallons per day for the sewage flow. If we do not have the public water then it drops to the 300 gallons per day. Again the 300 gallons per day per acre times a 3 acre gives us a 900 gallons per day flow. Ok with retail stores are calculated at .03 gallons per square foot, that would give us the 26000 square foot Shopping center. MEMBER VILLA: You are talking about all dry stalls. MR FELLMEN: All dry stalls that's correct. MEMBER VILLA: Wet stores go up to a tenth of a gallon per square foot. MR FELLMEN: Depending on the type of wet store. You have a differential. But if they were dry stores we could build a 26000 square foot shopping center. MEMBER VILLA: stores? It's stores in any In \Ihat shopping center do you have been my experience that for at least retail shopping center are wet. all dry 40% of the Page 44 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR FELLMEN: I don't know about the 40% figure. I mean we have done shopping centers that are do contain all dry stores. Normally you don't havf this kind of type restriction. So that it's not a problem that you think about and the owners rent it based upon pizza places or deli's or who ever goes in. Now with the caps and this kind of specialties from the Health Department this is a factor that has been in effect and it becomes more strict as the years go on and something that developers have adjusted to. If they know that they can only rent to certain types that's what they do. Normally you will probably get a mix in the shopping center like this you may get one or two wet stores as opposed to all dry stores. But the one or two would be calculated at the differential rate. You may theoretically then end up with a 24000 square foot shopping center with a couple of wet stores or 26000 square feet all dry. You would determine the mix based upon those ratios. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could you just for the public please tell us the difference between a dry store and a wet store. MR FELLMEN: A dry store is literally that. It's a that just sells, like a clothing store. Just sells there's no food processing, things of that nature. deli would have some type of restaurant. Those are considered wet stores because there's a lot more sinks and cleaning. Things of that sort which produce more sewage. store dry good Like a CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you sir. Mr. Villa? MEMBER VILLA: To go on somebody had questioned the solid waste and also Members of our Town Solid Waste Committee and basically if you have got a 30 yard compactor you're generally using by what I would figure a conservative figure of 700 pounds per cubic yard of compacted garbage. It comes out to be about 21,000 pounds which if you round it off 2,000 pounds in a ton you come out to be approximately ten tons. Three times a month that's 30 tons of garbage a month. That's 1 ton a day. The Town is working right now to try to get down to about 40 tons of municipal solid waste per day. So in essence, McDonalds would be contributing about two and half percent in addition to what we are. Putting that in dollars and cents at about $85 a ton comes out to be about $31,000 a year of waste disposal. (MCDONALDS): We got 75. MEMBER VILLA: Now if you will bear with me a little bit in some of the literature I referred to before, New York Planning News this dated back in 1982, but I was given a lot . . Page 45 -March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation SCluthold Z.B.A. MEMBER VILLA, cont'd: of this to read and the part that I latched onto here. It said the first zoning ordinance which was recognized as such was the ,building zone resolution of the City of New York adopted in July 1916, that ordinance which was authorized by the Charter of the City of New York provided for a six member board of Standards and Appeals which by the City Charter was directed to be composed of one professional planner, two architects, and two engineers and a sixth member who is usually a lawyer, however neither the general city law, the village law or the town law requires members of Boards of Appeals appointed pursuant to it dictates to a special qualifications or expertise. Where would persons of special qualifications be found willing to put their expertise to unpaid public service in most of the hundreds of small villages and towns in this and other states, certainly not in sufficient numbers nor is it certain that this degree of expertise is required. As the New York Court of Appeals stated with respect to a similar question involving the issuance of a special permit by a Board of Appeals "Special Exception disputes are to be resolved by a common sense judgments of represented citizens doing their best to make accommodations between conflicting community pressures. In a later case the same court stated that the crux of the matter is that the responsibility of making zoning decisions has been committed primarily to quasi legislative, quasi administrative boards composed of representatives of the local community. Local officials generally possess the familiarity with local conditions necessary to make the often sensitive planning decisions which effect developments of their community. Absent arbitrariness it is for local selected and local responsible offices to determine where the public interest in zoning lies." CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I am a firm believer in the retention of data and the period of time in which one can retain it and we have been sitting for approximately an hour and fifteen minutes and it is time for us to take another short break. I'm doing that for a two fold reason. I do want to mention to you though in reference to what Mrs. Brown had to say, and I'm reading from the Town Code Section 101, page 10,081 which reflects the special uses permitted by this Zoning Board of Appeals and it is B of that Section and it is number nine which says as a matter of right. "Fast food restaurants require that eating on the premises of fast food restaurants shall be permitted only inside the structure or in areas specifically designed and properly maintained outside of the structure where minimum lot size for a free standing structure is 40,000 square feet." Ladi.es and gentlemen, it is the nature of this Board to be sometimes Page 46 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: charged with some interestingly difficult data to sometimes digest before decisions are to be rendered and I'm referring to that and I,'m referring that basically over to my friends from Mattituck who the two ladies over here on the one side who asked me those pointed questions. I'm doing this basically to make you understand that we have to take all of this data in and this is basically what we are trying to do. I don't mean to be redundant in saying this, in restating this, but these are issues which we know are very volatile to this community-to the entire community not just necessarily Mattituck or any of the western communities. To the entire community of Southold Town and we have all intentions of taking as much data as we possibly can. We have not restricted anybody from speaking here tonight and I have no intentions of restricting anybody from speaking. And . I ask you if you are not available on April 5th to corne to this meeting to complete this process that you speak tonight and state your specific opinion, be it just an opinion or a, whatever it is. We are extremely involved in whatever goes on in this community. I have made statements before and I will make them again. We not only answer to everyone of you we answer to the people that have appointed us. And we take this very very very seriously. We do not take it lightly. As you have seen and the people have corne to these meetings and we do appreciate everybody being here and except you please to corne back at approximately ten after ten and we will then ask Mrs. Brown if she has anything else she would like to add since she had some things that we kind of cut here off with before. Thank you. Gentlemen I need a motion. All in favor - AYE. (Ten minute recess) 10:17 pm - Reconvened hearing CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: There was one nice lady who would like to speak. This lady over here and we'll let Mrs. Brown then go. Yes? MS ROBBINS: My name is Joan Robbins. I live on Main Street in New Suffolk. In reference to the work that the Board is doing, and in reference to the will of the people, I would just like to say that until we as voters manage somehow to change the zoning law to prohibit strip zoning, we can all look forward to spending a lot more time in this room appearing before this same Board not for the rest of our lives because it won't take that long to fill up the strip. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just ask you to sign in. Yes mam? Could you just check that, I don't think that microphone is on. Thank you. . . Page 47 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS SMALL: My name is Fay Small. I live in Mattituck. I have a couple of questions. One comment first, then two questions. My comment is regarding the no~se factor. Not only the speaking box in the drive in, that is a definite concern, but also I feel that the cars that are waiting to be taken care of there are another noise area. Particularly if you have use of 12 I believe cars could be parked there around waiting to get through the drive in area. six of those may have open windows and radios blaring so that's a real problem. Noise wise Ok. Now I have, that is just my comment. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I just want to say to you. I had spoken to the attorney on my way up-Mr. Mineo, in question and they are going to address that issue-on April 5th they are going to come back and address that issue. Alright, so they may not address that issue tonight. MS SMALt: I have two questions now, one is if you have any idea approximately how many cars would go through the McDonald's property everyday? If there is any estimate of how many different cars would be going through? You don't have to answer me this minute. (MCDONALDS): 1,300 cars per day is approximately what we have seen at the successful McDonalds operation in the Riverhead area on the site. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. And 40%. MCDONALDS: 40% would be using the drive through. And again what we have seen is that the drive through generates additional traffic, it really enhances the operations of the facility and it's what the people want. People want that convenience to drive an automobile to get that service. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Would you just state for the record. MS SMALL: I have one more question. We drive past the McDonalds in Riverhead frequently and always there are huge tractor trucks parked down on the grass, on the road. Have they made provisions for that type of thing to happen in Mattituck? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You are referring to off site now, not necessarily on siLe, nOL on site of the McDonalds? MS SMALL: They are right there on the edge. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: That's off site. Page 48 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS SMALL: On the shoulder. I still think it's a danger. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Sure. No ~estion about it. MR MINEO: The operations of the parking, or no parking regulations on the shoulder on Route 25 is under the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Transportation. Again they have not completed their review, I believe that will be one aspect that they would review if they ad any specific concern they would come back and act the appropriate regulations. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was just brought to my attention, by my Board.Member and good friend Mr. Grigonis that there is a pay phone there also, so the trucker is really doing a dual use. He's grabbing food and at the same time calling. (Riverhead Site) MS SMALL: But they can't get those trucks into the property itself very easily. Some of the big ones. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I think it would destroy the parking lot, but that's not neither here nor there. Because some of them weight 80,000 pounds, but my question is, is there any discussion concerning a pay phone on this site at all? MR ANNABEL: There will absolutely not be a pay phone in fact there are no pay phones associated with McDonald's restaurants at all and that would be a restriction that McDonalds could certainly agree to in this application. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Could I just ask you to sign. Thank you. Alright. MS SCOGGIN: My name is Shelly Scoggin and I'm a business owner and I would just like to say that a lot of people that come into my shop that do greatly help this economy out here are tourists. The reason they come here is because it is so beautiful and so unique and so unlike everywhere else where they could vacation on Long Island. If the fast food drive through restaurant is approved, there will then be no way to stop any of the others. Which will then make our place, look in theory just like Riverhead. They won't come here anymore. So I don't see how it will help our economy, I really only see how it will hurt our economy and I greatly urge you to turn this down. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you Shelly. Nancy? MS SAWASTYNOWICZ: Good evening my name is Nancy . . Pag~ 49 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS SAWASTYNOWICZ, cont'd: Sawastynowicz and I live in Orient. I find trash in Orient from McDonalds which I find hard to believe number one. N~er two, can we give them some kind of a covenant so that they will have to pay for their garbage instead of the local taxpayers and also I would like you not to approve this I think that it would definitely be a problem to our Town. We have been in existence for 350 years and we don't need McDonalds. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes? MR PILLAI: Hello my name is Bryan Pillai and I'm the president of the student council at the North Fork Catholic School. .Our newspaper, school newspaper recently took a poll of the students to find out what they thought of the project of McDonalds going up in Mattituck and they found out that around 75% of the students do not want it. So as a represehtative of the students I would care to say that we don't want the project of McDonalds. I would also like to point out that I live on peconic Bay Blvd about four houses down from the end of Bray and when we go out it takes a couple minutes for us to get onto the Main Road and I don't see how the Main Road can accommodate 1,300 more cars each day. CHAIRMAN audience? add? GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Is Mrs. Brown still in the Bette is there anything else you would like to MS BROWN: I'm Bette Brown. I'll just represent myself as a resident of Riverhead Town. I wanted to mention that provisions of your Town Code are riddled with opportunities for the Board of Appeals to address community character and the negative impact that McDonalds will clearly have on the unique country character of Southold Town. Maintaining Southold rural character with the goal that was throughout your master plan and I thought a goal that came out of the Planning Conference that was just this past year come together. I asked the Board, is it possible to maintain southold's rural character and have a fast food strip on Route 25? Would anyone here in this room like to move from Southold back to Riverhead Town and shop on our fast food alley? The name of it is Tormane Alley. That's what everyone in Riverhead calls it. I urge you. I implore you to please do anything in your power to turn down this application. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. MR MELOSH: My name is Arthur Melosh. I live in Mattituck, Page 50 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MELOSH, cont'd: retired business man. I've been in the food business, the restaurant business all my life. I didn't come here to make a speech or qnything. I'm not for McDonalds and I'm not against it. I would just like to make a few comments. When I heard that the garbage was picked up three times a month, my restaurant can fall apart, is across the street from the Roy Rogers and they had a pick up three times a week. The Board of Health was there many many times for rodents. And I can't understand how they can have a pick up three times a month and not have rodents. I was also here about 17, 16 years ago when the old Boker Supermarket was going to be utilized for a senior citizens home , housing at that time. It was about 400 people jammed in Mattituck High School and it was the will of the people that prevailed. It was turned down. A few years back there was an airport proposed for Cutchogue and all those that were against it wore red arm bands and it was the will of the people that prevailed. So you gentlemen up there you have to use let your conscience be your own guide. There's a good showing here tonight and I think the will of the people again should prevail. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Can I ask you to sign in. I'm sorry about this. There was a gentlemen over here. Sir. You are letting the lady go first? MS VOEGELIN: My name is Rachel Voegelin, I'm a resident of Cutchogue. I'm a fairly new resident out here, four years. One of the reasons I moved out here, I came from Manhattan and I've lived in, further west up the Island. One of the reasons I chose this area was because it was free from McDonalds and other such things. I think one of the gentlemen from McDonalds, I may be wrong said something to the effect that just because McDonalds, the special exception is approved does not necessarily mean that there will be other fast food restaurants. That may be true, but I would like to know if any studies have been done or if anyone can tell me where there is only a McDonald's restaurant and no other fast food restaurants. That's all I would like to know. And the other thing is, we've heard this a number of times this evening but I live on the Main Road in Cutchogue and the majority of my liter comes from two places, one is the 7-11 which is a mile and a half down the road and the other is McDonalds which is in Riverhead and I just wonder when McDonalds moves closer, how much more of that liter will be on my yard? Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes sir? MR GOLDSTEIN: My name is Warren Goldstein, I'm the executive . . Page 51 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR GOLDSTEIN, cont'd: director of the North Fork Environmental Council. I came here tonight with a whole list of points that I was going to make about this application and I was going to ask you to turn 'it down and I was determined not to be completely redundant and almost all of those points have been made by the people here. So I'm going to do my best not to repeat them all. Instead I want to try and turn to a couple of other things. One is to think about the process of democracy, which is here tonight. And it has some very interesting lessons for us. It has some lessons about what people are willing to come out for. What people care about and how they are willing to express their opinion at 10:30 on a Friday night in a hot hearing room and they have been here for almost three hours now. Almost everyone here has been here for three hours. The people that want to turn this application down are the great majority of the people that have been in this room that period of time and they are not beidg paid for it. The folks who want this restaurant here are being paid for it and they are being paid a lot money for it. And I want people to think about the kind of corporate citizens McDonalds has been on Long Island. The last time I saw this many representatives of McDonalds in one place is in the Suffolk County Legislature a couple of years ago. When the McDonald's Corporation was fighting tooth and nail another piece of environmentally sound legislation the efforts to ban styrofoam and other forms of styrofoam packaging from Suffolk County. At that time the McDonald's Corporation and a few other very large corporations pulled out all the stocks and managed to persuade their legislature that this would make bad environmental policy. That in fact styrofoam was completely recyclable and it just so happened that the McDonalds was building a recycling plant in Brooklyn that would take care of all the styrofoam. They managed to persuade the Suffolk County Legislature to rescind that piece of legislation and then a year or so later just decided to flip flop on the issue leaving Suffolk County having already rescinded a piece of environmentally sound legislation. McDonalds as a corporate citizen on this Island doesn't much care about the people here. McDonalds as a corporate citizen cares about Coffers that are far away from Long Island and this Board and these people need to keep that in mind. They especially need to keep it in mind when people that come here on behalf of McDonalds say things that are plainly not true. They are plainly contrary to our common sense. No one here believes and people here really wonder how someone could have said this in an intelligent matter believes that one McDonalds will not attract other fast food restaurants. If you can say then you must not travel in the United States. You must not even travel on Long Island. You must not have been along the Jericho Turnpike very much. You must not have Page 52 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR GOLDSTEIN, cont'd: been on Route 25A. You are asking us to believe things that are plainly not true. We know here that a precedent is being set. And because we know, because the people in this room know that if this application is approved then an important precedent will be set for Southold Town. That's why they've got the people here in suits telling us that what is plainly not true, is! The reason why they have willing to change the form of the restaurant, the reason why they have studies and reports that could choke several horses is because they know that the people here don't want it. If it was an easy call, if it was something that ought to sail through, then there wouldn't be all those reports. There wouldn't be the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultants' time put into preparing those reports. They know in fact that the people here don't want it. They are trying to bend over backwards. They are trying to convince you with large reports and they are trying to convince us with artists renderings. That's why they are doing i~. They know already what we know, which is that we don't want it here and the majority of people don't want it here and that's why they are trying make us believe otherwise. They are trying to convince us with those reports. I want to say a couple things about economics, I just want us to think a little bit about why one would think this is an economic addition to this Town. The economic basis of Southold Town is very clearly agricultural and tourism. It's very simple, everyone that studies this Town, knows that about the Town. It was especially clear at the North Fork Planning Conference back in the fall. And everyone who studied the issue and everyone who talked at that conference, talked about how this economy, how the environment depends on those two things. Agriculture and tourism. People don't come to a , don't come out here as tourists to go to fast food alleys. They could do that in Centereach, they could do it in Rocky Point, they could do it in Syosset. And people don't go to those places as tourist places. They don't go to Centereach for a Sunday afternoon drive. They don't look for the farmstands in Syosset. They don't go to take a boat out along the Sunrise Highway. They come back here it's different. If we make this Town, if we change the character of this Town so much, so that people don't come out here anymore, we've killed the goose that lays the golden eggs. We will be slitting our own throats in this Town and the economy will be damaged beyond repair. One last thing then I'll let you go. That is, I'm an historian when I'm not working with the N.F.E.C. Historians sometimes look back and disagree as why certain changes took place and one group of people thinks that enormous historical changes are the result of great impersonal forces that we can't really know what's happening to us, that somehow forces. take over and other folks think that's actually up to individuals, that . . Page 53 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR GOLDSTEIN, cont'd: you can actually look back and see who made certain kinds of decisions. Ten or twenty years from tonight, people are going to lQok back and they are going to be able to say something about'decisions that are made in this room and in your heads, tonight or on April the 5th. And at that point when they look at that they will be able to see that it's not impersonal forces, it's Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, it's citizens of Southold Town, it's Lobbyists from the McDonald's Corporation and they got together and they made a decision. They either made a decision to change the character of Southold Town irrevocably so that it became like the rest of Long Island so it became the sprawl that begins in Garden City and ends where? At Route 58 in Riverhead? Or they made another kind of decision: They decided that the character of the Town and the future of the Town was so important that they were going to use the zoning code to protect the future and character (TURNEU TAPE OVER).... You've got the responsibility. It is a big responsibility. I'm sort of glad I'm not in your shoes because I wouldn't like to have to do this every other Friday night and to carry that responsibility. But you can make a decision, the zoning code allows you to do it and the constituency of people out here want you to do it. It's up to you to do that. And finally that's an opportunity for you. You actually get to make that decision. You get to make a decision for the future of this Town. Thanks. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Warren, I would sincerely like to wrap this up tonight with any comments that Mr. Mineo might have and thereby holding this hearing off again until April 5th at 7:30 and unless someone has a specific objection there is one question I want to ask Mr. Mineo, and then I'll let him comment on whatever he wants to comment. The only other thing about the site plan that I kind of lost sight of during the evening was the emergency access, which was requested by the Planning Board and which I being a Mattituck Fireman had mentioned to our commissioners in Mattituck and to the three chiefs. I'm concerned with those three parking spaces that are adjacent to that in the respect that if there were cars parked in that area and there was the need, that area would certainly have to be blocked out, ok as being a no parking zone. MR MINEO: That's not a problem, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Anything you would like to comment. MR MINEO: I'm not going to make any further comments. There are a couple of things concerning the precedent. There's no such thing as precedent in the zoning law, but I'll put that Page 54 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: in the same memo that I submit to Mr. Arnoff, so we won't go through that now but except to say that concerns that if you gran~ this application with the drive through window it automa~ically means Burger King, Taco Bell, Wendys or whoever can come and in waive the decision of this Board and say okay let me have a building permit. It's absolutely contrary to zoning laws. Exactly but there is no such thing as precedent. At any rate what I would like to do, I would just like Mr. Dunn to make one comment in response to a comment that Bryan had made. He was the only one to elude to the fact that 1,300 new cars on the road per day, and then I would like Mr. Annabel just to make one brief comment as well. That would conclude our presentation. MR DUNN: In terms of the additional amount of cars added to road by the proposed McDonald's operation, we've pointed out in traffic impact studies it's been recognized by the experts; the Town hired to review our document and I'm sure it will be recognized by the State since we submit this document to the State for their detailed review and that's the primary reason why that document is so voluminous that they have requirements that we must meet. What we showed is a pass by traffic-that McDonalds traffic is, 70% of the traffic going to McDonald's restaurant is on the roadway already. They see a McDonalds and they divert, they go to it. They say I'm going to stop at the McDonald's restaurant. They are not going out for the sole purpose of going to a McDonald's restaurant. Now, we conservatively presented at the request of the Town's consultant 50% instead of 70%. We looked at a worse case traffic examination and that's a major point to be considered. We are not adding 1,300 more cars a day on the roadway. We are only adding a certain percentage and that's why that we have conditions that we can handle the traffic flow. What we said that there is essentially 30% of the traffic going in would be considered as new traffic that would not be on the roadway that's passing by. In other words they could start out from home and say I want to go to McDonalds tonight and go for a hamburger. In other words, even though you may not do that there are families who would like to go out to a restaurant, go to McDonald's restaurant at night, and the children desire it and they go there. That's that 30% crowd. That's been documented by a number of studies that has been accepted by, throughout Suffolk County and by both the State and a number of other towns on Long Island. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you, Mr. Dunn. MR ANNABEL: I wanted to just address a couple of the comments that Mr. Goldstein had brought up. Let me start by . . Page 55 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR ANNABEL, cont'd: addressing his comment that those of us up here representing McDonalds are extremely well paid. That is I assure you an unfair assumption. I want to also defend why we are here tonight giving 'you all of these reports and giving you all these renderings and everything. I think that that's probably an example of corporate responsibility. I'm sure that no one here would have preferred us to come here with our hands in our pockets and just say would you please let us be here. We have an obligation to this Board to show you why we believe that a special exception should be granted here. And of course that's going to result in expert testimony and reports. And as far as the renderings go, I think that rendering is a great example of a lot of effort between the Town's Planning staff and Planning Board and McDonalds and I would just like to commend the Planning staff on working with us as closely as they did. I'm proud to show that rendering and again I say to you where would we be tonight'if we didn't have that rendering at least to look at so people know what it is we are proposing here. As far as the comment about whether McDonalds is a good corporate neighbor or not, I'm not going to start to try to figure out whether we are or not or compare us to other corporate neighbors but I venture to say that as a personal feeling not a McDonald's employee, McDonalds I believe is a good corporate neighbor and I think we can stand tall against any other corporation on the Island as far as that goes and I'm not going to start listing some of the things that McDonalds does throughout Long Island. And the final point I would like to make. There has been a lot of discussion about McDonalds being a big corporation and that all the dollars that McDonalds will generate in this space will leave and go to some coffer somewhere else. Generally I can tell you that that's not true. We are believe it or not, a small operation. We are-every store is operated independently, typically by a local entrepreneur business man who would live in the area. He puts back a lot of the dollars that he earns in that store back into his business and back into the local area. Again I don't want to cite a lot of examples but we recently opened a new restaurant in Ridge, Long Island and the owner/operator a young entrepreneur who was awarded that store lived in Coram which is a neighboring town. So we are not and he lives in that area and that's where his dollars are going to be reinvested. And those are the people who are making the money on these restaurants. So I think it's not really fair to say that the money is going to be leaving the Town. That's really all my comments. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. I urge you all, we do have a fairly small office. I urge you all that are concerned with any information that has been given to us tonight to Page 56 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN, cont'd: review it-it may take some time.. I' dc, want to point out one major problem that we do llave' i<n die- circulation of information that we have receive~ ~n~ that h~ it generates a significant amount of questions mId' they a~~ not necessarily questions that we can answer. Ch. page 2~ ~. the traffic study and I only randomly pulled thLtl out. I.t you have a specific question concerning page 22'\:'.f tihe traffic study. I would suggest reducing it to ~uit~ng arrd we' will then pass it along to McDonalds and ask thEm. tD~ their comments conc~rning it. I'm only saying this not because it's a cop out attitude. I'm asking this for tm SGliIJe pUiI:'prnllle' to allow us to then digest all the information Titer the' April 5th meeting. We cannot spend hours, and :iouit's., 3.nd: hours concerning answering questions that concerrn: this vo~'~e' or any other volumes that we receive tonight. ""ra Ii can.. db at the next meeting is after you have reduced it!. w.lJiting' a,nd: you have given it to us at the hearing is to pass:.. ire aJ.'cmq:: tic McDonalds and give them a time limit to return the information to us and then we'll return the infi~rrrnatti0n tc you. And please bear that in mind. Yes sir? (AUDIENCE): When is your final decision going ttm be made? CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It will be 60 days, we h~f~ 60 days after we actually close the hearing. I will nett C~0&e' the hearing on the April 5th. I will wait until al]] oft trhe. information from all the residents come in, in ~efteD,frn~e tr0) questions that are generated from the response tihat we wi}]}] receive concerning the information when people Devmew the files. So I would say, I can say that of the 10rmal j~st of the way we deal with it is, we would proball'J:y c:DC!lse' the hearing at our April 18th meeting. And we willJ close the hearing on April 5th as to verbatim testimony. 1::\1 wiiliL 1:te' reduced to writing testimony and that will be n~3th~on~ that the attorney for McDonalds may refer to our T~n A~tornew concerning. He will then discuss it with us, jj:li WI!;' hEH~ anything that we want to place in the file. Ve'wiLl have until April 18th. Anything that we receive WE! will]] HilliS along and we will get back and we will return tlOi Y<llU" whii:ch would then give you time to respond to a specliflic' statffment: that you might want to enter into the record. But. in will}]] bE reduced to verbatim testimony and to non-verm.tiJrn. 1:.estimomr to written testimony only. Shelly? MC SCOGG,IN: Is it true that Scott Harris is wJ:'J1Jkin<J. nig;H! now on this legislature for banning fast food nestaUIDantts? And isn't it true that we really can't make a dec~ion' unt~l, we get the results of this study or legislatuue" whateven it's called that he's working on? . . Page 57 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: You know it's interesting. To answer that question it's a three fold question. You have to give me a minute to do it okay. Because I have to organize my thoughts. Number one, the gre~test situation concerning this Town and I do this, and I say it and I feel goose bumps when I say it because I represent the County in many situations and I have all workings with all other ten towns but the greatest thing about this Town is that we work on exactly what input and what people want concerning zoning and we do that in a forum, which is referred to as a legislative committee and that committee is chaired by the Deputy Supervisor who is George Penny and he does that on usually once or twice a month. We all get together, we sit in the Town Board room and we discuss these particular issues. These issues have come back and the code committee, where it is at this point I'm not sure. I can only answer, I can speak to George and find out where it is at this point. I have no'idea to this point where they are. I'll be right with you Debbie. Second issue is, should we as Members of that Legislative Committee sit on discussions that concern individual areas that are before us? Legitimately, logistically, I can't do it. When we are discussing something that's going to ban an application that's before us it is not within my purview to sit within that committee when that discussion occurs. And number three, the discussions, the decisions that come out of legislative committee are then drafted by Mr. Arnoff and his associate and reduced to a legal opinion, in legalese language and then come before this tribunal in the Town Board and then have a public hearing and then it is voted on. This is a very unique situation being a small town and being able to do that. I just have to have George get back to you. Or if you want to call George you are very welcome to. I'll give you his telephone number. There was another question Debbie Sidlauskas? MS SIDLAUSKAS: I was wondering why you didn't address this question to Mr. Arnoff as supposedly it's in his office. MR ARNOFF: What's in my office? MS SIDLAUSKAS: The legislation. Actually the letter is very gray. MR ARNOFF: Because I don't have the letter in front of me nor have I read it. I don't know what Matt told you in the letter so. Not every bit of correspondence that comes in and out of my office do I see. MS SIDLAUSKAS: I know but I assume that you must be aware of if Scott Harris has handed something down for review or to do Page 58 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS SIDLAUSKAS, cont'd: something about it or to ~:ite up a legislature. MR ARNOFF: The general tariff lof the last meeting tha,t I attended was that they are looking into the entire zommencia~ the entire commercial zones and Warren was at that meet~ng when we were discussing that as well. That was with. the Town. Board, he appeared in front of the Town Board, I lie.1i.eve 3.11 the last meeting if my memory serves me correctly. MR GOLDSTEIN: It was at a work session, Scott wam,Yt there'. MR ARNOFF: Scott was not there and it was being Charureili by George at that time and we did in fact discuss, tm't was., t'm the committee. I don't believe anything has been ~eQuced, tru writing coming out. MS SIDLAUSKAS: that direction been examining All from that I know the Supervisor issue. letter says since :r<feeivimJ: Harris the Town Atltorney' lia:;;, MR ARNOFF: That's correct we have been along witte, t~he' legislative committee that's correct. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: We were asked, Debbie, aften: youn .Gally to comment, I think that was in October or Novemmr. When was the rally? MS SIDLAUSKAS: Right. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: To comment concerning commer~ia~ zones in general not limiting it to fast food restauran~s but comment to those zones in general. So it has beeL an' ongoing: thing. MS SIDLAUSKAS: I know, but I also asked specific~ly about the drive through window. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: I understand. MS SIDLAUSKAS: Exactly what this letter was abou~. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Right. To what point I d(lJl!,,.'t k~O'H', And I will tell you legitimately, I will not sit bn on, dn~ conversation that 3-fiects t:.is particular organi~atiom or this situation. Yes Mam? Again for the record. iPU~ name2 MS FLETCHER: Linda Fletcher. I know that the pnes~dent or the New Suffolk Civic Association, Joan Robbins, wli~, spo~~ here tonight received a letter last week from ~htt HaIDnis . . Page 59 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MS FLETCHER, cont'd: saying that this draft legislation was in your office. MR ARNOFF: that and I It's quite possiblJ that Matt has been working on have not seen that. MS FLETCHER: She wrote to ask him about it. MR ARNOFF: I haven't see the draft of that. MS FLETCHER: But that's what came out of the discussion. MR ARNOFF: Call me on Monday and I will be glad to give you a definitive answer. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Bryan? MR PILLAI: I would like to know about my study of five grades, McDonald's officials truthfully have the experience of living on the North Fork and driving on the roads of the North Fork, to say that the traffic generated by a McDonald's fast food restaurant will not effect our roads. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Do you want to answer that? MR MINEO: One, I guess it goes back to some of my experience Bryan, that is correct. I do not live on the North Fork, I live on the South Fork. I'm aware of the traffic problems that have evolved only in working with McDonald's and other major developers throughout Long Island, but I also represent towns, villages, communities, civic associations and am aware of both sides of the picture. As part of the requirements rather than just having the experience of living here and driving on the roadways which I can assure you I have driven the roadways numerous times I've been involved with other studies on the North Fork. I have experience in preparing traffic impact studies and just as you questioned, does the roadway have the ability to handle the traffic, the New York State Department of Transportation asked that same question of us and that's why we have to go through the extensive studies. Studies that they mentioned they collected a lot of traffic volume cap data that analyzed accidents data, that looked at a number of traffic conditions to come up with gap analyses to see how many cars could get out of the driveway based upon the number of cars on the roadway during the peak summer conditions and based upon the conduct of these studies I can conclusively tell you that our report indicates that there will be no adverse traffic impact. That the vehicles entering and exiting the site can do so, they can be accommodated on the roadway, that there Page 60 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MR MINEO, cont'd: are sufficient available gaps to accommodate the traffic. It's based upon a number of aspects. Based upon the peak operating hours and the analysis of the individual hours of traffic. That's a good question Bryan. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Yes mam? Do you have a question? MS HUNTINGTON: I just, I guess he hasn't driven during "pick your own pumpkin" season. The public sentiment is so strong opposed to the institution of having this thing in Mattituck. How, why are you perpetuating, do you have so much money invested in this so far? Public sentiment is against you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I just have your name for the record again? MS HUNTINGTON: Mary Anne Huntington. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Yes? MS TOMASZEWSKI: I have a letter similar to Debbie's, but actually I also was interested some of the comments about the D.O.T., I have experience with them. I live in Laurel and I tried to get the speed limit that was 55 on my block changed because when I moved there, there was six houses and then there were 22, with many many little children. I was told that the cars that were racing by that were clocked going 70, that would issue tickets that it was not the case, it was a big breeze and I have it in quotes. I have it in writing still. It's hard to believe. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Could I have your name for the record? MS TOMASZEWSKI: Mary Ellen Tomaszewski. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Thank you. Alright I would like to oh yes there is one more comment yes? MRS MELLENDER: I would just like to ask is it possible for the April 5th hearing to be better advertised? I found out about this through a friend who called and a letter to the editor in the Suffolk Times but otherwise, I think you would have had many more people. This is was a very small showing. Don't you agree and so I really feel since it is such an important issue and it is to our Town, if it's possible for the Board to figure out a way that Troy I'm sure would be very qappy to put something in happenings or whatever for people to know and you would get people, it isn '.t just, you might get people that would like to get up and speak for you, . . Page 61 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southold Z.B.A. MRS MELLENDER, cont'd: I don't know. You didn't get a showing here because I don't even know how people knew. If you didn't read, Bryan's 1ette~ to the editor, you didn't know that the meeting was here 'tonight. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: It was advertised in the legal notices and it will be readvertised even though we don't necessarily have to readvertise it. MRS MELLENDER: Is there any other way of doing it? Legal notices aren't read by a lot of people. MEMBER DINIZIO: I would like to just make a comment and ask a question. I think that what we're looking at is not a restaurant but a drive through window and for the life of me I don't think it's been addressed tonight. I would just like to see perhaps a comparison or some more emphasis on that particular piece of the drive in window perhaps compared to a deli. My idea of a deli is that there are no seats and basically that's to me with the exception of having you open up a car door and get out is basically the same thing that you are trying to do. But, you haven't, to me you haven't given me anything to bite on as far as what are, how our law pertains to allowing you to have that use. If you could, not now, next, I'm trying to give you my insite now so that you can come back. Give me some insight into that or some type of information, your idea as to how our law applies to McDonald's restaurant in this particular area. I think you would do me great service in trying to make my decision. As far as the trash thing is concerned. Certainly I'm going to get on my bicycle and ride the Main Road and see just what's on the side, but I think Mr. Villa's issue of just and I don't believe it was ever answered where exactly is this garbage going to go? I don't really think you ever did tell me that. It's going to go up on the North Road. And if you can tell me exactly where it's going to go and what it is going to be. Weight and also what it consists of. Something in writing maybe before the meeting and I think you would help me tremendously. Thank you. CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER: Again in closing I would like to wish everybody a happy safe trip home. Anybody that has not signed down here, please sign. Thirdly, please I thank you all for your courtesy. It was well appreciated. I need a motion recessing the hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting. All in Favor - Aye. Page 62 - March 8, 1991 Public Hearing - McDonald's Corporation Southo1d Z.B.A. ByCP~,L~ Tr~nscribed from tape (N6t present at Hearing) ~,- :--:::0 J::::. ..., t. \\ '7 ._-~ :--... \ C\i" l,C:-C !':i;1 \"J' I'oil~~'.i , . ",.,~_-=,__':L",_~2.., J" : I Ii / : .1rit (' ;, I !: I .' .," ! ., /-, . . ",' , I \ . - .. I ,: 'Ii" ' Ii -' ',' j i ~ . ~,,-~-,,-,--,,--~'-~._---'-'~'------"--"'--"~-"-'~"~...._--,,--.~- ~,,-~- . ~v~.~. fFDl~ 1.&'11" ~ ~Y~.i'.'f'".. ...... ~~ ~ !'! E': ~ "" ..", to> ~':'." ~ 1'~ '..'~"'" Yo. '0./ s'1c ,:-i>.; "'~ . PLANN[NG BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARR[S Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD July 30, 1991 Town Ha[1. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo[d.. New York [[ 971 Fax (516) 765.[823 William A. DiConza D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo & Joseph F. Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard P.O.Box 31 Mineola, New York 11501 Re: McDonald's Restaurant SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 Mattituck, New York Dear Mr. DiConza: I am writing to inform you that the Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold Town has made a second request of the Planning Board to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration based on new information about solid waste generation and disposal. Attached please find a copy of their July 22, 1991 memorandum. I have asked the Zoning Board to provide the Planning Board with documentation of the new evidence, so that we may distribute copies thereof to the McDonald's Corporation and all of the involved agencies that reviewed the long environmental assessment form in November and December of 1990. As explained in my response to the ZBA, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, the Planning Board will make a determination whether or not to rescind the Conditional Negative Declaration after it has given the reviewing agencies and the McDonald's Corporation a chance to respond to the new information. If you have any questions about the procedure that the Planning Board will be following, please do not hesitate to call Valerie Scopaz of this office. Very truly yours, ~ ~/~/I'$ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~r/ Chairman Encl. VS/vs cc: Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager Henry Raynor, Agent Gerard P. Goehringer, ZBA Chairman ( " ft;Ji~~u~ "y~\,: l'~ ~ [If "'<$.......... ' ;~ s .', :.. <:> I - Cf.) ." "" ....... !:t> ~'i:'.<'1IO' ~ '.. ,. ,,~ " '*" .., .<\'>)-, , "~'1 ,'1- ""~ . .~:I.., . "(. ~-, -' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett orlowski, Jr., Chairman (3o.t)VI/s McDonald's Restaurant S.R.25, Mattituck SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 RE: DATE: July 29, 1991 On July 22, 1991 I received a general memorandum from the Board of Appeals requesting that the Conditional Negative Declaration for this project be rescinded. Upon review of your Board's memorandum, the Planning Board has decided to review the information about solid waste generation and disposal. However, the memorandum did not include written documentation showing the new information or changes concerning significant adverse impacts that are anticipated. Reference is made only to statements that were made by representatives of the McDonald's Corporation during a Zoning Board hearing. It would be appreciated if a copy of all new information pertaining to the projected solid waste generation and disposal for this proposal were sent to us. When we receive the requested information, we will forward copies of it to the McDonald's Corporation and all the involved agencies that reviewed the Long Environmental Assessment form. The Corporation and each agency will be asked to review the material and to respond in writing within a specified period of time. At the end of that period of time, the Planning Board will determine whether there are sufficient grounds to rescind its Conditional Negative Declaration. . . Telephone (516) 765-1809 ~\\'i>UfFOl.t tl fJ'#.~ => ~ co - en ao .,., !>> ,,(::). ~I ~QJ + i-~~/; '?czQrLY"";:;Y BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southo1d, N ew York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 Su. t!3F I c.e- 1'6 J/S ./ ,e/<:.. -ry I FROM: Planning Board Board of APpeals~~ July 22, 1991 TO: DATE: SUBJECT: SEQRA - McDonald's Corporation Project at Mattituck Please accept this as a continuation of our April 10, 1991 written request in order to, in writinq, as suggested after conversations between board members within both department~ clarify reasons for urging the Planning Board, as lead agency, to reconsider and re-open the SEQRA Conditional Negative Declaration in the fOllowing areas, which are new under the SEQRA reviews, and to obtain further studies and provide the applicant with opportunities to submit the same and provide possible mitigation measures. It is our understanding that this area is new, having not been previously addressed in this project under SEQRA (Environmental Conservation Law). We are attaching for your convenience a copy of Section 617.6Ii) which permits the CND by law to be reopened where there is significant new information which was not addressed previously. Some concerns which branched questions throughout the hearings were: SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL: This area was not sufficiently addressed. Also, in the LEAF, the amount of solid wastes generated was grossly understated. In one of the ZBA hearings, McDonald's representativels) stated each of the Riverhead stores generates a ton of solid waste per day. This is generated by the customers who eat at the establishment. It was also stated by McDonald's that 40% of their business is generated by the drive-thru window. This results in another 1332 lbs. of solid waste per day that must be disposed of. McDonald's also stated that the recylcing program that was initiated to recycle plastics has been terminated since they were going back to paper products and no other recycling program is in effect. This means that the Town would face an increase of 3332 1bs. per day of municipal solid wastes that cannot be landfilled according to the NYS DEC. Since the Town is attempting to reduce its municipal solid waste (MSW) 'to 21& tons '( ~ . -19- g617.6 9617.7 ;,- '- a CND has been issued, states what conditions have been imposed and allows for a minimum 3D-day public comment period; and (v) the CND has been prepared and filed in accordance with sections 617.6(g) and 617.10(a)(2) of this Part. (2) A draft EIS must be Iprepared if comments are received regarding the proposed CND which would support a positive declaration concerning: (- \... (i) the previously identified or newly raised significant environmental impacts; or (ii) the need for the examination of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation measures. (3) The lead agency must require an EIS if requested by the app 1 i cant. (i) Rescission of Negative Declarations: At any time prior to its decision to undertake, fund or approve an action, a lead agency must rescind a negative declaration if it deter- mines that a significant environmental effect may result from a project modification or that there exists a change of circumstances which was not previously addressed. Prior to any rescission, the lead agency must inform other involved agencies and the applicant and must provide a reasonable opportunity for the applicant to respond. 617.7 SCOPING. (a) Formal scoping is optional. It may occur either at the ini- tiation of the lead agency or at the request of the applicant, prior to the acceptance of a draft EIS. If the action inv01ves an applicant, either a written s~ope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIS must be provid2G oy the lead agency to the applicant and all involved agencies. within 30 calendar days followi"g the filing of the positive declaration, or an applicant may initiate the process by providing the lead agency with a draft scope of issues. Scoping may be accomplished through me~ting(s), exchanges of written material, or other methods that will allow the lead agency, the applicant, and involved agencies to agree upon a written Scope of issues in a timely manner. In the event that th5 lead agency fails to provide a written scope of issues within 30 c /- ,-' -,......... ".;<~'~ ~itj'.'...'..'..'{~~\ '''\' ',. ',.-:: ,.1. \ -' '. r'''"l '1 \ ., -;: ,J ') ,:..-.-', -"',.-'.' '} ~'~", ;)<: I .. . LANNING BOARD MEMBERS 3ennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jf. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor "']1 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box] ]79 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Fax (516) 765.1823 MEMORANDUM FROM: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ?;,pqv-/Js McDonald's Restaurant Main Road, Mattituck SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 TO: RE: ZBA Appeal No. 3970 DATE: July 12, 1991 This which you site plan 1991, and is a response to your memorandum of June 21, 1991, in asked the Planning Board to review the latest revised for McDonald's Restaurant that was amended on June 5, received by your office on June 7, 1991. The Planning Board is commenting on this revised plan under the assumption that the proposal and layout shown on the revised map will remain unchanged. Given this assumption, the Board finds this revised plan generally acceptable. There may be minor adjustments to the layout that this Board, the County Health Department and the State Department of Transportation will require at the time of final site plan approval. .. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 ~. t;"~fFOL;~~ (;fi~~: \:~~,j' ~~~. +~,jpi ~'-<-oFJ.m_fj BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . ~COTT L. H Supervisor -":',!{j1';-',,__E Pc, ". IU., ;: V::o Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 .../ INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals DATE: June 21, 1991 SUBJECT: Your File - McDonald's Site Plan (As Amended) Pending Site Plan & Special Exception Reviews Coordination as Provided by Section 100-254B(3) Pursuant to the provisions of section 100-254B(3) of the Zoning Code, concerning Article XXV, the Site Plan procedures and regulations, a referral of a second proposal by the applicant is hereby made. Please communicate those areas concerning on-site circulation and pedestrian safety, and possible alternatives in the parking layout, as well as other areas which you feel should be imposed, resulting from this preliminary (planning) review of the subject site plan application. Please note, however, that the code subjects the preliminary review and written comments to be within sixty (60) days of our written request. If possible, please respond not later than July 17th in order that the Board of Appeals may re-calendar this matter for a final hearing. *In the event we do not hear from you within the required sixty-day period, we will assume you have no objection to the plan and proceed with the Special Exception application. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this :['egard. Attachments: Map with cover letter dated June 7, 1991 furnished by Mr. Annibale, Project Manager for McDonald's Corporation GG:lk c .""1,- '.' ..0 \/ f . .' . t '~. ~ I J June 7, 1991 -./:, < -;:.{ Mr. Gerard Goehringer, Chairman Board of Zoning Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 / Re: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Southold, New York Site Plan Revisions Dear Mr. Goehringer: Enclosed are six (6) copies of McDonald's amended site plan, revised June 5, 1991. We believe this plan satisfies all of the Town's concerns. Thank you for your input throughout this process. We look forward to the upcoming hearing. If you have any questions, please call me at (516) 872-0202. Sincerely, //'iL'/' /--:' '-P,- /_/_ C (/ _,[../L '-"--c- i__ Ernest P. Annibale Project Manager New York Region am/4606A Enclosure cc: P. Mineo H. Raynor MTK Enterprises R. Young T. Bonwell J. Pascucci (.- /:::"8 'LI ('8:-) L (t"t x..),,,t't; cft;/'7/ (i7J ) . ~)lcOonald's Corporation 70 E. Sunrise Highway Suite 619 Valley Stream, New York 1-1581 516/872-0202 McDonald"S :SU~F'IU::-~ ~ lis June 7, 1991 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Southold, New York Site Plan Revisions Dear Mr. Goehringer: Enclosed are six (6) copies of McDonald's amended site plan, revised June 5, 1991. We believe this plan satisfies all of the Town's concerns. Thank you for your input throughout this process. We look forward to the upcoming hearing. If you have any questions, please call me at (516) 872-0202. Sincerely, /----;;j /:. i'" /':/'(1 ~:~s~~;'. '~nn[:b':le Project Manager New York Region am/4606A Enclosure cc: P. Mineo H. Raynor MTK Enterprises R. Young T. Bonwell J. Pascucci JUN -1 1991 . -.-~ /_..).-- r ./,'F/!J.-/U /: ',. . ARMA:--iD P D",",MATO JEFREY D FORCHELL! JACK i.... LiBERT--- DONALD JAY SCHWARTZ PETER R. MINEO JOSEPH F. CARLI':'JO PETER ALPERT ASTON J. BOROVINA SA.\it.:EL YEDID DAMATO, FORCHELLI, LIBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO S JOSEPH F. CARLINO / ;" COUNSELORS AT LAW 120 MINEOLA BOULEVARD POBOX 31 M1NEOLA, NEWYORK 1150] (5161 248 - 1700 TELECOPIER: (516) 248-1729 OF COUNSEL LESTER COOPER "ALSO MEMBER OF PA II CO 8AILS W'ARRE""J :So ....R.THUR MARJORIE E. BORNES WILLIAM A. D,CONZA WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK THOMAS V. PANTELIS Vl\iCENT J. PIZZULLl, JR. May 31, 1991 Town of Southold Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Appl. No. 3970SE - McDonald's Corp. Dear Chairman Goehringer and Members of the Board: with reference to your letter to me dated May 22, 1991, please be advised that McDonald's has recently submitted to the Board of Appeals an 8~ x 11 drawing of a revised site plan (a copy of which is attached hereto). This drawing addresses the various concerns expressed by the Board of Appeals at its last meeting, particularly in regard to the location of the stack-up lane for the drive-thru window. Since the Board of Appeals has requested a coordinated review of the site plan, and any revisions thereto, with the Planning Board, a copy of the drawing has also been submitted to that Board for its review. In order to facilitate review by both Boards, the drawing is presently being redrawn at a larger scale and with a greater level of detail. It will be formally submitted to the departments of each Board on or before June 7th so that they will have a sufficient amount of time to evaluate it and coordinate their review prior to June 21st. Based upon this letter, the drawing that was previously submitted and the alternative site plan that will be submitted shortly to both Boards, there should be no doubt that McDonald's intends to pursue an alternative plan in accordance with the recommendations of the Board of Appeals. -3 ( D'AMAro, FORCHELLI, liBERT, SCHWARTZ, MINEO SJOSEPH F. CARLINO COUNSELORS AT I-A,W Town of Southold Board of Appeals Page Two May 31, 1991 I note in your letter a reference to a "final public hearing to be held on or about June 21, 1991". I respectfully suggest that a third public hearing on this application is unnecessary. During the first two lengthy public hearings all of the issues relevant to the application, including the location of the stack-up lane for the drive-thru window, were identified and discussed in considerable detail. Since the relocation of the stack-up lane was made pursuant to the comments of members of the Board of Appeals during the second public hearing, it does not raise any new issues that require a further public hearing. To continually conduct public hearings over a long period of time on an application that has been thoroughly reviewed by the public, the Board of Appeals and the Planning Board, and which is, with the exception of an alternative site plan, virtually unchanged, is expensive and time consuming for McDonald's and could ultimately be confusing to many people. Rather than conduct another public hearing, I respectfully request that the Board of Appeals consider the alternative site plan as a written submission by McDonald's and permit those persons that are interested in the application a period of thirty (30) days from June 21st to submit their written comments on the alternative site plan. To assist the Board of Appeals in this, McDonald's will supply reduced copies (8~ x 11) of the alternative site plan that can be distributed to interested persons for their review and comment. very truly yours, ~(~?~ PETER R. MINEO PRM/cg enclosure cc: McDonald's Corp. Southold Planning Board -.3 r ~ ~ " ~ \ J % ~ I ...- ~.~. Ii ii I, I I 11 I :'jllll,1 ;~, ~~ '! I I :,1' ~ '~I Ilj'lBllll 'dl I; '[ It i i Ii i 1m! ~;~ :Iill~ I I!: ::1 ~ill 1ml I: I ' :: i, - dil i' ';. I I ~ ~ ! ',"1', -c.? 4--..-;:~Ji:_ ~ 11:111, -------r~~ ? -'l~' '1"i' ,:'~J. ; Jl; 1-. c ' : I 1-1- i .,. . , . i I I 'Ii . ~, "j' 'I' 1:1'1;:' '...,.I'j I il.-l f' 0( i_ !: 11, . l' I ,i .. r. " !', .! r.f ! I~:: Ii: Ii! I! ii i i"'~"1 11 I! ' I" j' ~- , - _- _-,_ III I" I'~..ft'.....,,,,,. -"!' 1r:\~r~I[)' "~"{l:::=;il~" g i!:~ I~!~:.-_- , ::.:::: ' L1J~',:;"",:,L:=;:.. '-~'J ...;~;.!.~ __. ~, --- --.~::=-::.:.:.;:...-::-~:~- "'i it _....._ I ~'. 1;111 ~tl".'_'''' ~ao_-.J " . ___ """('1 -r, _,""'~~..,...--- I,' 1111.':- .-...._....._.....I'Ir.,,..""-L: \.. ".. ~ 'J> ...- "-.Il" ~~ %.1:, O. Ii I'll ,( H 11 .I I' I I I -3 I I ,: II; Ii I'; 11'1'; Iii' :! Ill; Ii Ii III i PI I 111'1 I " l'l'I" I' ': , i l!i' !!l 11 lil:~ I' II:l ! d ;1:1', II"!' .:: II d :i Ii I." t ir . I,' ','/_ lJ II :;: I (' .Itl ,; ,I lif ,I I' j; :'! I ! j=:: :i 'j 'JI'I ; :l tll ~ I' .I" " I :,: I " I : .' . I I 'Ill I! ~ i . I ' 'i'li 'I :Iii III hi i II i ..., - I-~ , I , ....r-,.~ ---j :---, ~ ---- -- ? ~ , .\.. ~FilE M ~-ws__ TO: 8GB C.~S TNER ..f;,IL 2:J. 19'j1 PRuM: HENRY RAYNuR Ri: HCDO~ALOS COWF ~NCLO~ED ~UR YUUR REVIEW AWE THE SuaaEST~u REVISIUNS }OR THE SITE f-'LidL ANY COMftENT~ WUULD BE A~PkEC~ATED. 1 Aft ~uRWAh01NU A CCPY OF THlS TO 1HE ZONING bUARU UF ;;.F't"EAL~. THANK YUU. . . . '.. . '^ . -111\ .i' " 2 ~ . ;.; ~ " " i ~ ~ " I .\ ,I I I I ! ~- ,~-~ ;1;; >\lz. ~i .Ji'.1< ~01 ",C " ~I}\ " ,.- \ -, ;, ,j .1 \ .~. .----.- .,.---- ~ Ii: ~ ~ IIII/illl I 'Pll ~ ~ I s ~~r I qQli III ' B ~; i .1 ~ 'F ,:itlllll! I I f-4.t4 Iii ill ,,;' I- !,;Ij;: I', "'11111 III1 rilll'lltln ~f ,I H:~71i!i!!; i'I' , lillllwlli , I, ~ .,' 1"I!ld II!ljj I., l'li r l ," 'I "~,' ' 11 "I ' 'I I ;: ~.~ I i,w ~ 1)') I i 2/ HI,Hll I : . L I r I ji;]: "ill I ------;~~Ji-.,' '.,~_~,.,"-"- - I II' , ~~:~~_~~-=~~ ~~_~_~~CIDO@1D@. -'_-~ ,--...,~~~ _u....._.,_,_. . --::~ ----.._,..,......,...;:..~..=_'.. -------.-~--=- -t-- ~~- ~I::..q.r,._. '~UJLot:::::.,=:=__...., , \ !Ill j i,ll 1 l'~ll ! * I III . ,'II i ii , 10 "'1- 1'q, " oj. " ~ \---~ 4'''''\ ~-~. \ , 1II.l>" ~~ ~ o ~~ l..o : . ! 'JI ji, b' ~': II I I; :~I Ii ,'; W;; ',4 li II !;I , ljl'!'l Ii!" I ' 'I " ". 'j ,. hi I ,I ~'l, (:1 j', 'I ", I' ~, "l, 'I', . ! ~f .r o1:"j 4 )~ Ii '11 I I! l;l~ !, 'i I. ~ I' ,,!~ : 1 J ,! ,- ~ J ~; : ':; ;:~ ! ' i I al:l 'I " I 1',(1111' n i,! 1 I Iii .1 'i . Ii i ~ II ' Ilj.! :ll!ll ','I Ii i: !' I. 'j' . : ~.. J i I 'h ! f ~ ~ J 1 i 'I I ,~,! "'~ , ----...:.'~".'" _~.~~~,~ I .------, I . .' - / I , ,10-9/ , -fill ~Jd ~ v (J>^'-/ p~/~ / Y" l' . MEMORANDUM FROM: File V. Scopaz Jy TO: RE: May 3rd Meeting to discuss alternative layouts. A meeting was held on May 3rd between representatives of McDonald's Corp and the Planning Board staff. Present were: Valerie Scopaz Robert Kassner, Site Plan Reviewer Henry Raynor, Agent Ernest P. Annibale, Project Manager ? Franchise Owner - Name unknown This meeting was held between Planning staff and representatives of McDonald's. It was endorsed by the Planning Board in response to a request by Jim Dinizio on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss alternative site layouts that would address the ZBA's specific concerns about the internal flow of traffic, but that would also be satisfactory to the Planning Board. Mr. Dinizio wanted to find a way to eliminate the necessity for pedestrians to cross a vehicular traffic lane when walking from a parked car to the restaurant and back. He asked Planning staff to inspect a McDonald's located in Medford to see if the concept behind the internal layout could be duplicated at the Mattituck site. Planning Staff inspected that site among others. Staff and Planning Board member Dick Ward also reviewed the attached diagram showing an alternative layout that had been sent by Ernest Annibale the day before the meeting. At the meeting, the discussion was focussed on the changes that the McDonald's Corp. could consider making on the site plan. The following list summarizes just the major elements of site design that were reviewed during this meeting: L\ .. 1. location of drive-in lane relative to pedestrian access to the building; 2. location of delivery vehicles to the delivery entrance; 3. location of bus parking space, and bus loading area; 4. adviseability of a special order waiting or turn out lane. Several variations in layout were discussed; as were the pros and cons of each change in layout. Some variations solved one problem, but created others. For instance, in order to eliminate all pedestrian crossings across a drive-in travel lane, we found that the drive-through lanes probably would have to be moved closer to the residential areas. This shift may reduce the vegetation buffer between these properties. This change may also increase the amount of paving on the site. And, the building itself may have to be shifted closer to the east property line. We also discussed the Planning Board's concerns that if the site is redesigned to separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic, that it not result in drivers accidentally exiting down the entrance-only ramp; and that the entrance to the drive-through lane be clearly distinguishable from the entrance to the parking area. We also discussed reconfiguring the parking lot to allow for better internal circulation of cars as well as pedestrians. This included redesigning the bus parking space so that it could function as both a bus loading area and a delivery loading area; and relocating the dumpster to make it more accessible to dump trucks. The addition of a waiting area or "turnout" has the Planning Board concerned about the hazards of merging three lanes of traffic on the exit ramp. It is possible that the double window system which McDonald's plans to install may eliminate the need for a turn-out waiting area. During the discussion it became clear that it will not be possible to eliminate all pedestrian crossing of the drive-in travel lane. We could "land bank" those spaces on the other side of the travel lane. If the land banked spaces are ever built, perhaps they could be reserved for employee parking so as to minimize conflicts between pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The alternative put forth in the attached diagram was ultimately rejected by both staff and McDonald's representatives because it did not address adequately the concerns of either the ZBA or the Planning Board. However, no decision was reached on another alternative. Mr. Annabale made it clear that he would bring all that we had discussed to the people in charge of the project for a decision. If a decision was made to revise the site plan, a copy would be sent to the Planning Board for its review in order to ensure that it met with the Zoning Code. Ene. ee: Zoning Board of Appeals il<J!'i'1 -,LV) (X:'"::> '"'~ OID'WI - .. I ! !ll I I, Ihl I. I II ! I II, .1 I " 11'1 'I ! :111 i ;1 I, ill I, !I llll il j ll, !i Ii I l! II !il :1 !II hll ;~ I if; I! il lll' hi 1.lj Ilil II I Ijlll II !, i' i 1111 ii '111'1 'II HI I 1111" III ..II ,\ Il,i, ;1 . . . . . . . . . ~ , =j ~..!1 -ii~ :> ~.J:' . '~~:al ~ ]~ - ~t?- :l' ,-nj ~ .~ ... ,";Z': ~l t\-._ .,. $. 1 c ~.. ~ ~ .j ~~ ~ '-j :f. ~ 4~~'" - ~ 1:\ ~ ~ 1~~~ So .... i- oJ' :e ~~ 1 ~C~ ~~+ ~4 ~ ,/ . $ I , <; ~ ~, 7, ,. \.\ '\ ~ ~.' ., .... ''\ " (.' 11.11 (" t~,,,,, ....= I. ...- _._......,...,.1(0_......- ......._1'..".<<> I .,,_..--~I_..a...'--..-...--- ....-- I '~o[,Q)D~ll.dJ@@@W ;; .._."~_" W.::':~llil i9n ,...._....... f VI III I ' ! r.... II ! I i Ii ~I' i 1:< J l II. I ! /.. -\, I I I I. ~ '1 j 'II I!:, I i Ilii! II 1:1 Wi ,11.Hii: ~ ,', Ill! \ ! II"' ,11,1!! ',' I, 111',111!11! I ~ 111 : I ,. I IIIII I -l ( , C.J '" ~ ~ . , i \. ~ ~ . I. , .. ~ --~.~~ ... -- - - - -- ,..--- 'C;- \. .~~ .. J .~ ,,~ " ~,.{r' '.-, --~ --..~~ - t }. Mr:Donalds CorporatIon 70 E. Sunrise Highway Suit'8 619 Valley :-;tream, New York "11581 516/872--0202 McDonald's '. -i ,. May 13, 1991 Ms Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25 Mattituck, New York Dear Ms. Scopaz: This is a follow-up to my letter to you dated May 7, 1991. Following our meeting on May 3rd, 1991, that letter was prepared in a somewhat short time frame to provide you with feedback for your next scheduled work session on May 8, 1991. Since that letter was sent, however, discussions have continued within McDonald's in an effort to accommodate the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Toward that end, we are presently reevaluating all of the site plan and operational issues before us. Therefore, we respectfully request an additional ten days, or until May 24th 1991, to respond to the suggested site plan changes. Sincerely, ~rnest P. Annibale Project Manager New York Region is/4399a cc: H. Raynor T. Bonwell R. Young J. Pascucci P. Mineo, Esq. W. Bender ',:1\'" I 6 :0,91 ! 1 ,~, ~t..lt-~ br3nd fax tt~:msmlttal memo 7871 ~ Fro", . MCDOnald'S Co ~,I " ,; :-,... ,-,', ~ '. :- ~;', f S Co. I SII03...., "',.~,','...,'" i' ": OtPI. pnontlt :. .1: n ~ _'..: _'. ... ~ .., ;St{b6t.C" 1"'6 2tY'r MilY 131 1991 M~ Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Town of Southold Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Propo~ed McDonald's Restilurant RQute 25 Mattituck, New York Dear Ms. Scopa:!:: This is a fOllow-up to my letter to you dated May 7, 1991. FOllowing our meeting on May 3rd, 1991, that letter wa~ prepared in a somewhat short time frame to provide you with feedback for your next scheduled work session on May S, 1991, Since that letter was sent, however, discussions have continued wi thin t<lCDonald' S in an effort to accommodate the concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Toward that end, we are presently reevaluating all of the site plan and operational issues before us. Therefore, we respectfully request an additional ten days, or until May 24th 1991, to respond to the suggested site plan changes. Sincerely, Ernest P. Annibale Project Mannger New York Region 14 is/4399a cc: H, Raynor T. Bonwell R. Young oJ. Pascucci P. Mineo, E:sq. W. Ben"er II ~. .......- .... . . IIJ1cDonald's Corporation 70 E. Sunrise Highway Suite 619 Valley';tream t\lew York '11581 516/872~0202 MCDonald's May 7, 1991 StIi3RU::~ Ms. Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Town of Southoud Town Hall Main Road Southold, New York 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25 Mattituck, New York Dear Ms. Scopaz: McDonald's Corporation has been asked, by the Town of Southold, to consider suggested changes in our proposed site plan. In essence, the changes would require: 1. Eliminating the proposed parking along the east property line. 2. Rerouting the drive-thru lane so that it runs outside most of the parking stalls, in order to mitigate a perceived pedestrian/vehicular conflict. 3. Relocation of various site features, inclUding the bus parking area, truck loading area, and trash corral. At this time, having carefully considered these proposed changes, we do not wish to deter from our original site plan, as submitted with our application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Should you require anything further, please call. Sincerely, ,.- '. -" / if . / ,-( j' i. .,/',1_ L !-t.,-,~-'\_ Ernest P. Annibale Project Manager New York Region as/4217A cc: H. Raynor T. Bonwell R. Young J. Pascucci P. Mineo, Esq. I { . May 7, 1991 SttEitf It> Ms. Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Town of Southoud Town Hall Main Road Southo1d, New York 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25 Mattituck, New York ~.4r L.'.'7~q ( ,) Dear Ms, Scopaz: McDonald's Corporation has been asked, by the Town of Southo1d, to consider suggested changes in our proposed site plan. In essence, the changes would require: 1. ~liminating the proposed parking along the east property line. 2. Rerouting the drive-thru lane so that it runs outside most of the parking stalls, in order to mitigate a perceived pedestrian/vehicular conflict. 3. Relocation of various site features, including the bus parking area, truck loading area, and trash corral. At this time, having carefully considered these proposed changes, we 60 not wish to deter from our original site plan, as submitted with our application to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Should you require anything further, please call. Sincerely, /) 7/ /! '-t i{ t '.<.<'.il L.____ Ernest P. Annibale Project Manager New York Region 6S/4217" cc: H. Raynor T. Bonwell R. Young J. pascucci. 1'. Mineo, Esq. I j V I MCDOnald" . .. '.'(: -:..] : 'I :. -. ~::: 3.~',,,,-:~ < ., ( '- '1-1' 1)1' S"':':!'T' ',~ '" ' '. . -.. . ) . ': ~ - TO: 8" 6 k a. 5':; VI ey '>o0+/"'0 Id TOl.v,"" FlV)(. ,!l '7 {os- - I fS 2- 3 w It OF P"GES 2- (INCLUDING THIS PAGE) FROId; J;;r~'\ I'~ ~) Y\ I' bo{ IL , DEP!; r!..oY\ ":>1-:rurA,,,,,, EXT; t 33 IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL MATERIAL SENT, PLEASE CALL ALICE WEBER 516-872-0202. THANK YOU. ~- ~--.............~-- , , , l rill IlII il SENDER: SUBJECT: SCTM# : COMMENTS: i SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER LETTER i~'if /~~ /1, ~i (.. () OVI--~~ I 5~t j l1'---r. . "-i-/s-- 7/ \, (N5~! u.= '---- K:(( ,."....., ".,....,...,.," ..,"'-o;;.\~~~ ( . 3Ll6ftLf" fJ5 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals DATE: April 16, 1991 SUBJECT: Your File - McDonald's Site Plan Pending Site Plan & Special Exception Reviews As a supplement to our memorandum of April 10, 1991, we hereby request that you provide us with comments as required by Section 100-254B(3) of the Zoning Code, under the Town of southold Site Plan Regulations, Article XXV. Please communicate those areas concerning on-site circulation and pedestrian safety, and possible alternatives in the parking layout, as well as conditions which you feel should be imposed, resulting from your preliminary (planning) review of the subject site plan application. We are making this request distinctly separate and apart from the SEQRA comments since each review must be conducted according to different reviews and rules of law. Please note, however, that the code subjects the preliminary review and written comments to be within sixty (60) days of our written request. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this regard. GG:lk ^P-. , ? I. I '-, ( ( ( . Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals DATE: April 15, 1991 SUBJECT: Your File - McDonald's Site Plan SEQRA Concerns Thank you for your confirmation as to the reviews under SEQRA performed by the Planning Board, which appears to be in response to our memorandum delivered to you on Thursday, April 11, 1991. We would like to assure you that your performance under the SEQRA process has not been questioned as to any inadequacy as suggested in your memorandum. And you are not being asked to reconsider those areas which apparently were adequately already addressed by the Planning Board during reviews under the Traffic Study. The areas of concerns which have been referred to you as the designated lead agency are new areas which appear to have developed in the record after a Conditioned Negative Declaration was made, and which McDonald's Corporation representatives have agreed to address, with your cooperation. It is possible that the site plan will need amendments, and this time, being a preliminary stage, is the appropriate stage to discuss problem areas. . We merely ask that you consider working, perhaps with us, toward possibly mitigating problem areas in the site plan layout in this joint review process and toward mitigating any other issue which developed during these reviews. GG:lk Attachments: Copies of ZBA letters to PB are attached dated 10/1/90; 9/27/90; 10/2/90 which are a part the records. . I .;.:..;-::.~~, /<\\;,~i;I'"",~> :/-".~\ , "'''''- . 'l :-. ,',', .. J(]rc.,[, - ~?.., "'. j...., -- " - .~~ )''''' i.... .~ '..-..-.........'.....'..'...-.- !.- . .... :j::::::' .' - '''''-"~ :-- _ <~ ,- ~ r-..... J.-,-'~ .. '. .......- - "-."- l..,,,... ~.~ f! . ".>;",,>; ..9. --f' ' -\,/',. - '. ,." " -'''1 ,,' -":~ :':>.: "1 ,'.;>, "" ,. ~.' ":,/"- ~~ . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM FROM: Gerard P. Goehringher, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman ~~~5 McDonald's Restaurant SCTM # 1000-122-7-3.1 TO: RE: DATE: April 12, 1991 The Planning Board has read your memorandum of April 10, 1991. There appear to be two major concerns on the part of the Zoning Board. The first is about the adequacy of the environmental review and our final determination. The second is about the adequacy of the internal layout and design of the site itself. With regard to the environmental review, we began a coordinated review of this project on November 14, 1990. A copy of the long environmental assessment form and the supplemental traffic impact study were circulated for review and comment. Further, we met with an official of the New York State Department of Transportation to discuss the potential traffic impacts. As a result of careful review of the material, the comments of other agencies, and much discussion, the Planning Board made a determination to issue a Conditional Negative Declaration. The condition itself and the reasons for the Negative Declaration state clearly that roadway modifications will be needed and will be required in order to mitigate the anticipated traffic impacts that will result from this project. As stipulated by State law, this conditional negative declaration was filed with the Commissioner of the N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation on February 12, 1991. The public had 30 days from the filing of this declaration with the Commissioner to comment on the declaration itself. No . . comments were received from any agency or the general public in opposition to this Conditional Negative Declaration. Before arriving at our decision, we enlisted the assistance of an environmental consultant to conduct a separate review of this proposal. And, we did speak with the State Department of Transportation about our concerns with traffic. And, while we did not receive any comments in writing from the Zoning Board of Appeals until the April 10th memo, we feel the environmental review was carefully considered. With regard to your second area of concern: the layout and design of the site, I respectfully submit that the site plan before you is a preliminary site plan, which is subject to further refinements ann revisions. However, the site plan review cannot go forward until your Board decides whether the site meets the Special Exception requirement set forth in the Zoning Code. At that point, the Planning Board will continue with its review of the site plan based on a floor plan, which has yet to be submitted for our review. The Board has been reviewing these plans with an eye towards protecting pedestrians and minimizing on-site traffic hazards, as we are required to do by Article XXV of the Zoning Code. We will continue to do so once your Board reaches a decision on the drive-in window. ~. ~ Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Robert A. Villa Telephone (516) 765-1809 J(ij~ \~ ~fi ~tJ.t.. i-~~" ~u.dj;f BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD , :;ut8hU; fib tilL SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: Southold Town Planning Board Board of Appeals iJl)(J2' APP. 'I'o: DATE: April 10, 1991 SUBJECT: Your File - McDonald's Site Plan Project at Mattituck During the course of review by our Department, as well as two lengthy hearings in the above matter, several issues on public safety, health and welfare in the proposed site plan layout were discussed; and as directed at our April 5, 1991 meeting, consideration of the site plan is hereby referred back to the Planning Board for more thorough studies and, if necessary, additional reports or modifications. The drive-through facility as laid out negatively impacts on-site circulation, access and pedestrian safety. Pedestrian access to the building should not cross drive-through lanes. The effects of pedestrian accessibility to the building during maximum stacking of cars should be evaluated in depth. Also, multiple access points presently exist at the Riverhead (C.R. 58) building -- and the floor plan layout of this proposed building has not yet been confirmed in the record as relates to the proposed site plan layout. Personal experiences have shown that stacking of cars on-site have created traffic jams and other on-site hazards. Under this referral, the Planning Board must consider (or reconsider) these and other safety, health and welfare issues. The Planning Board, as Lead Agency, may need to consider the possibility of requesting a Draft Environmental Impact Statement as a supplement to the Conditional Negative Declaration to include these and other environmental areas and a need for mitigation measures including but not limited to: (1) interior circulation and pedestrian safety between all parking areas and all building entrances; (2) stacking of cars -- particularly with truck loading in progress, etc. ~ I . (3) garbage and its impact on governmental facilities -- tonnage, its location and frequency of removal and shipping to Southold Town facilities and outside townships, proposed method of accessibility and paths used by employees and truck loading areas to outdoor on-site garbage receptacles; the extent of odors which may attract vermin, etc. Another issue is that since forty percent (40%) of vehicles entering the site are expected to be drive-through customers as projected by Dunn Engineering Associates for McDonald's, and Table 1 of its Report furnished to the Planning Board 1/9/91, the number of vehicles on a Saturday during mid-day expected for drive-through facility use would be 46 vehicles per hour (40% of 115 vehicles on Table 1). Sixty-Nine (69) additional vehicles per hour would then have pedestrians entering the building. With 115 vehicles, more or less, passing along the building entries, either to the west or to the east of the building, 69 or more of those are expected to be passengers, per hour, entering the building by walking across the drive-thru lanes. The hearing concerning the Special Exception by the ZBA will continue at a future meeting once the above and other relevant site plan issues required by Article XXV - Site Plan, have been thoroughly reviewed and adequately addressed, necessary planning report(s) prepared, and site plan modified with the mitigation recommendations. These and other safety and health concerns, as a supplement to the Planning Board's first review, must be thoroughly and properly studied, and reports be prepared. Arrangements may be made for an informal conference between both PB/ZBA chairpersons {or a formal meeting with a quorum of both Boards, with posting of public notices}. If you prefer to meet formally with a quorum of both boards, an early Friday evening in the meeting hall is available. GG:lk 7"'"' ........;fI2l."_T...12 '-'f.'" ~:/CO.Ecr 1.0: NUMBER U(: ~..:..1t-;---- .... [-.'-' :r 617.21 '- APPllndix C State Environmenta, Quality Revi..w SHORT ENVIRONMENTAl. ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only PAR'r I-PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by APPlicant or Project sponsor) t 1 SEQR [1:""" APPLICANT ISPONSOR I 2. PROJ~CT NAME ,:1cDonalds Cor.Jl9rat ion site...2.lan 3. "ROJECT LOCATION: Ml.InlCIQallly Mattituck COlfnty Suffolk 4. I~AeC'SE !.OCATION (SUeel address and toaCllnterSeC!IOna. prominent iartdmark1. Btc:.. Of provide map) south side Main Road, east of Bray Avenue, Mattituck s. IS PROPOSED ACTION: 0New o Sa:p"n:Jlon o ModlfltOatlonJal1eratlon 6. [IESeRI6E PROJECT 6RIEFL Y: " " rl~staurant construction , -'. 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED, , !nlti~lIy 2.9886 acrl!ls UltimatelY 2.9886 <teres e. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? :Dyes ONO 11 No, describe briefly , 9. V'l'HAT IS PFtEseN1l..ANO use IN VICJNITY OF FROJECT? . 8 Aesi"cnlial o lndu,strial :1l9 Commercial o AgtiC;:Ul1ure o ParkJFore~uOpen ~pac;:e oO'ner I)escrlce: , 10. COES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL, OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY IFeOERAL. ~)T ATE OR l.ecAL)? :KJ Ye. GNo " yes, list agency(s) ana germiUapproyals Sel:'vices, Southold ~own Plaming Board, Suffolk County Depal:'tment of Health NEW YOl:'K State Department of Transportation 11. Does ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CURRENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? [J Ye. [I". I~ ye:;" list .191i'1'lCY name ;and permit/apprOIfet.J 1.2. AS A RESUl.T OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL eXISTIr'lG PERMltfAPPROVAL REQUIRE MOOJFICATION? O~ ~_ ' I CERTIFY THAT tHE INFORMArrON PPrQVIOED ABOVE IS TRU~ TO THe SEST OF MY KNOWLEOGe . I 1 // /, ~ . ,. /' r l/"t :h"''' ;'--'- "I .;r:~. ~f: r//' :i/ ",.......,--:/.>, -., " . I '"' ",.,.oo7Lame, ~ \j~ ~" i /, ( ,1. DOl 8: I" , , , . . . / ""/""'". ,(.... r,,/ Slqn,'1IU'l:!: ~,~ -'~-') { '.~- , /I the actiOn is in the Coastal Area. and you are a state agency. Complete the COnstal Assessment Form betore proceeding with this assessment OVER 1 (Continued on reverse side) tUINN Ur 0UU'+-'H.V.uU PART -PROJECT INFORMATIl1N ; Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is designed to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant eHect on the env"onment. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E. Answers to these questions will be considered as part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verifjcation and public reVI€:W. 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 in,olve new studies, research or investigation, If information requiring such additional work is unavailable, so indicate and spl~cifv each instance. CITY/PO I STATE ZIP CODE --; ~ -I -1 ~ ~ ~ I i ---, J NAME OF ACTION McDonald ,s corporation site plan LoCATION OF ACTION (InClUde Street Address, Munlc::lptlllty and Covnty) sls Main Road, Mattituck, New York NAME OF APPLICANT/SPONSOR McDonald ,s Corporation, clo Henr AOORESS 320 Love Lane Count of Suffolk BUSINESS TELEPHONE 516)298-4 67 C!TY/PO Mattituck NAME OF OWNER (If different) Cafaro Real ty A.DORESS DESCRIPTION OF ACTION construction of restaurant 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: DUrban Dlndustrial DCommercial DResidential (suburban) OForest DAgrlculture OOther 2. Total acreage of project area: 2.9986 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) Forested Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc,) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) Water Surface Area Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces Other (Indicate tvpe) lDRural (non.farm) PRESENTLY ? 'lq Rfi acres AFTER COMPLETION o a(;res acres acres a<;res ac:reS I;Jcres a.:res acres ilcres acres acres acres acreS at:res a,;;res 3. What is predominant soil tvpels) on project site? loam a. Soil drainage: rnWell drained 100 % of SoIte o Poorly 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? 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4, Are there bedrock outcropping. on project site? DYes IONo a. What is depth to bedrock! (in feet) and sand DModerately well drained % of site 2 H'd H :,1.0 06, T0 :>nI:J .5.;Apptcximate percentage of proposed prolec. te with 5lopes; l!O-10% 98 ~ <;:/ E10-15% ,f D1S%orl. ter__% 6. 15 project substantially contiguous to. or contain Q. building, site, or district, listed on the State or the Registers of I~i'toric Placesl DYes KJNo i. Is project substantially contiguous to a site listed on t.he Register of Nation~1 Natural L(lndmarks? !:JYcs 8. What is the depth of the water table? + 50 (in feet) 9. Is site located over a prlmory, principal, or sole source aquifer? DYes ltlNo 10. Do hunting, fishing or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? 11, Does project site contain any species 01 plant or animal life that is identified as DYes ISNo According to Identify each 5pecies 2 M .0 NatJol"lnl {]INn DYes ~No threatened or endanger"d1 12. Are there any OVes unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) 6(]No Describe 13 Is the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation areal DYes IXJNo If yes, explain 14. Does the present site Include scenic views known to be important to the communityl DVes ~No 15. Streams within or contiguou~ to project area: a. Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary NONE 16. Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: a. Name NONE 17 Is the site served by existing public utilities7 i1jYes ONo a) If Yes, does suffiCient capacity exist to allow connection? b) If Yes, will improvements be necessary to allow connection'? b. Size (In acres) I19Ves KlYes DNo , DNo la, Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Markets Law, Article 2S'''.A, Sectton 303 and 3047 DYes XJNo 19. I, the site located In or substantially contiguOUS to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article B of the ECl, and 6 NYCRR 6171 DYes [}No 20, Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes [INo 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 b, Project acreage to be developed: 2.9986 acres initially, 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 ,I?er 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 o 2.9986 acres. acres ultimately, Multiple Family Condominium Initially Ultimately i. Dimensions (in feet) of iargest proposed structure 18 height; 52 width; j Linear feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare project will occupy isl 171 10<1ength. per COde ft. n/s & 371 ft s( 3 0T'd 0T:L006, T0 5n~' ~-~.._"-,-~ - - ------- 2. How much n<1tural matenal :iy.. rock, ( ,1, etc.) will be removed from the site? 3. will disturbed areas be rectal .d? .......f")'es DNa DNfA a. If yes, for what intend,"" purpose is the site being reelaimed? b, Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? ~Yes DNo c. Will upper subs,," be ,tockpiled for reclamation? !9Yes o tons/cubic yards ra.t-.--i 1 h11~; n~qs~ [':oJr'lr; ng..-- as needed DNo as needed 4 How many acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? + 1 acres, 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other focally-important vegetation be removed by this project? DYes CXNo 6. If single phase proJect: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phased: a, Total number of phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement ph.se 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d, Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes GNo 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction 50 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 <; months, (including demolition). (number). month month year, (including demolition). year, DYes DNo ; after project is complete + 100 11. Will project require reiocation of .ny projects or facilities? DYes iii No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? DYes DlNo 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' ezYes uNo Type domestic ~pwpr"gA 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? DYes ,oNo Explain 15. Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood plain! DYes :fJNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? IOYes ONo. a. If yes, what is the amount per month 11>;; tons b. If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used? DYes lUNo . c, If yes, give name ; location d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landfill1 DVes 1)l.No e, If Ves, explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes IDNo 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 KJNo 19. Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? DVes iJNo 20. Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient' noise levels? DYes GiNo 21. Will project result in an increase in energy use? !3l:Yes DNo 11 yes, indicate type(s) electricity 22, If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. per SCDOllS code 23, Total anticipated water usage per day 2120 gallons/day. 24. Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? DYes I!9No If Yes: explain 4 6'd 01:L0 06. 10 5n~ - - .~ '25. Approvals Required: City, Town. Vdlage Soard City, Town, Village Pla.nning Board City, Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other Local Agencies Other Regional Agencies State AgenCies Federal Agencies DYes ONo G!:Yes DNo !i<jYes DNo !ilYes DNo DYes DNo !8Yes DNo ![I Yes eNo DYe, DNo Type Submit Da'le site plan ~p~rjAl PY~~p~ion I.ratl!!:!."" r C'.a.1.f~""~'J9 SCPC NYS Dept of TranSP9rtatio~~____ C. Zoning and Planning Information 1. Does proposed action involve a planning or zoning decision? \ilYes DNo If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozoning amendment Ozoning variance Ospecial use permit Dsubdivisior'l KJsite plan Dnew/revision of master plan Dresource management plan ytother s!?aGi~l QxgQJ;1tior~ 2, What is the zoning classification(s)of the ,ite? B 3. What is the maximum potential development of the site if developed <1$ permitted by the present zoning? per Southald Town Zoning 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 toning? per Southald Town Zoning Code 6. Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses in adopted local land use plans? Q!Yes Or 7. What are the predominant land users) and 7.oning classifications within a 1;.; mile radius of proposed action/ B, LIO, R-80, A-C 8, Is the proposed action compatible with adjoining/surrounding land uses within a ';' mile/ 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 authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? DYes IUH, 11. Will the proposed action create a dern<lnd for any community provided services [recreation, education. '"olice fire protection)' XJYes DNo ji]Yes m a. If yes. is existing cap.city sufficient to handle projected demand? liQYes DNa 12. Will the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels/ a,lf yes, is the existing road network <ldequate to handle the additional traffic? DYes DYes DNo IilNo D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverSl impacts associated with your proposal. please discuss such impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate c avoid them. E. Verification I certlfv that the mformation provided above is true to the best of my knowledge. Applicant/Sporsor Name '0., Q \")(1 NA L.r;'<:.. CoR ,0 c>f:A '";> 0 rV Date , ~- r-~> ~ ' Signature :-'; '----~~ -, <" C"~~~, . - Title D.~.-:. ,I::O;'f:--'-.....-:='-L""jJ__~ J'~,..-;r---- d. · ' Uthe action is in the oastal Area, and you are' state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proc"edin; WIth this assessment. S'd 7, , ?, J' I , r.;".. --' 5 60 :.!-0 06, to ~ntl . 5u.bFiLCJ U --~-'-~ ; ,'I , ~ D ., ii;' ~ - ,- Southold. N.Y. 11971 (516) 765.1938 ;, , J L--..~.,~:..~ ~ {:~)u';:. I .. ,," J,';..~:.,~ ..<"-' _d"'_ 'i;' 1/ P pj.. I ,~TION FOR CONSIDERATION , :J>l'Ir~ "F 1'9!!j..I<;~.!"!":ti i 8/l/<mi.ling Fee $580 -New Use change of Use Re-Use Extension Revision-Qf an Approved Site PlanN/A (Date of o~her Specify " : . Ll ot S~_TE .PLM D te Rec'd o 'EX"1sting Use Approval 1 ***************~~* Name of Business or site McDonald's Corporation Location of Site south side Main Road, Mattituok, New York Address of Site, if available Name of Applicant McDonald'~ Corporation, % Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Address of Applicant 320 Love Lane,. Mattituck, ~Y 11952 Telephone 298-8420 Person to be responsible for construction Ernest Annabel, Mcuonalds---- ~nrporation. V~llRV Stream, NY Telephone App~icant's interest in site-check one: OWner of Land Under contract to purchaSE,-=--, Owner of. Fee Title to Land Cofam Realty Co Address4623A Sunrise Hwy, Bohemia, NY Telephone 567-4747 Site Plans Prepared bv R. Feldman License No. 8346 Address 570 Br~adway,-Amityvi1le, NY Telephone 789-3555 ********************~ ~ Total Land Area of Site 2.9986 AC Sg.Ft. Zone District Existing Use of Site vacant Proposed Use of Site Gross Floor Area of Existing structure(s) 0 sgft. 0 Gross Floor Area of proposed Structure(s) ~uuu sqft. Percent of Lot Coverage by Building(s) ~~ Percent of Lot for Parking (where applicable) per Town ~oae Percent of Lot for Landscaping(where applicable) per Town ~oae Daturn(specifylU.s.G.S. Other survey Has applicant been granted a "U!LiU u. and/'W' special exception by Board of Appeals PENDING All reta11 sqft. sqft. % % -.. Case Numb~r Name of Applicant McDonald ,s corporation Date of Decision Expiration Dat~ 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 UNTIL APPEOVAL OF SITE PLAN BY rrlE PLANNING BOARD. ET'd 2T :L0 06, TO ::n:l " . !,.;.... .' ." 0( . AFPtIcANT's AFFIDAVIT , . STATE OF NEW YOnK COUNTY O~ surro~ - 'PAIAL- r-;1-c.-cU..-rr-. ' oe1ng Q'\.llJj sworn, deposes and Sllya ehat he rltl!l.i.Qes A' 70 ;/7~T" c::,'J,1JRSf JA~!-,' V!:1.J,.f;vSTRt,ft- in ~he State of New York, and thac he is e~e.B ~ ~ the ~ov~ ;l~ope~ or that. he :.s the Y D of the'-! ....'0-, I!.-~) m D " (Ti t.le) (Specity whet-her Parer..rarah: ~~J9 which ishere~y ma~in9 app~icatio~; that ~h8 or Corpot'a't.ionl owner or his hei=s, SUCcessors or aSSigns will, ~t his own expense, install the req1.l1rt:d. site i.mprovEilme.nts in a<::cord.ance with Article XII::: ot the COde of th~ Town of $outhold tor the area ~eated herein end that there arena e~istin9 ~tr~etures or improvements on the land which are not: shown on the SitQ! Plan; that title to the entire parcEll, inclUding all rights-of-way, have been cle~rly establi3he~ and ~re shOwn on said ?l~n; th~t no part of the Plan infringes Upon ~ny duly ~ile~ plan which ha~ not been abandoned beth as to lots and as to roads: that he has examinee all r~les and r~9Ulations a~op~ed by the' ?lannin~ BoarQ for the fil;nq of S1te Plans and will comply ~ith s~e; tha't. the pli!lns ew,mi t:'l;:ed.. as approved., will not l:le al tllred. ,;)r c~dnged in any manner without the approval of th~ Plann~r.g ~oard, ~nc that the act~al phy~ical impro~ements will be installed in 3~=ict accordance with the plan: submitted. Signed (O....ner) Sworn to before me this 't~-;'k~iJ~~ (Not y p 0) 19.f'.Q.. JUDl'rH~ .' NOTAftY l'U1UC, s,. ot ......... 1llo.4124648 ^..lIf!td In 8uff.lIk ClIIlInw _, " CommIIl'ln.......,,:ut t...ro><..-, " . ' SigneCi (i?\\rt:ner or . '., -. ~', ,(',..to '1.". ~~~i;: . C6rpora.~e OHicef <lnd 'l'i,tlEll 1(0).. Ie (,1 R n ,V'7s-r'j"! ~ n ~ L") Ls iJ ,j L!:, I' J"!' 1 it ,...."--"-------,,> i/' I' f -. ~ ': I! . ~1 4 ;. i . ~ n I;, ,... .) , ~ I.. ..~ --:" - 0 liLJL;:.i - , " L__.p. I ~ ~ ~ - : I . .2, 'd 21: :<'0 06, 10 ~ni:j . t ~ )... ~ .}Q <:1'-1. \Jl ~ '\.'/-.. II-" ., .....~ !\is Z""< o '- ~ ~~ ~\.l I I... 0 ..-J o ,.,j ~, , -") I ~~g "'~C) ~ ~ - ~ "I ~ o "'" IQ Z !-< o~ " -t:~ ...; u o .....l~ ~!u:J r<:!;: 12AJ~ ''l~ ~.~ < z~ ~o ..JVl ll. l'-lO f- . -Q ~L, - :r: z f- _ "'~ '/.1/,....,.. _...:~_._._.._-::=.----=----=--_.~ SITE PLAN Presub mission conference (within 30 days of written request) Complete application received (within 4 months of presub. conference) Application reviewed at work session (within 10 davs of receipt) Applicant advised of necessary revisions' (within 30 days of review) Revised submission received Lead Agency Coordination SEQRA determination 'f - :1.0 - 16 -2.!.J~ 1AW'Llr;:;-J I?-x/-ja ~ ~ IC::'IIOK I 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ :;t;:;f- 1/-13 -'io ~/'1-11 ~cerd'.R ~Lee Zoning Board of Appeals (written c~mments within 60 days of request) Board of Trustees REFERRED TO: Building Department (certification) . Suffolk County Department of Planning Department of Transportation -State Department of Transportation - County Suffolk County Dept. of Health Fire Commissioners RECEIVED: Draft Covenants and Restrictions Filed Covenants and Restrictions Landscape plan Lighting plan Curb Cut approval Health approval Drainage plan Reviewed by Engineer Approval of site plan -with conditions Endorsement of site plan '- ~- '....... Certificate of Occupancy inspection One year review ~lml 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ ~ '~:LI ~ IC&RI 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ Sent: Received' 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llrn:l ~~ 1AW'Llr.;;;, ~~ 1AW'Llr.;;;, ~~ fAOO'ilr.;;;, ~~ I:iOO11fQKl ~~ 1AW'Llr.;;;, ~~. =:'110:.;1 ~ Nynuy 01.18311I00 ~'lOO-iM6~: 'C"d"Ers"n .l;l. -.6 ~ i PS Form 3800, June 1990 ,. J ~CI U o~ ~ ,r:2 !" c: ~ ~ ~, \ ;. Q -b UJ i ~ ~ '" ~ w n 0 " u ~ '<t ~ ~ ;; :;0 w ~ ~ 0 0 ;; . Z n f-'. .. l < - r-e w~ ~ ~ii a ~~ ?" ~~I is ~ r: ell: . 30nd' Put you~ a from betn~ the date 0 and check 1, 0 $h. dditinm~l ",,,,rvi,.,,,,,, and 2 when a Complete items 1 .......,.;....... "'0 ~~-' ____1_.. ~ '" f , ~, ~' -;.;4 ~p-l M") M - 3. Article ru c, U1 r'- (j) :>l M >, z I1l 0.:3 :;;,..:I: S .::: 0 I1l ':::U (j) (j) ..: Ul'~ .t: .. ,.. ~ U) P<'CIa:1: +l1U)!il~ Ul':::ril+lM ,(j) Q 'MM 'C ~ :;s I1l tL~~ .m..::>- Y'.", ~~~~ UJJo;:! Sd Erne McDo 70 E Suit, Vall, I 5( Si X 6. Signatl X 7. Date 01 ~ r'- ~ f'- :: r'- o 0. 6::'. ,~ ~.Q"l1c Apr. 1989 1 "':II ....... ~ ,.... If', '91 -c: 'S z' · f J ~ I ~ 1Jfl.l8u6!S i I I i ! " Ii I t P:O 1989-238-815 ,..U. ,0.. . U 11189-;I!;.i1l_815 "'~.I,lI.t'::._' C RETURN RECEIPT DDMESTI MESTIC RETURN RECEIPT DO 36579 !. . ? ;;:;;:., N, y, lJ!I7IG~.. LQ.,. P., """"fEb., · ,~ "".-='-L :/-~(J- ~ ~~~":< ;;- . '<':'; '. '~~,. , uon;,,~~ ,~ "~~. -a --:f-u.~u h....."c----- ~'e/ ~~~::------------ J ith 1'. Terry, TOIVJI Clerk (Aj.t(;(~ . """""" """ I "" .." """""''' PS f:orrn 3800 ,)i;'j ------.---.. -.,.>-'.., "'..n's.!!.< 0661 JoqlUOAON 'LL~ lUJO~ ~ ~>; :r r (J.U8B~J Eunl8UB1S ~ - .,...... -. (fJ~~BJPP~J 8Jnl8UB!S -! ;, r . I ... :s. ro :z: !3 :;, '< 0 O<.Q t-; ro '-'f-'.'O '-' lJ; rt- . 9JPP\f o/O!lJ\f 'f: " ..... lu ,",0 o'op "'I' PUoa; 0:> 0 ., 0'0. um,o. 04" . " ::r; ,." '. "'"'0." ""M . S .,,"".. 'Ou 'oop '" 'f1 w'o, 0!4l4"'"V . r;: 0, ",", 014' "'"'0' ' eWell JnoA, iU!Jd . .., " If,.,..~ to: .wei! 8i9fdlUO:) . '00""'00 ,ouo'''PPo '0, l '0/... I 'Wo" O'O'"WOO . : 30N3S 1:.1;. "'-::;> '" .'(iN I <l.6nt>ddnt>H '''\lU<lW Stlt>:r<l=1-<l1\ ' JO =1-d<la Os 'T~oa :l(tlt>:r.,r oJ ~ '~ ') ., ~ '" ...., , ~ "-\) ~ ') ~ I , \ r "'lJ(O U. JOjl '''''INo. DUINlal/"j elll 8A/80eJ OJ. tlSlNo OSI8 , " Suffollc COOnly, New y orlc ......... ~~ ~~ ......... ""'-", ,. ;;16 . 765-1801 Cll8h 0 .--"t Checlc 19'1f ( .....t J-.. (), yi By fep't4'l 31/5;71 C~~ 1107';5 . ( Il'e h-l')"~'{'~ ill( ..1' i/'_ ~-;:; / ~! I ~ 5' ,;:z.~ '--1 c' ,Y Ie) _ if,) - '-re rJ-&~.-- , '7 -- (:..,. " .5 0<.'. i .....~- - .... '.-..- 37503 =-L::L19~ (Iv /Y.O(j, n Clerk ~ I }c;rJ J ..v ~~ c. ---..., .... I N~ r (.~.-I ~-"'.i"'~'~tft_ "', .._ - f " Si/f!3Acc /'6 K:.K 1/5 i Barch 13, 1991 Ilr. Vincent Corrado Dunn Engineerinp Associates 66 ilaln Street Hesthar.lpton Beach, Hew York 11978 Dear lIr. Corrado: Our Case No. 90-393 UcDon2.1d's Pestaurant Poute 25, l'attituck Your October 22, 1990 Submission The Departloent's review of the subject Traffic Iopact Study and site plan "as CDordinated by i:r. J. Lentini of ICy staff. Our CO!:lr-ents are as follo"s: Traffic I8pact Study 1. lie question the selection of the Laurel Lake Drive intersection for analysis. Laurel Lake Drive dead ends a short distance north of Poute 25 ~;ith one residence located on this street. There is however, a State Park facility at the end of this road and a r.mnicipal ball field on tee nortneast corner of this intersection. Such seasonal recreation~l activity Clay justify analysis of this intersection. Kindly explain the impact of the recreational facilities on your analysis. 2. There are two separate approaches to the Bray Avenue/Old nain Road intersection at Route 25. This is a c ombi ned intersection over 50 foot in width providing more than the one lane approach Gtated in your report and capacity analysis. Therefore, a revised analysis is necessa ry. 3. The site plan prepared by RaYClond FeUmn shaHs a curb cut on Old !lain Road accessing the !JcDonald's site however, there is no discussion of this access in your report. Kindly clarify the intended use of this access since it "<'y influence your analysis of the Bray Avenue/Old llain Road intersection. He encourage full use of this curb cut to provide a more disbursed distribution of site traffic onto Route 25. 4. In your distribution analysis of site generated traffic, He note ;no traffic Has assigned to the Sigsbee Road approach to Route 25. There is a large residential area soutn of Route 25 in ad~ition to a larp:e tm.;n hench facility (Veterans Park) located on Peconic nay Boulevard. There is also a large I:Junicipal ball field on Peconic Bay Boulevarc~ ~'7est of Sirsbee Road. The residential cOflFilmity and the recreational facilities can access Route 25 Bnd the r!cI:\onald's site between Bray Avenue on the \,,:est tl' Bay Avenue on the east. You rust address this f'Erket area in your report and revise your analysis accordingly. .. ..,. . ; . ,// ,r. Vi lcent Corrado yarch 13, 1991 / Page 2 . '/ i 5. \.Ie do rot r(~L' '.,'it!' :-our conclusion that <1 \~-estbol1nd left turn lane 1nto t:'(' ~itt' ~:~ ;;ot ;:epccd. ':'l~e projected left turn volures into the site .;u5tify the r:eed for a left turn lane. Additionally, the 8 foot wide shoul(lcr on the north side of Route 25 Is insufficient to safely allCAJ .J \,,;estb'.>Unc through vehicle to safely pass a standing vehicle waiting to tl'rn into this site. A left turn lane Dust be installed as part of this I'roiect. Site Plan 1. Architect r,-aYt.lond FellIT'an's plans are incor.J:plete and unacceptable as presented. 2. Provide a key ~~p locating this site. J. Inst811 concrete curb and sidewalk full frontage of this site. The sidewalk must be five foot wide offset five feet frOli! the face of curb. Install handicap ranps at the curb cuts. 4. Install intersection type curb cuts at Route 25. All curb cuts [rust be perpendicular to Route 25. Remove median divicers ..cithin the curb cuts at Route 25. Dimension radii. 5. Provide traffic bearing asphalt within the the attached sketch for the full Hidth of detail on the plans. curb cut area as shown on the shoulder. Show this ~ l ~ ..,..~ 6. Install a neH catch basin on Route 25 west of the proposed exit driveway. This basin must have minimum four foot sump and type "tnlP~1t frame and grate with a curb inlet box. Connect this new basin to the existing basin with a 18" reinforced concrete pipe. o 7. All water must be contained on-site. Sbow grades along Route 25. Additional on-site drainage nay be necessary. -0,;;".: \ 8. \. \ \ \ Provide regulatory signing at the proposed curb cuts onto Route 25, 1.c.; "Stop", "One-lJayfl and ''Do Not Enter" signs as necessary. ~~ ~~-- Roadway inprovement and pavement striping plans nust be subnitted for the construction of a westbound left turn lane and any neces,9ary widening on Route 25. ---'i' ~:; ="" '~i!-, / 1 t ~ I I \ r f . , I lir. Vincent Corrodo Harch 13, 1991 Page 3 fZindly sU!J"it <;1x copies of ti,c revised Tr~ffic Inpact Study And ten copies of the roadwDY plans for this project. Surety nand, protective liability insurance and rernit lee infon:3tion vill be provlded at a future cate. /',ny questions rerarrling this project CCln t'e directed to l'r. .T. tentini <J.t tl;is of i ic~. ".:cory tnlly yours, JA:JES o. i.r.II~; Acting Re~ional Traffic Engineer ,__"._,_,~"-"",,. cc: rts. Valerie Scopnz, Tm..ffi Planner, To\m of Southald J0F:JL:JS \ \ .. f . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scorf L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 March 4, 1991 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonalds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has received the enclosed report from its Engineering Consultant. The Board accepts this report, and asks that you comply with the report. If you have any questions, or require further information please contact this office. Very truly yours, ~. ~~~ ~~j~ ~ c;Z /;/r Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ ~ Chairman Encl. " U M III~_.. ~Ul'f FOUNDER Sidney B. Bowne, P.E., L.S. (1922-1959) PARTNERS Chester C. Kelsey, P.E., L.S. Robert A. Stanton, P.E. Robert W. Brown, L.S. ZabdielA. Blackman, P.E., L.S. Frank J. Antetomaso, P.E. ASSOCIATES George A. Style, P.E. Jerry O. Almont, P.E. George L. Fagan, Jr., Ph.D., P,E. Frank Capoblanc;o, C.E. P~u.ll F. Stevens, P.E. RogerL. Cocchi, P.E. ClIorl E. Becker, P.E. SPECIAL CONSUL TANTS Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S. Prof. H. F. Saahngen, P.E.,l.S. SENIOR STAFF FrancisJ. Lynch Philip Schlotzhauer Joseph F. Stegman William T, Styne RichardS.Weber Ralph Anderson, L.S. A. Barton Cass, P.E. Fredric C. Griffiths, Jr., l.S. Gregg G. Kelsey, P.E. Dane C. Kenny. P.E. Howard W. Miller, P.E. Richard P. Slutzah, P.E. . ~Q~.~~~'E r ;. / (: i" r' ~. h '~l t:' ... U ~. -~ --""''''''.:~'~-~~ _ cr-."'_'r ~ ___ SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS February 25, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman P 1 anni ng Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: McDonalds at ~attituck S.C.T.M. No.: 1000-122-7-3.1 SBB No. 87674 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the current drainage plan (revised 2-5-91) for the above project and at thi s time we have the foll Jwing comment: 1. All proposed drainage structures should be identified numerically on the plan and in the drainage calcul- ations so that there is no question regarding the size and location of each structure. Upon receipt of a plan showing the requested informatiJn we can complete our review. Very truly yours, c/l) - (J -i . I) L')h~G:J.-J( )'.. O-"A~~ VINCENT MARICONDA VM:ls 45 Manor Road . Smithtown, New York 11787. (516) 724 - 0611 235 East Jericho Turnpike . P.O. Box 109 . Mineols, New York 11501 . (516) 746 - 2350 ."",~ .'-.' ,~-,_ ."_:~r . BOW'NE FOUNDER Sidney B. Bowne, P.E., LS. (1922-1959) PARTNERS Chester C. Kelsey, P.E., l.S. RobertA. Stanton, P.E. Robert W. Brown, L.S. ZabdielA. Blackman, P.E., L.S. Frank J. Antetomaso, P.E. ASSOCIATES George A. Style, P,E. Jerry D. Almont, P.E. George L. Fagan, ..ir., Ph. D., P.E. t-ranK CapobIanco, C.E. Paul F. Stevens, P.E. RogerL. Cocchi, P.E. Carl E. Becker, P,E. SPECIAL CONSULTANTS Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S. Prof. H. F. Soehngen, P,E., L.S. SENIOR STAFF FrancisJ.lynch Philip Schlotzhauer Joseph F. Stegman WilliamT.Styne RichardS.Weber Ralph Anderson, L.S. A. Barton Cass, P.E. FredricC. Griffiths, Jr., L.S. Gregg G. Kelsey, P.E. Dane C. Kenny, P.E. Howard W. Miller, P,E. Richard P. Slutzah, P.E. SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON CONSULTING ENGINEERS .S(j6f/ (t February 25, 1991 ;(K Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Mai n Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: McOonalds at Mattituck S.C.T .M. No.: 1000-122-7-3.1 SBB No. 87674 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the current drainage plan (revised 2-5-'11) for the above project and at this time we have the following comment: 1. All proposed drainage structures should be ident'ified numerically on the plan and in the drainage ca"cul- ations so that there is no question regarding the size and location of each structure. Upon receipt of a plan showing the requested information we can complete our review. Very truly yours, ~ ) " /) - 1c . r} L!jA1 i34X_ I:' (7--"-1 Ctr'''''~l_ VINCENT MARICONDA VM: 1 s 45 Manor Road . Smithtown, New York 11787. (516) 724 - 0611 235 East Jericho Turnpike. P.O. Box 109. Mineola, New York 11501 . (516) 746 - 2350 . .'~ . y~. :01L" .." ."",. ... -i!.., ,,... .j <::~\.\ ,- il f~, 'I~.V', '% ".':;~ ............~ ~tl~ ,'. '. '.' :"- :=:J. >,', z: ~ ,."',, .",," F'"'T" .."...., ~ ~~.~ .~ . -/~J1 - ,,~ ",rJl .... ',\v.' '. ,{... .,' ~ .....lo . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski. Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765.1823 February 20, 1991 Vince:nt Mariconda Sidne:y B. Bowne & Son 45 Ma.nor Road Smithtown, NY 11787 RE: McDonalds at Mattituck SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Mariconda: Enclosed is a revised map for McDonald's as requested in your letter of November 28, 1990. A preliminary review by the New York State Department of Transportation raised concerns that the stormwater run-off from the entrance and exit roads might flow onto Route 25 because of inadequate or improperly located drainage structures. In your review, please consider this. If any additional information is required please contact this office Very truly yours, ~J<.-xdC ~ / 7v'/vs Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. .~~ , SJ 6FJ i.k- tflC [lJ~uu~OO illfuOO~~~[K;{]Duu~[L RAYMONO F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT A.I.A. 570 BROADWAY. AMITYVILLE. NY 11701. (51617B9-3555 10222 GLACIER r:OURT. ORLANDO. FL 32B09. (305) 351-4596 om r j . \1 . II TO J~ct),\j3r '~Uru1D ATTENTION ., > WE ARE SENDII~G YOU ~ttached 0 Under separate cover via fi o Shop drawi,4s 0 Prints ~Plans o Copy of letter 0 Change order 0 the following items: o Samples o Specifications COPI ES DA.TE NO. DESCRIPTION ~ 2. II J1 \15.2- lIjfflfJD/!O -Slit; tfJIIIN I , THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: o For approval o For your use o As requested \~~1/ Fa,' review and comment 00 FOR BIDS DUE o Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit_copies for approval o Approved as noted 0 Submit_copies for distribution o Returned for corrections 0 Return_corrected prints o 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS fEB I 3 1~9\ COpy TO~!~ ~~-k~CCfi3 ' PRODUCT2~O.2~ln',GrtI/otl,M",,"-Oi411 " enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. . t' PO'S T StI t!J Fic~ -I:: ...~.~.~.~.;~..::~t~;~T~.~.~.:~~.0tS:"';;.~.GG.G.:.:00G0GG2Js.0..;....G0GGSSj;~G;~~~.~............................................w ......;.;;..4. 73800;;.;.....;;. .;;..;.;;;.;..Town 0 f SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK Count y .............,................ ........................... ..........".........."".,..... ................................. ....................,...........................................,. ........................."....,....,.,., ...".........,............ ......................................... ............,............................ . ......................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................... ............,.............. .........m....'. ...,................. .............h...... FF ICE or' BOARD: Hp lanning Board ............... .................................. .................................................................. .............................".... ........................ ............ .."... ....................................... ..................... ..................... ......h............................. .................. .................. TIT L~..:.....;;~:~.;~.i.~..:..~.....~.~.~.~.~.~:~.~.:~.~.~...:.......................:.....~.~;~:~:~::::.IIII~Ilil~.r.~.~.:.~.[2!.!!.:.....!!.i..........:.::................................................................... E SCR I P T I ?~;.;p;~~;;;;;~~;;~t~~~~~t~~2:9~~.~~.~.~f~~M~.D~~~1~; ~c';~p "1;;';5)50 f ..:...;..;;;;;..;;.;;;............;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;Maltl Rd. -E/o Bray Ave. ..................................................................... ................."...................'...n............................ ...,..................... ............................................m........................... ....................................................... ....................... .........,......",...,..,...".....................,.. .............,..,... .........,...,'............................,.........,. ........,... ....................................... ,................................... .....,...................................... ........................................... ........................ .... .......................................".. ...,..........,...........'..............."..,....................................... ...................,.......... ... .............................. ,....................."".., ......................................................'" .......................................... ......................".,.."" ................,............... ..............,.".............. ......."...................................... .............................. ........................ .............................,................ .............................. T A TUS : :We :::..:::::.:;:;;;~:::::::~~~dmmmmnm1j1WmHi ....;..;.;Norma 1 Vo i d.....;;;.;;;;;;.;;;;.........;.. :::::Hi::..i[.:[~~:~ ~ ~~~~j:j:,:::,........:...ii.....I.II.il... .;;DA TE RECE I VED : ...........;..;....................;.;;..;.....;....;...;..;..;...;;;. ......;.;;.......;.;...;;.;;;.;.................;;;;.;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;... ...........,.,....,.......... ........,..........m......' ................................ ........,................. ............,..................... ...........................,.. ................... .....,.....,.,......... ............................ ..............,.................. ................................ ..............,..................... .................................... ... ............................ ........................... ..., .........,..................................... ................ ............................................. .....,......................................................,......"............................ .............................,............................................................................... .....,.,...... ...................................................... ......,............"................................. ...................................................... ......................................... ,...................................................... ............... ............................... .................................................. ...,................................... ......... ......"......,................... .......,................... ...................,........ IMPOR.TANT >> File N'Umber-: Nl-473800-008:LO Use the above number in all correspondence about this action! To the Lead Agency: The above information confirms that filings on the described Negative Declaration were officially received by, and entered in the SEOR Repository on the daters) shown in the box headed DATE RECEIVED above. The date and time in the second line show when this document was printed. Please check the information above carefully. For corrections or questions contact Charles Lockrow, (518)4.57-2224., or' write to: SEOR Repository NYSDEC Division of Regulatory Affairs 50 Wolf Road, Room 514. Albany, NY 12233 TO'Nn of SOUTHOLD Planning Board 53J95 Mait' Road-P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 FEB I "i 199i . - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD February 5, 1991 Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Henry Raynor 320 l~ove Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTM#1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, February 4, 1991. Be it RESOLVED that the Southo1d Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, make a determination of non-significance, and grant a conditional Negat:ive Declaration. Enclosed please find a copy of the Negative Declaration for your records. Very truly yours, /JtJ1/{;l~,~ ..; Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~'~Pf Chairman Encl. . - PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOIT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (5 6) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 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 SCTMlt: 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. Condi1:ioned Negative Declaration: Yes (X No ( . . Page 2 McDonald's Corporation Cond:, tions for McDonalds Restaurant 1. The impacts thqt 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 Dunn Engineering Assottes Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 $A t>:FiLE .~ - C<7VV\/ teK lis - 'I 'I January 9, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Chairman Orlowski: It has come to my attention that in our letter to you of January 8, 1991, some of the tables and figures were incorrectly referenced. We have corrected these discrepancies, and a copy of the revised letter is attached. This information has also been forward to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. We apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, L~J,~)-h ~} " " WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910011 .. 1991 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Dunn Engineering Assol:es Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 ~8Fiu:: RK T->8 -c.ovW January 8, 1991 Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 JAN - \991 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: We have received the Traffic Impact Study Review performed for the Town by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates regarding the above project, and your letter to Mr. Henry Raynor requesting that we respond to three issues raised in the review, Our responses to these comments are as follows: Comment: "Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated." Res ]2Q!lli2.;. Trips generated by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant have been recalculated using a pass-by credit of 50%. This information is contained in Table 1. We do, however, continue to support the 70% figure used in the study, in light of the fact that it is the result of a study with the largest available data base and that the study was restricted to McDonald's patrons only. Comment: "The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary." Response: The analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed as follows: 1) Assuming that the westerly limit of the drawing area for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant is a line equidistant from the proposed facility and the existing McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead, and that the easterly limit . e January 8, 1991 Page 2 is the eastern Southhold "census designated place" border, (see Figure 1) then 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 2). Therefore, 80% 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). 2) 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 McDonald's. This information is presented in Figure 2. It can be seen from Figure 3 that 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 50% pass-by credit is applied instead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 66%, as shown on Figure 3. In order to examine a scenario under which the left turn movement out of the site is at a maximum, the pass-by trip pattern for all four peak hours was determined. Table 4 shows that, during the weekday A.M. peak hour, the pass-by trips pattern becomes 54% from the east to the west and 46% from the west to the east, which would represent the greatest percentage of left turns out of the site. Although the northbound to westbound left turn component leaving the site increases in terms of percentage the volume is such that no adverse impact will occur, since site generated traffic is significantly lower during the A.M. peak hour. It should be noted that in compiling the information for this letter, it was found that this logic was not applied to entering trips, as it should have been. This omission has been corrected in all further analysis. Comment: "The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass- by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. II Response: The unsignalized intersection capacity analysis has been revised to reflect the above adjustment and the results are contained in Table 2. As can be seen in Table 2, no adverse traffic impact occurs with the new analysis. A copy of the analysis is enclosed. . . January 8, 1991 Page 3 We trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineering aspects of the above project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, ;~) ~:.-Lr::..-. )->.. 7<-'--'/). WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Prindpal WMD/bf P90055 L910004 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's , .. ,- , SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 February 4, 1991 Address: Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. SEQR Status: McDonald's Corporation Unlisted Action Title of Action: Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves a request for site plan app'roval to construct a McDonald's Restaurant (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcel located on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York District 1000 - Section 122 - Block 07 -Lot 3.2 SCTM Number: Location: The site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Road, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet of frontage on Main Road and 317.14 feet offrontage on Old Main Road. Page 1 of3 ~ 3) 4) 5) 6) . . McDonald's Corporation SEQR Determination Reasons Supporting This Determination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The subject property is zoned B (Business), and the proposed use is consistent with the existing zornn~ of the site. 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. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health ServIces, and it has been 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 project is consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 Study, SC Sanitary Code Article 6, and considered by the Town of Southold in review of the project. The site is predominantly devoid of native vegetation and is presently established recolonizing herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain any unique species of vegetation or wildlife. 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. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project will not have an undue burden on the transportation systems of the area. Traffic associated impacts have been quantified, and have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. 2) The building has been setback 140 feet from the road. Further, site design provides "landbanking" of parking stalls in order to maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to improve aesthetics, and provide visual appeal and buffering. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Town of Southold Planing Board Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516) 765-1938 Address: Phone No.: Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 2 of3 ... - t McDonald's Corporation SEQR Determination Applicant-McDonald's Corporation Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of3 }H!i 0':< '~l c: :.,:, ['U~'fr ~ Erl1:;Ili. il; :-,':'L, ':'::':8 ~:-l~ . e'.2 12 Dunn Engineering Associates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street WeslhamplM Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 January 9, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Chairman Orlowski: It h~,s come to my attention that in our letter to you of January 8, 1991, some of the tables and figures were incorrectly referenced. We have corrected these discrepancies, and a copy of the revised letter is attached, TIlis information has also been forward to Cramer, Voorhis and Associates. We apologize for any inconvenience, and thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sinct:rely, i;j?~ r.. ~). WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910011 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates .1 1991 ;r:.,jJ "].~ _... 1'::: ...:.:' :".,::":=, :-'-=::--1.-.+ ~D-'~ ~- E' . A · unn nglneenng SSOclates Consulting EngineElrs 66 Main Street Westharnpton Beach, N,Y, 11978 516.288.2480 ~,,:. l~ January 8, 1991 Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SOllthold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Olairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: We have received the Traffic Impact Study Review performed for the Town by Cramer, Voorhis ane! Associates regarding the above project, and your letter to Mr. Henry Raynor requesting that we respond to three issues raised in the review. Our responses to these comments are as follows; Comment: "Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a' ma-omum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated." &i~.i Trips generated by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant have been recalculated using a pass.by credit of 50%. This information is contained in Table 1. We do, however, continue to support the 70% figure used in the study, in light of the fact that it is the result of a study with the largest available data base and that the study was restricted to McDonald's patrons only. Qlj'l1ment: "TIle analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary." Response; The analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed as follows: 1) Assumins that the westerly limit of the draV\.1ng area for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant is a line equidistant from the proposed facility and the existing McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead, and that the easterly limit J~r ~ ~J'~ '?l ::~: :'0 :':'UIHl Erjl~.ifjE.I'; Sic ..:.::'c. ~5~c.+ . >=..~ l~ VEHICLES PER HOUR WEEKDAY SATURDAY - AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Entl!!:r Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Projected Site Ori~e~ay volume~ 34 34 236 235 64 63 115 115 Driveway Volume ThQt will B. . I Pa$s.Sy ~~hicte$ 17 17 118 118 32 31 57 57 ~et New Traffic on Adjacent 17 17 118 117 32 32 58 58 St reets tABLE 1 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC SUMMARY PROPOSED McDONALD'S. MAT11TUCK 5DX PASS-BY CREDIT j~i I l:r~ .~' __ L'LI i:i EI"~;i<E.'o ':'.:, 1 >~, -,,-, "="'::-1-4 . January 8, 1991 Pape 3 " W~, trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineering aspects of the above project. If you have any questions or need auy further information, please call me. Sincerely, ;:.J ?--~r_ A y<-'--'/ ). . WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Priacipal WMD/bf P90055 L91.0004 cc; Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's JAr~ lJ'j -'j1 1~: :::L\ [IUr~rl Erk;IflEW!'; ~lc, ,::>:.8 2:,-'-1-+ . F' c. 12 JlUIluary 8, 1991 Pane 2 is the eastern Southhold "census designated place" border, (see Figure 1) then 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 2). Therefore, 80% 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). 2) 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 tlJe east and continue their trip to the west after leaving the McDonald's. This information is presented in Figure 2. 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 50% pass-by credit is applied ins!:ead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 66%, as shown on Figure 3. In order to ,examine a scenario under which the left turn movement out of the site is at a maximum, the pass-by trip pattern for all four peak hours was determined. Table 3 shows that, during the we,:kday A.M. peak hour, the pass.by trips pattern becomes 54% from the east to the west and 46% from the west to the east, which would represent the greatest percentage of left turns out of the site. Although the northbound to westbound left turn component leaving the site increases. in l:erms of percentage the volume is such that no adverse impact will occur, since site generated traffic is significantly lower during the A.M. peak hour. It should be noted that in compiling the information for this letter, it was found that this logic was not applied to entering trips, as it .hcWd have been. TIlls omission has been corrected in all further analysis. ilimment: "The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass- by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. II ~'1l0nse; The unsignalized intersection capacity analysis has been revised to reflect the above adjustment and the results are contained in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, no adverse traffic impact occurs with the new analysis. A copy of the analysis is enclosed. '~ I: (-' 'l.I PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN '-i-' ,.... , '.11 ~~~ __~ _ _BO~ltL 20%-!N _ ,,: r 80% .2~ 1. I ( , + : PRIMARY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .BOx .50 = .40 = 40% FROM WEST TO WEST .20x.SO=.10= 10% 46% OUT 46%114 '" (" '=' ,n - - -- S4%IN -- --. S4% OUT ['J ,j. H PASS-BY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46 X ,SO = .23 = 23% FROM WEST 10 EAST = 54% .54 X ,50 = .27 = 27% (ii . '.f"! ,- (T, r.. IT' (CI r,' " L ,. FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITIt-lG -----, t I r , FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST . 40% 10% 10% 40% +27% +23% +23% +27% 37% 63% 33% 67% ,: ~ Ci FIGURE 3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY = 50% ~ f" Jhf j ~::lj '=,l , . I:' , v~/ L:"' -:l. '\- '( l(~' \ , ,./ 1.. " '~ ~;,',' 'i ,I I '1'\ .,' [;i_;iH j - . ':-'-'-'''-j J'; C-'JI':II'ic...t... ,_I, J l "' i (/) 9 <l; z o o u ::l: C LU (/) C c. o It c. r~ i:5S1 ~::J ,,~ ZL/J -t- ~f;l c~ (/) o ...I < Z g o :E Cl z 1= (/) tj 1:..L:, I . \ '.:,'-. I, '0 ('\l .~. "'J::. L. (l> > 'C J r {/ ,~ '" 0.\ <I, -. <I, e: ;rS '" "' '.:I ! l ......-/ , .. , , , :~, ~.:. , -.,-,,::, ..-".... ~':...t-4 " \ \:'. ~, '~~, "., ,;> 11,\ I, V'4.1' I: " " . '.', ;:' I ~ ,\ " " \. , ~ " ) f ',:i: \' ! ( . 'Q '" '" Q ") 't;J ~ H, ~ - '.' F'., -"-_ III W ~ 0. ffi ~ Cl (ii LiJ C (/) => t/) ffi (,) '" ~ o LL LL ::> Vl ~ z ~ '" ~ j 9<.l8~[;j~~ o5!J:-a:w~ ~~!~~~: en Q <(~ w< c:Z ,... .....0. .....0: W (,!) (,) . c: z=:; 5 ~c! - C:l: UJ. LI. c: en ' co c. o c: c. Jf~1 1 ..,,::, _. 'c ::':~=1 ['Ur~~i [:;':'1IjE:::::.I= '~lt:, ':"'::"-' ~:,,-i-4 . r-' . t:, ~...:.: January 8, 1991 Page 3 W.: trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineering aspects of tbe above project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WJ'v1D/bf P90055 L910004 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's Jc,,, ,:':' . ::I.L ~;'--',: ---, 1 CI'II_~"'-~'~I' LI_; ,'1 '.:..11'':-1:;'',.. ..~, -r:;-" , --=-.'-+-+ TO EAST Peconic - Southold - Cutchog'J.e - Mattituck (80%) Laurel (10%) - 1309 5540 3082 - 3553 113 13,597 Mattituck (20%) - 889 Laurel (90%) - 1015 Northville (20%) - 686 Jamesport (70%) - ~ 3427 TABLE 2 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED McDONALD'S MATTI TUCK . -=-.:::: ...--=- TO WEST y I: ,-::;, '1) PRlMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN ,t) ~ 20% Oln 80% IN :I~- r~--=~: ---......,. /-~ . I 1 I f . I I I PRIMARY TRIPS=30% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80. .30 = .24 = 24% FROM WEST TO WEST = 20% .20. .30 = .06 = 06% ~ " 46% om 46% Iii I_IJ " -54%111- - ---.--. \ ( 54% OUT t t \ J ,~ ':' C !:' ,j, ~ PASS-BY TRIPS = 70% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46..70 = .322 = 32% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54 ..70 = .378 = 38% .fT] . .;. ,_11 " 0' r'j U.l (0 r.' " t. t. FINAL TRIP PATIEFlN ENTERING EXITING t r I r FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST . 6% 24% 6% 24% +38% +32% +32% +38% 44% 56% 38% 62% lJ '11 FIGURE 2 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY = 70% ,- f'.1 Jrirj U:? .~. [;I~:ri:1 Dj':;Iii~T."'; Slc, F.11 1::: ..:.::-~-+ . TIME DIRECTION FROM WEST FROM EAST AM Peak. Hour 46% 54% Midday Peak Hour :4% 46% PM Peak Hour 56% 44% Saturday Peak Hour 52% 48% TABLE 3 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PATTERNS ROUTE 25, MATTITUCK JHr ~ C,.~ "::<1 l~: ::.:: [lUfH~ E(I~='Ir-~.r~;; p. ~~ L.:. ':l-::. . .:.5~-4 lOCATlOII TIMe 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO.SUllO IlIJILD Route 25 At fActory A.M. A A I Avenue/Sig&boe Road MID. I e e P.M. e e e SAT. E E E Route 25 at Bray A.M. B I I Avenue MID. e e e P.M. e e e SAT. Route 25 at Laurel A.M. A A A L.ake Drtye MID. 0 0 0 P.M. A A A SAT. 0 0 D Route 25 at Western A.M. A She Oriveway (Enter MID. A Only) P.M. NIA NIA A SAT. B ROYte 25 et Eastern A.M. D Site Driveway (EAit MID. E Only) P.M. NIA NIA E SAT. E __ L... NIA - Not applicable. TABLE 4 lEVEL DF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S MATT I TUCk J~! i C1? '? lIe- : .c;o I;'.III1; [; "WEF1 i b '" 1 '" .:'="?' .:'c-..j.j . c.1 L Dunn Engineering Associates Conaultlng Englooore 66 Main Streot Wosthampton Beach, N,y, 11978 616-288-2480 l'ACSIMILE COVER SHEET DA'I'E:_~ .3'.~1 TIME: ~ W '1"0:_ COMPANY: ~tJ W~(' bUN.A1 DUNN ENGINEElUNG ASSOCIATES l'ROM: fAX: (516) 288-2544 TEll!: (516) 288-2480 FAX NLlMllEH: (Being :sent to) NUM13Ell OF l'AGES: .Jd. 7foS -180)3 (INCLUDING COVEll SllEE'I) COMMEN'I'S/lNS'l'IlUCTIONS: T.'l>l ~itn IF TIIERE AlUl ANY PROBLEMS llECmVlNG TlIIS FAX, PLEASE CALL TilE ABOVE NUMlllm AND ASK FOR: (name of person s"ndlng fax) . . , )l//';'c.,/->{..J~;'; -.. ...,-, '- CRAMEFI, VOORHIS &ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL ANDPtJi.WNING CONSULTANTS January 29, 1991 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Preparation of Parts I, II and III SEQR Review McDonald's, Mattituck SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Benny: Enclosed, please find the completed Long Environmental Assessment Form for the above referenced project. Please note that we have performed a field inspection of this parcd, reviewed and corrected the Part I, and completed Parts II and III for the McDonald's Corporation project. In addition, a draft SEQR Negative Declaration is included for the zone change request, due to the fact that we feel that significant environmental impacts have been mitigated. The Long EAF should be used as a basis for the Planning Board determination on this project. In accordance with Part 617.6 (a)(l)(ii), the Lead A~ency shall determine the sigmficance of the action within 20 days of receipt of the applicatIOn, the LEAF and any additional information reasonably necessary to make the determination. The enclosed documentation provides additional information necessary to make the determination. It is our recommendation that the Plannin~ Board review the enclosed information, and wnsider the adoption of a Negative DeclaratIOn. The draft Declaration is prepared such that it can be xeroxed onto Planing Board stationary, adopted and filed in accordance with Part 617.10. In addition, the Long EAF can be circulated as additional support for the determination. If you or the Board have any questions pertaining to this information, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly ~rs, .' Ii' ,/ _ // ......'.- > .{/ ,.. I ""''///. / ",>:"-;~d'-;,,,~:><.'--y', -~-';~_' , /' '. Charles J. Voorhis enc: Long EAF Parts I, II and III SEQR Negative Declaration 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 . . SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Notice of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agency: Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 February 4, 1991 Address: Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. SEQR Status: McDonald's Corporation Unlisted Action Title of Action: Project Description: The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves a request for site plan app'roval to construct a McDonald's Restaurant (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcel located on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York SCTM Number: District 1000 - Section 122 - Block 07 -Lot 3.2 Location: The site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Road, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet of frontage on Main Road and 317.14 feet of frontage on Old Main Road. Page 1 of3 3) 4) 5) 6) .' . McDonald's Corporation SEQR Determination Reasons Supporting This Detennination: This determination is issued in full consideration of the criteria for determination of significance contained in 6 NYCRR Part 617.11, the Long Environmental Assessment Form Parts I, II, and III, and the following specific reasons: 1) The subject property is zoned B (Business), and the proposed use is consistent with the existing zornn/l of the site. 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. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and it has been 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 project is consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 Study, SC Sanitary Code Article 6, and considered by the Town of Southold in review of the project. The site is predominantly devoid of native vegetation and is presently established recolonizing herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain any unique species of vegetation or wildlife. 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. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project will not have an undue burden on the transportation systems of the area. Traffic associated impacts have been quantified, and have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. 2) The building has been setback 140 feet from the road. Further, site design provides "landbanking" of parking stalls in order to maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to improve aesthetics, and provide visual appeal and buffering. For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Town of Southold Planing Board Town Hall, Main Road, Southold (516) 765-1938 Address: Phone No.: Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page 2 of3 lit ., McDonald's Corporation SEQR Detennination Applicant-McDonald's Corporation Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold Town Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Southold Town Building Department Page 3 of3 . . PAGE 7 ENB-FEBRUARY 20, 199 PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS FINAL GENERIC EIS REG;O~~ 1~ihe ;(ywn ot srreiler i$!CnO, os lead C)gency, has compieted a final genenc EIS 0", the propOSed lown ot Shelt..r Islend F!nol Solid Waste ManagemenT Plan. Tr18 action involves fhe development of 0 Townwide comprehensive SOlid wasfe monegement plan thol will provide for the reducllon, recycling, procesSing. and disposal of mt;n,clpOI solid wosle generated within the Town of Sheller Island, Suffolk County CONTACT: Jemay R. Simes, Superv,sor. Town Halo. 44 Norm Ferry, Sheller Island. NY 11964. (516) 749.0015 DRAFT EIS REGION 1~Tl"19 Town 01 8aby~on Tawn 8oard. os lead agency, has accepted 0 draft EIS on !he proposed Commercial Re~ldentlol Recycling Facility Site. The CC\;o,~ involves t~,e construcllon and operation cf a Commercial/Residential RecyCling Faciiity at a 14.7 ocre site The facility would provide sorting, processing, storage and marketirlg services for all cornmerc:-:l1 waste (including non-hazardous industrIal and commercial waste) and source-seporated household recyclable materials. The project is located in the northwest portion of the T owl'> of 6obylon, Suffolk County. CONTACT: Ar1tour G Pitts, Town Supervisor, Town Of Babylon Town Board, 6oby!on Town Hall, 200 Eas' Sur,Tlsa Highway, lindeMursl, NY 11757, (516) 957-3072 CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGION 1 -The Soul~,old Town Plcnr;tng Board, as lead agency, hos ,jetermlned that Ine prOpoSacl site plan for McDonald's Corporoflon will not have 0 significant onvironmenlal Impact provided SpeCllic conditions ora met. A 3D-day public comment period commances with this notice. The action invol',es a proposed restaurant on 2.98 aCres for McDonald's Corporation. The projecllS IOCaled on the south side of Main Road, eos! of Broy Avenue. Matt/tuck, Suffolk County . The conditions iflVoive Installation of raodway modifications to State r<oute 25 to ensure that traffiC sorely" not cornproml'ed, and Ihat rOOd capocit, does not fall below 1990 50rvice levels CONTACT. ROben G. Kessner. Planning Boord, fown Hail 530'15 Main Road. PO Box 1179 SoutnolO, NY 11971, (510) 705-1938. t.t TOTAL F'f::r'~E. 002 .*+ OCT il '91 13'3" FR')~I /f': ""~i;"":\'f';p~~:"')'~'~{~Jj;ttj,*~;f~'$;"'fr-" .-.,. .ct . ;~ .,.".. Nil. , ~r -" J mr [..~ fllBlrT IlIUTl1flllUIl FINAL G6MRIC EIS , '. The ;"wn Of Shel'-r ISIan<l. 0$ lead ~y. hO$ QOlr!PIIII.C1 a final ~tC; lIS :'.i)O~ Town 01 ~r IIlcIncl F""" Solid WOlle Monll..m.m l'Ian. ,"':~e$ the (Wvei<>pmenl of a Townwide compI"",*i*l.' tOIICl WOlle ,J. ,,:~Ienr p1an thot will provi<>> tor the ~Ion. ~ j)fOC ...'Ing. and dItpoIol C' " ,'J'!ie.;.;o;; solid woSte gltOefated ..nthln l!\e Town of SI'\elIer 1tlQnd. Suffolk Counfy. ',\CT: Jeffrey r<. Simes. SYpervisor. Town HoII. ... North Ferry. SI*ter IslQnd. NY 11960(, :OJ loI9.Q01S ~.~ Pc ." Town Of Babylon Town Board. 01 ~ agency. haS 0C0"0I~ 0 draft as on ..Aed CommerCIal RMlctential .uyOling FCICl4tty SM. Th .~ iI'lllolves l!\e conStl'uetIon and operation of 0 eomm.rClaU'-'.1 jet lIiQl RecyCling ". ., Cl 14.7 acre sn. The fOCIll1y WOYld provide $Otting. pIO() "ling. SIOfOQe ond ."g ,;v~ tor all commerclal wOlle (including ~ induItflOI and ,merC"J' WOI'-) and 1O\lI'Cf! 1i~()IQIed no\lWlald r~ motenaI8. The projeCt is ;)OO1ed in the noI1hwest pOrtion o1l!\e Town of 1Qbytor\. SuffoIkCounly. , Arthur G Pitts. Town Supervisor. Town 01 Bob)'lon Town lloord, llClbylon Town Hall. 4 ,e Highway, Unc:tennurst, NY 11757, (51~) 957-3072 _NomO~ .GATIVE OECl..ARATION f J Rf<i>lON 1-The $ouIhOld Town Planning 8oard. 01 lead gglM'lCY. I\QS '-.rmln4ld IhcllIhe pIOflOMld slle pIOn lor McDonald's COIpofCIIIlon wUl not haYe 0 signlllOant _~OM'.ento1 ImpQC! provided apeeffiC conclltions are met. A 30-d0y pubftC; comment penod oommenol$ with 1hIS noIlce. The OOIlon inVOlves a proposed r.ouronl on 2.98 acres !of McDonald's Corporation The prOjeCt II loCated on the $Outh side of Moln Rood. east Of 8<oy A"p" .J'~. MottItuCk. SU<<OIl< Cwnfy. .". The conditiOnS Inllol,,' Installation Of raoc/WOy modificationS to Stale Route 25 to ensure thai troftiC safety is not compromised. and thai rood capacity - no! falIl:l4lIOw 1CXlO ..,;ge Jewell. OOtlTACJ; RoQen G. ~.ossner. PIonnlng Boord, Town Hall. 5309$ Moin Rood. PO Box 1179, SOuthOlO, NY 11971. (5~o) 705-1938 (l(T 9. j 91 13, 3? FR')M Eo. PHG~.001 ~ . CD ~~"~ ';.....;-'f' -',',,: :J..1~ ..,,,...~,- ..__.n . HI" "1li~.IIIH-I..1 C.-II rull1 ....__ '11"1-"- ' \ / \ 'I C\ \ 1;;. f ,Q. S\,. ~.-\S.iL '3~<~" \-\',\) I ~ A'rI.__.\ () - 3. -" \ . ......,~~": ' I rol VDIn:<:~OI o. PlIO... c.w:. A'l 'j S'1~ ~~4J'I ms M!:1.. ,'- -, ",.,.,. FllOM l'ITRY IOVIS aooo )lJl .... .T-iCOPID - ~APICOll 230 - (5J.8l r.,T-lota " .- . . LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PARTS I, II AND III Project: McDonald's Corporation Main Road, Mattituck, NY Prepared For: Planning Board of the Town of South old Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Prepared By: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 North Country Road Miller Place, New York 11764 Date: January 29, 1991 . LONG EAF PART III CRAMER, V~\ J'ASOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~Dt'#Nt~kJG CONSULTANTS . . . LONG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM - PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT McDonald's Corporation Mattituck, New York LOCATION The site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Road, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet offrontage on Main Road and 317.14 feet of frontage on Old Main Road. APPLICANT McDonald's Corporation c/o Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 DATE January 29, 1991 INTIWDUCTION The proposed project and the environmental character of the project site is described in detail within the Long Environmental Assessment Form (LEAF) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magnitude. This section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed project on the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption of a determination of significance. The LEAF Part III is prepared if one or more impacts are considered as being potentially large as identified in the LEAF Part II. There were no impacts identified III the Part II LEAF as being potentially large; however, this narrative is provided as a means of discussing small impacts and IS offered in support of the determination of significance. CRAMER, \I~\ JASOCIATES ENVIRONMENl1.~~i~Y~~G CONSULTANTS Page 1 . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF In the case of the subject proposal, the Town of Southold Planning Board has received an application for a site plan to allow the construction of a McDonald's Restaurant, (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcel located on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York. This Part III addresses in detail the environmental and planning issues relevant to the subject application. The site is predominantly cleared of deciduous vegetation and is presently dominated by herbaceous weed. Field inspection did not reveal any significant natural environmental resources at the time of site inspection. It is noted that there is a freshwater wetland on the north side of Main Road. This area would not be expected to be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, this discussion concentrates on the following impacts areas: Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on Aesthetic Resources and Impact on the Transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS * * The proposed action will result in a physical change to the project site. Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the general slopes in the project area exceed 10%. The frontage of the project site exhibits a rise in topography from the road (20 feet above mean sea level to the higher elevation of the majority of the property (29.:t. feet above msl). Most slopes along this rise are in the range of 15 to 20%. There are several localized areas along the western frontage with slopes in the range of 25 to 30%. Slopes in the area of the western proposed access driveway are in the range of 15 to 18%, and slopes in the area of the eastern proposed access drive are less than 15% (12 to 15%). The project will cause disturbance of some limited areas with slopes slightly in excess of 15% in the area of the western site entrance, as a result of the installation of the driveway. The areas with steep slopes are not comprised of native vegetation. The rise along Main Road appear to be due to grading activities from when the road was constructed. The location of the driveways have been placed in order to minimize alteration of slopes in excess of 15%. The slopes in the area of the western driveway access are not considered excessive (15 to 18%), and are certainly in the range where compatible site improvements can occur. Some grading is anticipated along the driveway, in order to achieve a suitable access grade. Graded areas will be stabilized using topsoil, seed and planting of juniper adjacent the driveway. This impact is not considered significant due to: 1) the avoidance of steep slope areas; 2) the fact that slopes and vegetation do not appear to be natural or significant; 3) the ability to minimize erosion through limitation of grading; and, 4) the proposed re-establishment of disturbed areas with topsoil, seed and plantings. * * The proposed action may affect groundwater quality. The proposed action will require a discharge penn it. The site use involves a restaurant and therefore requires sanitary discharge of kitchen waste and sewa~e. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law (NYSECL) ArtIcle 17, requires that commercial sanitary discharges obtain a Class 2 e~A CRAMER, V . R. SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT .,,~:;~ 0. ~G CONSULTANTS Page 2 . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for such discharge. The Class 2 permit program has been delegated to Suffolk County Department of Health Servtces (SCDHS), as an arm of the NYSDEC for implementation of such programs. In addition, SCDHS has established discharge limitations for Suffolk County based upon geographic areas and hydrogeologic importance, water quality and available water supply. These regulations are under Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV; however, public water is not available. Therefore, the under Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, the daily flow would be restricted to 300 gallons per day per acre (897 gallons :per day of sewage containing waste), for best sewage disposal practIce to mininnze potential groundwater contamination. Under the sewage system design criteria, a total flow of 30 gallons per day per seat (gpd/seat) is applied to restaurants. Of this flow, 10 gpd/seat is sewage related (mtrogen containing) waste. Therefore, only 89 seats would be allowed in connection with a restaurant at the subject site. The Health Department has completed their review and at this time are awaiting approval of water quality from the on-site well, and a SEQR determination from the Town of Southold. The SCDHS File Number is ClO-90-011. The applicant has furnished a copy of the well report to the Health De:partment. The results are acceptable with the exception of iron and manganese whIch are naturally occurring metals which can be removed by filtration. Accordingly it is expected that SCDHS approval of the project is forthcoming after completion of review by Southold. This impact is not considered significant due to the project compliance with established discharge limitations, and the required obtainment of a Class 2 SPDES commercial sanitary discharge permit. * * The proposed action will affect aesthetic resoW'Ces. The proposed action may impair historic and/or architectural/ aesthetic resources. The subject site is presently vacant land. The current character of the site is that of a cleared site, which is recolonizing in herbaceous weed, and pioneer vegetation. West of the site is vacant land, residences and a gasoline station. East of the site is an office building which is presently under construction, beyond which are large commercial farm and shed buildings. North of the site is Main Road, beyond which is vacant land some of which is wooded and some of which is cleared. South of the site is Old Main Road, beyond which are residences and farm properties. The visual character of the area IS mixed including commercial, residentIal, farm related and vacant properties. The site and area are not particularly significant in terms of historic integrity; however, there is a tie to the historic past through extant dwellings and farm uses. The application calls for a McDonald's Restaurant which could impair the aesthetics and character of the site and area, through inappropriate architecture and/or incompatible site design. The applicant has endeavored to custom design the buildin~ for the site in order to maintain the existing aesthetics and provide a compatible use. As a result, a building has been designed which has historically appro:priate character. The Planning Board has been supplied with architectural elevatIOns in order to visualize the structure. The building has been setback from CRAMER, v~\ JASOCIATES ENVIRONMEI~~~~~~G CONSULTANTS Page 3 . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF Main Road a distance of 140 feet, and is oriented perpendicular to the road to minimize visual presence. It is noted that the project represents a low intensity use involving a 4,113 square foot building on a 2.99 acre site, with a coverage of only 3 percent. In addition, parking stalls which are not considered necessary will not be constructed, effectively "land banking" these stalls in favor of open area. The site frontage as well as the sides and rear of the property will be landscaped in order to provide visual screening. Signage and intrusive structures will be minimized. It is noted that the site and area are zoned for business use, and there are a variety of business related uses including a future office building and a gas station. The proposed action is consistent with site zoning, and efforts have been made to minimize the impacts of the structure and site development to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, this impact is not considered significant, as a result of the use of setbacks, appropriate architecture, vegetative plantings, building orientation and limited signage and intrusive structures. * * Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? The proposed project will increase the potential for trip generation. The project is located on Main Road, a New York State highway (NYS Route 25). There is concern that the nature of the proposed site use may increase the trip generation for the site and cause an undue burden on the transportation systems in the area, including existing intersections, and the site access. As a result, the Town of Southold required that the applicant prepare a Traffic Impact Study in order to define the existing transportation systems, determine the trif generation for the proposed use, outline the probable origin and destination 0 traffic entering and leaving the site, determine the impact on the surrounding roadways, and provide mitigation for traffic related impacts where necessary. This information IS contained in the Traffic Impact Study for Proposed McDonald's. prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates of Westhampton Beach, New York. In order to define the trip generation, a table (Table 1) is excerpted from the report and included herein. This identifies the site-generated traffic which is expected to use the adjacent roadways at various times of the day including l?eak A.M. and P.M. weekday periods, and peak Saturday traffic. The study distrIbuted these trips over the area roadways based upon logical assumptions. Table 4 (attached) also excerpted from the Traffic Impact Study, identifies the impact of thiS site-generated traffic on three local intersections in addition to both site driveways, identified as the Level of Service (LOS). The LOS is determined for present conditions, future conditions without the project (assuming area growth factors), and future conditions with the project. Comparison between the future No-Build, and the future Build conditions finds that the existing intersections will not be adversely affected as a result of the project. In terms of site driveways, the western driveway will operate at excellent LOS. The eastern site driveway will operate well for most movements; however, the left turn from the site onto westbound Main Road causes a lower level of service. This movement will not cause an impact on area roads, and at worst may cause a slight delay for patrons leaving the site during peak hours. It is noted that a ri~ht turn lane is provided in order to allow for egress of vehicles proceeding east on Mam Road. The Traffic Impact Study concludes as follows: "Our traffic engineering study ~ CRAMER, V R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT :,~ /,.r G CONSULTANTS Page 4 . . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF and analysis have led use to conclude that: (a) the continuity of the traffic flow on the adjacent roadways will not be disrupted; (b) no adverse traffic impact will occur; and (c) undue traffic congestion will not be created by the addition of traffic from the proposed McDonald's restaurant." CONCLUSION The Long EAF Part III, is intended to consider the impact, then determine available mitigation as well as the importance of the impact, based upon certain criteria. Specific impacts considered above include Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on AesthetIc Resources and Impact on the Transportation. In consideration of these impacts, it is concluded that the identified impacts will not be significant, and any minor impacts have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, it is recommended that a Negative Declaration be issued for this project. e~-~ CRAMER, vo' R.. SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT:A:,<~ 0. :I,\,G CONSULTANTS Page 5 . . VEHICLES PER HOUR WEEKDAY SATURDAY AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Projected Site Driveway Volunes 34 34 236 235 64 63 115 115 Oriveway Volume That Wi II Be Pe,5s-By Vehicles 17 17 118 118 32 31 57. 57 Ne,t New Traffic on Adjacent 17 17 118 117 32 32 58 58 Streets TABLE 1 SITE-GEHERATED TRAFFIC SUMMARY PROPOSEO McDONALD'S - MATTITUCK SOX PASS-BY CREDIT . . LOCATION TIME 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO-BUILD BUILD Route 25 at Factory A.M. A A B Avenue/Sigsbee Road MID. B C C P.M. C C C SAT. E E E / Route 25 at Bray A.M. B B B Avenue MID. C C C P.M. C C C SAT. Route 25 at laurel A.M. A A A lake Drive MID. 0 0 0 P.M. A A A SAT. 0 0 0 Route 25 at Western A.M. A Site Driveway (Enter MID. A Only) P.M. NIA NIA A SAT. B Route 25 at Eastern A.M. 0 Site Driveway (Exit MID. E Only) P.M. NIA NIA E SAT. E N/" = Not applicable. TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S HATTITUCK . ) LONG EAF PART I e~ CRAMER, V ;:l'R SOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~.'~(\j )cc'" \l('JG CONSULTANTS t McDonald's Corporation Long EAF "' , '" .DEe 1~ '90 12:29 TOWN OF squJ..~"" -PROJECT INFORMATION ~: f .epared by Project sponsor .. NOTICE: This document is desicned to 155151 in determlninc whether the action proposed *.' v have a slgnifklnt elf~ct on th.. en."onment. Please complete the entire form, Parts ^ through e, Answers to theswlilestions will be considered as par! of the application for ~pprovaJ and may be 'ubject to further verificatIon and llubll6.re';'i~w; Provide any additional informatiOn vou believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It Is e,pec,ted that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on Information cun..ntlv available and will not in.olve new studies. re,earch or investigation. It Information requiring ,uch additional work i, unavailable. ,0 indicate and sp"cifv each instance. P.3/5 ""ME O. ..,TIOtj McDonald ,s Corporation.sita lan lOCA TION 0" ACTIO'~ (IMfO". $u..t Addr..., MlII\lctp,uty ''''d Cell"l") s/Q Main Road, Mattituck, New York -.J ! Count NAME OF A"'lICANTISPONSOA McDonald ,s Corporation, c/o Henry E. Ra nor, Jr. Aoonus 320 Love Lane CITY/PO Mattituck NAMI 0': ()WNEJrl (If dUf.r.nll I Cola,!" Realty AOOAess I CIN;PO- , OesCA'Pfl()tj 0< ACTIOU I STATE \ ZIP cooe I I J I i ---, I I STAT; I ZIP COOE N 11 CJ5' eus,tjEsS TELEPHON& I ,. const~uetion of restaurant Please CODlplete Each Question-Indicate N.,A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical leltln~ of overall project. both developed and uildeveloped araas. 1. Present land use: . DUrban Dlndustrial OCommercial OResidential (suburban) OForest OAgrlculture C10ther 2. 'total acreac. of project area: 2.9986 acres. APPROXIMATE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non-airlcultural) Forested AgroculturaJ (fncl.ude, orchards. cropland, pasture. etc.) Wetlftnd (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 2S 01 ECL) Water Sullace Area Un_egetated (Rock, earth or fill) Road,. buildings ~nd other paved surfaces. Othe" (Indicate tvpe) 3. What i, predominant 'oil lvpe(,) on project ,Itel loam a. Soli drainage: Cii!w.n drained '00 % of <lte OPoorly drained % of lite b. It Zlny agricultural land is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil grOup 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification Systeml 0 acre5. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcropping, on project sitel DYes IONo a, What is depth to bedrockl 700 (In feet) !ORural (non.farm) PRESENTL Y _? <:lqRfi , acre, AfTER COMPLETION o acres acre, acres aCres ac;re, aCres acres :~;:: /. Q / :~:::~ acres / . Li R a"re~ ~I.- 'I/'-'I ",-, ,-' fit i.~' ,'/.-~1 'I S. .'J,v '0 and sand (4;'>vrr At//) /~L Y/"r1tJL-r}-J l~^C OModerately well drained % of site 2 . .... .. ...--.- -,-~ ". ...,-'. n'ej TT'LO 06. l~ ~~ _ " DEe 14 '90 P:30 TQ,ltl OF S(\UTHC~' . hi. ""0-10o/c 98 ;; 1<C10 :1'.4/5 2 .)..,"p,..._........ ...__.<,..... _ ,.._._..:>',,,v,. te WIt s opes. "". ~ ~ -1J r. , 015% or greater .lIIIt' -- % 6. Is project ,ubstAntlally contlau"u, to. or contain a buildinl. site. or distriCt. listed on the $t21t, or the Natt'~",al Resl,te" 0/ 11;'to"C Place. I OY~, l(JNo 7. Is project .ubstantially ,on,,/>uou, to a site listed on the Relli.ter of National Naturollondmarks? 8. What is the depth of the Water tablel .:t.~ (in feet) 2 3 70 2-3 Fr: ~ 9. Is sile located over a primary. principal, or sole source aquiferl ;Jiltes ltlNo' ~ 10. Do huntirlS. fishln, or shell fishinl opportunitles presently exist in the project "rea! OVes ~No 11. Does project sit. contain any species of plant Or animal life that is Identified as Ihr"at"ned or "ndanser.d? eyes ~No Accordinc to Identify .ach specie, 12. Are there any unIque or unusual land formJ on the project site! (i.e., cliffs, dunes, other geological formations) CYes IiINo Describe 0- '" (JYes [liNn 13 /. the project site presently used .by the community or Miihborhood as an open ,oace or recreation areal DYes Ji(lNo If ye.. explain 14. Ooes ChI! pr.sent site include scenic views known to be important to the community! DYes IXINo 1 S. Streams within or contiiuouJ to prolect area: NONE a. ~Jame of Stream and name of River to which it Is Iributary 1&. lakes. pcnds. wetland areas within or contiguous to project area: .. Name NONE: <,',"-IM,t' i)/V,4"v,,..--o tv{.,-n"./v1.'\ /h:..j-;".)'..>o~ b. Size (In .:1cres) /Z"r Z "> ("J "':;- /'\f' 1 i I. the site ,erved by "xiSlIOS public utilities' fljy"s 01'0 a) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection I !19Yes DNo bJ If Ves, will improvements be necessary to allow conMetion! l!JYes . ONo h the site located in an aftricultural district certHled pursuant to Agrleulturp. and Markets law. Artiel. 25-I'A. Secllon 303 and 304? DVes JUNo 19. Is the ,itl~ located In or substanlially contiguouS to I Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Mtlde a of the EeL. and 6 NYCRR 6171 DYes C3d'Io 20. Has the :.ite ever been used for the disposal of .olld or hua/dous wastes? 18. DYes . !!JNo B. Projec\ Description 1. Physical dimensions and scale 01 project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b. Project acrea,. to be developed: 2.9986 acres initially; c. proiect acreage to remain undeveloped O. _ acres. d. Len!th of proJect. in miles: (If appropriate) e. If th.. project is an ~xp3n$lon, indicat" perc"nt of expansion proposed tV A %: I. Number 01 o/f..lreel parking .paces existlns ~. ; propo...d ~ . per code s. t.laximum "ehlculartrlp. generated per hour (upon completion Qf project)1 (125 ingress &; h If re"d I' ,. N b d 1 h ' -'71 /y . /2 -I' .., ''''' 125 egress) . !,I en ,.,. Um er an type 0 ou~ing unitf: ,.., I'lX - . L. ----- t. I One Family Two Famijy . Multiple Family "I Condominium C o 2.9986 acres. acres ultimately. Initiall'l Ultimately I. Dimensions (in le"U 01 lars"st propo.ed .truetur.. 18 height; 52 j. Linear feet of frontaae along B public thorouahfare project will occupy is? ft. lO~ength. per cod,. n/s & 371 ft s, width; "\71 3 leWd en :L0 06. tEl ~. .. Vt...L lq '';jtJ lC::~.:jl IIJWli 1)1" ::.IJUIHULU . ... t'"'.::.,'v " ,2" H~W l'lluCl1 natural r.13leflal (i,e.. '(I~' ~ 'h, et~,) will be rtmoved from the ,,~ 2--_ tons/cubic yards. . 1. Will c1isturb"d areas be mdaimed> ~'Yes ONa ON/A .' . \1. If yes. for whilt intahli.....: purpo,. is the Site bejng re(taimedl Y"Q" '1 i 1 ht1~of ni::J.~" .(, r~-"'" ~ q~ b, Will topso,l be Hockpiled for reclamation! IliIYe, 01'10 as needed c. will upper subsoil be Mockpiled for reclamatlonl !>IYes 01'10 as needed 4. How many acres of velllltation (trellS. ,hrubs. ground covers) will be removed lrom sit"l .--4- 1 acres. 5. Will any mature forest (over 100 yeatS old) or other locally-Important veKetation be removed by this project! CiY.. Dl:No 6. If ,ingle pha". project: Anticipated period of construction 7. It multi-phased: .. Total number of phu"s anticipated b. "',nticipated date of commencem"nt ph.se 1 C. Approx,mat.. completion date of final pha,e d. I" phase 1 functionally dependent On subseQuent phases? 8. Will blaiting occur during cOMtructionl DYes l3No 9. Number of jobs 8"nerated: during cOllltruction 50 10, Number of jobs llJiminated by this proillct 0__. ". Will project requirll relocation of any proiects or facilities! " months, (ineludin~ demolition). (number). month month DYes year, (indudlr'8 demoIICion). year. DNO : after project is complete + 100 OYeli 5lNo If yes. explain 1.. II su,faee liquId wast" d~,posal involved? DYes ClINo a. II yes. indicate type of waste (lewa~e. industrial. etc.) an~ amount b. Name of water body Into which effluent will be discharged 13. Is subsurface liquid waste diSPOsal involved? CllVes uNo Type dome~ t: i c se""'rf"J" 14. Will .urface area of an existing water body increase or decr...s" by proposal> DYe, DNo Exploiin 15. Is pmje't or any portiOn of project IO'ilt<ld in a 100 year flood plainl DYes DNo 16. Will the project generate solid wastel lOYes ONo, a. If yes. what is the amount per month l~ Ions b. II yes, will an lIxlstlng s.olid watte facility bll u..dl DYes I1JNo . C. If ye.. give name ; lo~atlon _, d. Will any wastes not lio into a sewage disposal system or into il sanitary landfilll DVes t:il.No e. If Yes. explain 17. Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? DYes IONo a, If yes, what is the antlcipat"d rat. of dispo,al? _._ tons/month. b. It yes. what is the ~ntlclpated site life! . years. 18. Wi)1 project use herbICides or pesticides I DYes IQNO 19. Will proiect routinely produce odors (morl! than one hour per day)? DYes E1No 20. Will project produce operating noise exce"din2 the local amblenl noise levels? DYes 61 No 21. Will project result in ..n Incruse in energy use? CiYes DNo If ye. . indicate type<s) electri ci ty 22. If wat~r supply is from wells. Indicate 'pumplng capacilY . gallons/minute, pee SCDOHS code .3, T oud anticipated water usage per day 2120 gallons/day. 24. Ooe, project Involve'Local. State or Fe,derat fundln~1 DYes ~No If Yes: explain . 4 6'd 0t:LO 06. to ~~ C. Zoning and Planning Information I. Does ;>ropcsed action involve a planning or zoning decision' kJV"s ONo If Ves, indicate de~lslon requir~d: G~onin~ amendment w1.oninc variance Ospecia! ~se permit O.lubdlvl,,,,,, g)'ice pIa Cnew/re""ion of master plan Oresource management pJan Q.other 'Ji?QGi.l "x"e~t 2. What is th" zoning c1assiflcation(s)of the ,it~?_.8.....- .___. 3 What is the maximum potential developm~nt 01 the site if developed ..s permitted by the present zonin p"" S'llltholQ.b.\ilL2Q()ina r.o~..__.__._ ._...... 4 What Is the propmed tonlna of ~he Sltel ...___EL...._...... ._...____ 5 What 1\ the maximum potential development of the site if developed", permitted by the ;>roposed zoni _I2!'_c Southolc 'l'o~n Zonin~_..E..ode ____ ..___... 6. 15 the proposed action consistent With the recommended uses in adOPted local land ~se plansl I];Ye, 7. What are :he predOminant land use's) and 7.oning classifkations within a I. mile radrus oi proposed act; e. Is the propos~d action compatible with adjoinin.vsunoundlng land use! within a \, mile? BVes 3 If the Dropvsed action IS the subdivision of land, how man v lOB are proposed? ______~..._ a. "'\ih..H is the minimum lot si;zu prcpClSttd~ ..__.~ ...____. ____.____~_~__ 10. Will propcsed acrron require any aUlhorr~iltlon(s) fOr the lorm,Hion of sewer or water districts? DVes Will the proposed .actron create a demand for any community provided ~ervices (recreatron edlJcatio fire protection)? ~"es ONo a. If yes. is eXisting capacity sufficient to handle proiec~ed demandl f:<Yes oNo Will ,he l:.rouo$ed uClion re.~lJlt In the generation of traffic significantlv Jbove pres2nt levelsl a. if yes, IS the eXISting road network adequate to handle the additlonnl traific? DYes [iE( 1.:.1 ,"30 12: 31 T(ll'U I '~IF S(IUTHI~'L[l City, Town. l'oIlage Eoard.. City, Town Village Planning Board City, Town Zonine Board City, Cou~ty Hulth Oepamr,ent Other Loca! Agencies Other Regiona' Agencies State ASlIn'-r"s Federal ^se'l(;i~$ .B, QQJ......R:::80, A-C___ ~ i 12 ~ P.i;--t;, Type ( C eYes DNo ----- ClVes oNo ---.tiJ;L..[)...Lw.._ ~Yes ONo ~p~('lal AY('~C:ln ~Yes DNa ~wat.o.-:- <. C!Oll~""~1)"'" DVes ONo ---- I!9Yes ONo SCPC I.\lYes DNo NYS Oeot ot Transpor!:ation_ DYes ONo ~-----~--------- ~------------- DYes DNa D. Informational Details Attach .ny ~ddJtronal information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or rnay be an~ Impacts a"OCloted with your proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures '",hich YOll propose to mi avoid th~m. E. VerUicalion ! certrfv that t~. ",f..'rmation prrr,jded abo'le is true to th~ best of mv knowledee. . ApplicJnt/S~or"" Name -....J:" ~ \)(1 r/ A L. J)'c" C9.!l.. {:)~) PPT.:,:: r/ O.te 7.J_~~' . "'..,,-.- ,....- /C' >=::....... , Signature -i"...-'="-......L-t.c. r.-..,...,.~.,..,...~ (} .",,_. Title D...' 1";-':._"._,,,,,/_'"" ,,"'-..~__ If. the .~tion is in the C~'l$tal Area, '';d you ore't stale agency, compl.le the COAStal Assessment form before pro With thl] ..ssessment, /2# .~CVIGNG'D .& I' ~n--1l-. /z- ./<(-'1 u S.d 60 'LIJ 06, 1I:l :lnt! . LONG EAF PART II e~Ah CRAMER, V . R .SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT ~~'c~g Iii' . ~G CONSULTANTS . McDonald's Corporation Long EAF ... Part 2-PRAcT I-MPACl8 A~D aespontlblUty o. It.l4f A Genera' 'n'ormatlon (Read Care'ully) . In completina the form the reviewer should be auided by t~ que ,'- " my responses and Ao:terminations 1A; rutonablel The reviewer is not expected to be an expert envlfOll I ,#I'f'1. . Identifyina that an impact will be potentially larae (colUlnn 2) dot ". ill)," tNt it is also necessarily IIlnlflcaM Any laree impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine sllnlf~.~. J~."tifyinaan impact In column 2 simp asks that it be looked at further. --, . The Eumples provided are to assist the reviewer by showina types O. &m,lfll.nd wherever possible the threshold. mqnitude that would triller a response in column 2. The example. .re .."."lIy applicable throulhout the State a. for most situations. But, for any specifiC project or site Other examples aMlor lower thresholds may be appropria for a Potential larle Impact response, thus requirina evaluation In Part " . The Impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the example. are illustrative a. !l.Ye been offered as auidance. They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each questi<: . The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question. . In identifyina impacts, consider Ion a term, short term and cumlative effects. 'r Instrudlons (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 answerina Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of t impact, If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshe is lower than example, check column .': d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially larae and proceed to PART , e. If a potentially larle impact checked in column 2 can be mitipted by cNnae(s) in the project to a small to moder~ impact, also check the Ya box in column 3, A No response indicates that such a reduction Is not possible, T: . must be explained in Part 3, IMPACT ON LAND 1. Will the proposed action result in a physical chanae to the projectJ~ ONO ~ES Examples that would apply to column 2 o Any construction on slopes of '5% or area tel', (15 foot rise per '00 foot of lenath), or where the aeneral slopes in the project area exceed 10%. o Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than 3 feet. o Construction of paved parkina area for 1,000 or more vehicles. o Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or aenerally within 3 feet c)f existina around suri ace. o. Construction that will continue for more than' year or involve more than one phase or staae, o Excavation for minina purposes that would remove more than ',000 tons of natural material (i.e., rock or soil) per year. . Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. o Construction in a designated f100dway. . Other impacts 2. Will there be an effect I'. _.IV un.que or unusual land ,1:'2.:" found on the site! (i.e., cliffs. dunes, aeoloaical fonnations, etcrNO DYES o Spedfic land forms: .' Cu 1 2 3 Small to . Potential Can Impact B Moderate Large MItigated B - . tmpKf Iinpact Project Chan, )( 0 oVes ON, 0 0 oVes ON [l 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes ON 0 0 oVes o~ y r- . IMPACT ON WATER 3 Will proposed ~ctlon Affect ~ny w~ter body desianated AS protected! (Under ,Aorticles 15,24,25 of the Envlronment~1 conserv~t' n l~w, ECl) NO DYES Examples thAt would Apply to column 2 . Developable ~ru of site cont~ins ~ protected w~ter body. . Dredaina more th~n 100 cubic yards of material from chAnnel of ~ protected strum. . Extension of utility distribution flcilities throuah A protected WAter body. . Constru.:tion in ~ desianAted freshwAter or tidal wetlAnd. . Other impACts: 4. Will proposed action affect any nor>-protected existi~r new body of wlter! ~O DYES ExAmples that would apply to column 2 . ^ 10% increase or decrease in the surface Irea of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. . Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area. · Other impacts: 5. Will P,roposed Action affect surface or aroundwater qUAIit',' or quantity! DNO )lYES b~mplcs that would ~pply Uf column 2 . Proposed Action will require Ii discharae permit. . Propose.d Action requires use of a source of water that does not hAve ~pproval to, serve proposed. (project) action. . Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with areater than 45 ,Allonl' per minute pumpina tlPACity. . Constnlctlon or operation clusina any contamination of ~ water supply system.' . Proposed Action will adversely affect aroundwater. . liquid .!ffluent will be convey~ off the site to facilities whi,h presently do not exist or have inadequate caPAcity. . Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 aallons per day. . Proposed Action will lik..t.. c,c';t' siltation or other discharae into an existin& body of wate' (v tt.", ~'''entthat there will be an obviouS visual contrast to natural conditions. . Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical products greater than 1,100 gallons. . Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water and/or sewer services. . Proposed Action locates commercial andlor industrial uses which may require new or expansion of existing waste treatment andlor storage f acilitil~s. . Other impacts: ( J' Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patt~, or " water runoHl ~O Eu.:nples th~t would apply to column 2 . fropo~d Action would change flood water flows. surface DYES . 1 2 3 Small to PotenUal Can Impa Moderate Larg. MllIgat Impact Impact Project Ch 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 Dyes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes ". ~- 0 DYes 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 Dyes 0 0 Dyes 0 0 DVes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 DYes 0 0 Dyes 0 0 DYes 0 0 Dyes 0 0 DYes cte. ed By ang ON.: ON.: ON. ON. ON. ON. ON, ON. ON ON ON ON O~ O~ O~ c~ O~ O~ D~ D. o .~ . . Proposed A,ction may cause substantial erosion, . Proposed Action is incompatible with existina drainaae patterns. . Proposed Action will allow development in a desianated f100dway. .. Other impacts: IMPACT ON AIR )(NO DYES 7. Will proposed action affect air quality! Esamples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action will induce 1,000 or more vehicle ttips in any aiven hour. . Proposed Action will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour. o Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed Sibs. per hour or a heat source' producina more than 10 million BTU's pei hour. o Proposed a,:tion will allow an increase in the amount of land committed to industrial use. o Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial development within existina industtial areas. · Other impilcts: IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8. Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or end~ed speciesl . ~O DYES Esamples that "ould apply to column 2 ' . Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal list, usina the site, over or near site or found on the site. o Removal o,f any portion of a critical or sianificant wildlife habitat. o Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other than for aaricultural purposes. o Other impacts: 9. Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threa~"'" or non-endanaered speciesl )l!:!O DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 o Proposed ,"ction would substantially interfere with any resident or miaratory fish. shellfish or wildlife species. o Proposed Action requires the removal of more than 10 acres 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 r~rcesl ~O DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 o The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to al(ricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields. pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) 8 - 1 2 3 SINllto Pot.ntlal Can Impact Be Mod.rat. Larg. MItigated By Impact Impact Project Change 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo -.. ~- . .. 0 0 Dyes 'ONo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo ,. . . Construction ,ctivity would exc,v,te or comp,ct the soil profile of ~aricultur,1 I,nd. . The proposed ,ction would irreversibly convert more th,n 10 "res of aaricultur,1 land or, if located in an Aaricultutal District. more . than 2.5 acres of aariculturalland. . The propOsed action would disrupt 01' prevent Installation of aaricultural land manaaement systems (e.a., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches. strip croppina); 01' create a need for such measures (e.a. cause a farm field to drain poorly due to incre,sed runoff) . Other impacts: IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11. Will proposed action affect aesthetic resourcesl ONO nr(ES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in' Section (,7'ii. Appendix B.) Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from or in sharp contrast to current surroundina land use patterns. whether m~rHnade or natural. , . Proposed land uses. or project components visible' to usen of aesthetic resources which will eliminate or sianificantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that re1ource. Projectc()mponents that will result in the elimination or signific,nt screenina of scenic views known to be important to the area. / · ~~~m';;~:/J:~/Fr~'/;::7;:~;::'(j~;::AJG AA'1/dk IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12. Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure Vistoric. pre- historic: or ~Ieontoloaical importancel ~O DYES Eumples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or subsUntially contiauoLls 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 project site. . Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13. Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities! \.L. _ Eumples that would apply to column 2 ~O DYES ( lThe permanent foreclosure of a future recreation, I opportunity. .~. A major reduction of an open space important to the community. . Other impacts: ng . 1 2 3 Small to Pot.ntlal Can Impact Be Moderat. Larg. MItigated By Impact Impact ProJect Change 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes DNo 0 0 DYes oNo - 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes ON" 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 Dyes oNo r . IMPACT ON TRANSppRTATION 14. Will there be In effect to existin, trlnsportltion systems! ~ DNO YES Eumples thlt would Ipply to column 2 . Alterlt.ion of present pllterns of movement of people Ind/or ,oOOs. . Proposed Action will result in mljor trlffic problems. . Other implcu: pitO:T,=r IV,U.. IWC1Z.6~G' Tn',o -"i!iN..~A""ON r::IUJM r,I.rRA.{l;YVT 1.f::V~ IMPACT ON ENERGY 1 S. Will proposed Iction Iffect the community's sources of fuel or ener,y supply! DNO DYES Eumples that would Ipply to column 2 . Proposed Action will cause a ,reater than 5% increase in the use of Iny form of ener,y in the municipality. . Propo:;ed Action will require the creation or extension of an eneray 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: NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16. Will there be objectionlble odors, noise, or vibra~. as I result of the Proposed Action! ~O . OYES r Examples thlt would Ipply to column 2 . Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital. school or other sensitive facilit\(. . Oden will occur routinely (more thin one hour per dlY). - .- _.. -- . Proposed Action will produce operlting 1I0ise exceeding the locll Imbient noise levels for noise outside of structu~. . Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise lcreen. . Other impacts: IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17. Will Proposed Action affect public health and safety! ~O DYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . Proposed Action may cause I risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances (i.e. oil, pesticides. chemicals. radiation, etc.) in the event of accidl:nt 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 form (i.e. toxic, poisonous. highly reactive, radioactive. irritatina. infectious, etc.) . Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of Iiquified natural las or other flammable liquids. . Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance within 2.000 feet of I site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste. . <>the. implcts: 10 -- - - 1 2 I · Slnallto PotenUal Can Impact Moderate Large MIUgatlcl Impact Impact Project Cha 0 0 DYes 0 0 0 DYes 0 )( 0 DYes 0 0 0 DYes 0 0 0 DYes 0 0 0 DYes 0 - .or: - 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 DYes 0 .. p 0 . DYes 0 0 0 Dyes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 oVes 0 0 0 Dyes 0 It: n. N N N N N t- ~ . . . , . , . , . , . " IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD 18. Will proposed ~ction ~ffKt the char~cter of the eXis~'nl community! o oVES lumples th~t would ~pplV to column 2 . The perm~nent popul~tion of the city, to""n or vill~le in which the project hi loc~ted is likely to Irow by more than 5". . . The municip~1 budlet for c~piUI expenditures or oper~tinl services will increase bV more than 5" per ye~r ~s ~ result of this project. . Proposed ~ction will conflict with offici~lIy adopted pl~ns or 1~ls. . Proposed action will c~use ~ ch~nle in the density of land use. . Proposed Action will repl~ce or elimin~te existinl f~cilities, structures or ~reas of historic import~nce to the community. . Development will create ~ demand for additional community services (e.l. schools, police ~nd fire, etc.) . Proposed Action will set ~n important precedent for future projects. . Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. . Other impacts: 19. Is there, or is there likely to be, public potenti~1 adverse environmenul imp~cts! t 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change -- 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo . 0 0 DYes DNa 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 oVes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo 0 0 DYes oNo controversy related to oNO ~ES c If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential large Impact or If You Cannot Detennlne the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 Part 3-EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS Itesponsibility of lead Alency P~rt 3 must be prepared If one or more Imp.act(s) is considered to be potenti"lIy brie, even if the Imput(s) INY : mltlpted. Instructions Discuss the followinl for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1. Briefly describe the im~ct. 2. Describe (if "pplicable) how the im~ct could be mitilated or reduced to a small to moderate im~ct by project chanle( 3. Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is import"nt. To answer the question of importance, consider: .. The probability of the impact oecurrinl .. The dur"tion of the impact .. Its irreversibility, includinl permanently lost resources of value .. Whether the impact can or will be controlled .. The relional consequence of the impact .. Its potential diverlence from 1oe,,1 needs and loals " Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. (ContinlJe on attachments) I a.. SOCP.ES CONSuL T ~HTS . .. FAX TRANSNII'T'rAL Fu N"mb~r (610) 331-00'10 DalL': ~iMAA ~O I /90,/ V ~Jr,;- 5':.Ohf-'Z. fJ.n Co t,{UZ tn' S To: From: Re: IYLA,M47.11~ ~,. Number of Pages (including cover): /2 Jr I~h" tot"l tranamilllll is not received cull number' bdc>w, Comrrlen Ls: 1/ .:AN 301991 V ltumltr : ~U "OCW1Q\J 71hi(1AJ IIVCi,VOIM I'~,... r {~I!:NI f>,UNIPIIH0 AN"O (JM,T 7T', IS (J(;) /V1., J rs;vl BY I16SS &<.f"b o:a Nu.. nh~ ~tW. tV,; M<!'" JfW~ I'IUS:f'A!2.IU UVfo/'olf~n. oAf /4NbfSl... f:1I..Q/USI WI-htH WO: (,</IU, I'IU)VIOr;- m S ~ aN OIl.. 7lY1()J'l.U>A) 1'1 QRN 1/l6 . 5-4 t-lOATH COUNTRY ROAD, MIl!LER pLACE, NY 11784 (516) 33,.,455 "( 121. d ~s: 0# ? 0' S S H ~ to t : at a3M 'S! 4....00....... -IoEoW-o....::) (y'f Q.d>llt t6-0lC:-N"'L"" --......, "," '\ 10'& · CRAMER, VQ9R~'i~ ?<:~A'$SOCIATES ENVIRONMENTA!2,t'~O$,);AN~t~G CONSUL rANTS . January 29, 1991 Mr. Hennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 South:>ld, NY 11971 Re: Preparation of Parts I, II and III SEQR Review McDonald's, Mattituck ScrM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Benny: Enclosed, please find the completed Long Environmental Assessment Form for the above referenced project. Please note that we have performed a field inspection of this parcel, reviewed and corrected the Part I, and compfeted Parts II and III tor the McDonald's Corporation project. In addition, a draft SEQR Negative Declaration is included for the zone (:hange request, due to the fact that we feel that significant environmental impacts have been mitigated. The Long EM should be used as a basis for the Planning Board determination on , this Rroject. In accordance with Part 617.6 (a)(l)(ii), the Lead Agency shall determine the sigmficance of the action within 20 days of receipt of the applicatIOn, the LEAF and any additional information reasonably necessary to make the determination. The enclosed documentation provides additional information necessary to make the determination. It is our recommendation that the Plannin~ Board review the enclosed information, and consider the adoption of a Negative DeclaratIOn. The draft Declaration is prepared such that it can be xeroxed onto Planing Board stationary, adopted and filed in accordance with Part 617.10. In addition, the Long EAF can be circulated as additional support for tbe determination. If you or the Board have any questions pertaining to this information, please do not hesitate to call. Very tru~y )5>urs, ' 1// h /_. /'-~ /;2::" ~-~ . . ,. ,.,[/, , ;:f/;':""~t.,~ (Charles J. 'oorhis enc: Long EAF Parts I, II and III SEQR Negative Declaration .. 3 0 1991 , '"--------. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11164 (516) 331.1455 __ ~ (3 .. d -;s: 01' :::. 6 'S '$ H .~' 'S I '-1 .... 0 00 ^ ' .....;eo w -0 .... ==- -t;.. '( : c:t T .-r3M 16-02-N'v'i"" . . SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION Noti.c of Determination of Non-Significance Determination of Significance Lead Agen0': Planning Board of the Town of Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 February 4, 1991 ,-~lN 3 0 /991 Address: Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617, of the implementing repulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The lead agency has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the environment and that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement need not be prepared. SEQR Status: McDonald's Corporation Unlisted Action The project which is the subject of this Long EAF involves a reguest for site plan approval to construct a McDonald's Restaurant (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcel located on the south side of Main Road, Mattituck, New York District 1000 - Section 122 . Block 07 -Lot 3.2 The site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Road, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet of frontage on Main Road and 317.14 feet of frontage on Old Main Road. Title of Action: ProJc-ct Description: SCTl\1 Number: Location: Pagelor3 -- ,_.__~52: a - d ~. ~ "::J' 00 "$ 'S ~ ~ -;;:, 1..1 .... 0 Co ^ .. .....eo w "0 .... :I c: Y : C'II T ,,--=OM '[~-A9-Nt:::::fr , . . McDonald's Corporation SEQR IMennlnntlon Applicant-McDonald's Corporation Henry E. Raynor, Jr. Suffolk County Department of Health Services Suffolk County Department of Planning NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs for Long Island Southold To""n Board of Zoning Appeals Southold Town Trustees Souttold Town Building Department POlle3 of 3 ~e-d ~._~~~~_ ~ ~IU~OO^'~~WV~~ QT~~T ~~M T~-02-NHr . . McDonald's Corporation SEQR Detennlnatlon 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 X, II, and III, and the following specific reasonS: 2) 1) The subject property is zoned B (Business), and the proposed use is consistent with the existing zonms of the site. 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. The proposed project has been reviewed by Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and it. has been determined that tl1e 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 project i3 consistent with groundwater management guidelines as outlined in the 208 Study, SC Sanitary Code Article 6, and considered by the Town of Southold in review of the project. The site is predominantly devoid of native vegetation and is prl~sently established recolonizing herbaceous weed. The site was not found to contain any unique species of vegetation or wildlife. - The applicant bas supplied architectural elevations in order to identify the "stvle" of the structure. Review of these elevations finds that the project is in conformance with the general architectural style of the area. The applicant has completed a Traffic Impact Study which demonstrates that the project will not have an undue burden on the tramportation systems of the area. Traffic associated impacts have been quantified, and have been mitigated to the maximum extent practicable. The building has been setback 140 feet from the road. Further, site design provides "Iandbanking" of parking stalls in order to maintain natural areas. Landscaping has been proposed around the perimeter of the site in order to improve aesthetics, and provide visual appeal and ouffering. 3) 4) 5) 6) For Further Information: Contact Person: Bennett Orlowski, Chairman Town of Southold Planinl Board Town Hall, Main Road, ~outhold (516) 765-1938 Address: Phone No.: Copil!S oflhis Notice Sent to: Commissioner-Dc,I:'artment of Environmental Conservation Regional Office-New York State the Department of Environmental Conservation Southold Town Clerk's Bulletin Board Page Z 00 +"C-'ll -....... ~;:;: _ '-''-''-=~_ '" S I U .....OO^.. ...,au..-O.....:::l a3M ~6-0:i:-N"'r 9 -.: : t2J-': , . . LONG ENVIRONME:NTAL ASSESSMEl\'T FORM. PART III EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTA.'ljCE OF IMPACTS PROJECT McDonald's Corporation Mattituck, New York LOCATION 'I11e site of the subject application is located on the south side of Main Ro:;d, approximately 800 feet west of the intersection of Main Road and Old Main Road, Mattituck, New York. Parcel has 371.37 feet of frontc.ge on Main Road and 317.14 feet of frontage on Old Main Road. APPLICANT McDonald's Corporation c/o Henry E. Raynor, Jr. 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 DATE January 29, 1991 IN1RODUCTION The proposed project and the environmental character of the EcoLect site is described in detail within the Long Environmental A~ses,ment Form (LtA.f) Part I. The LEAF Part II, evaluates the project impacts and their magmtude. Tbis section of the LEAF is intended to provide additional information on the importance of the impacts of the proposed proj~ct on the environment, in order to form the basis for the adoption of a determination of significance, The LEAF Part JII is pre'p'ared if one or more imfacts afe considered as being potentially large as identIfied in the LEAF Part I . There were no impacts identified In the Part !I LE~ as bej~g potentially large; h~wevef, this narrative is provided as a l1}ea.n~ of dISCUSSIng smalllmpacls and IS offered III support of the determination of sIgnifIcance. ~."'=~~ CRAMER, V 'R SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT :M'2!. . :. G CONSULTANTS Puge 1 YA.~ <~ __~~~_ ~ 51 y~oo^~~ewO~8 LY:eY a3M t6-0~-N~r . . McDonuld's Corporation Long EAr Main Road a distance of 140 feet, and is oriented perpendicular to the road to minimize visual:fresence. It is noted that the project represents a low intensity use involving a 4,11 square foot building on a 2.99 acre site, with a coverage of only 3 percent. In addition, parking stalls which are not considered necessary will not be constructed, effectively "landbanking" these stalls in favor of open area. The site frontage as well as the sides and rear of the property will be landscaped in order to provide visual screening. Signage and intrusive structures will be minimized. It is noted that the site and area are zoned faT business use, and there are a variety of business related uses including a future office building and a gas station. The proposed action is consistent with site zoning, and efforts have been made to minimize the impacts of the structure and site development to the maximum extent practicable. Accordingly, this impact is not considered significant. as a result of the use of setbacks, appropriate architecture, vegetative plantings, building orientation and ltmited signage and intrusive stmctures. * * Will there be an effect to existing trampor/alion s\"stems? The proposed prOject will increase the potentialjor trip generatioll. The project is located on Main Road, a New York State highway (NYS Route 25). There is concern that the nature of the proposed site use may increase the trip generation for the site and cause an undue burden on the transportation systems in the area, induding existing intersections, and the site access. As a result, the Town of Southold required that the ap~\icant prepare a Traffic Impact Study in order to define the existing transportation systems, determine the trip generation for the proposed use, outline the pwbable origin and destination of traffk entering and leaving the site, determine the impact on the surrounding roadways, and provide mitigation for traffic related im~a~~s where necessa);i" This information IS contained in the Tr::\ffic Tmpact ~ fur r, ~ 1:@O]1~ prepared by Dunn Engineering Associates of Westhampton Beach, New York. In order to define the trip generation, a table (Table 1) is excerpted from the report and included herein. ThiS Identifies the site-generated traffic which is expected to use the adjacent roadways at various times of the day including J?eak A.M. and P.M. weekday periods, and peak Saturday traffic. The study distnbuted these trips over the area roadways based upon logi~al assumptions. Table 4 (attached) also excerpted from the Traffic Impact Study, identifies the impact of thiS site-generated traffic on three local intersections in addition to both site driveways, identified as the Level of Service (LOS). The LOS is determined for present conditions, future conditions without the project (assuming area growth factors), and future conditions with the project. Comparison between the future No-Build, and the future Build conditions finds that the existing intersections will not be adversely affected as a result of the project. In terms of site driveways, the western driveway will operate at exceller.t LOS. The eastern site drivewax will ol'erate well for most movements; however the left turn from the site onlo westbound Main Road causes a lower level of servic~. This movement will not cause an impact on area roads, and at worst may cause a slight delay for patrons leaving the Site during peak hours. It is noted that a right turn lane is provided in order to allow for egress ofvehic1es p,roceeding east on Mam Road. The Traffic Impact Study concludes as follows: 'Our traffic engineering study e"'-~~ ~ CRAMER, V 'R 7JJ. OCIATES ENVIRONMENT ~AN'0 ~. G CONSULTANTS Puge 4 ~B.~ ~_~~~~_ ~ 51 U~Oo^'~~~n~~ ~7:~T "~M ~~-02-N~r . . McDonuld's CO'l'orullon Long EAF State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for such discharge. The Class 2 permit. program has been delegated to Suffolk County Department of Health ServIces (SCDHS), as an arm of the NYSDEC for implementation of such programs. In addition, SCDHS has established discharge limitations for Suffolk County based upon geographic areas and hydrogeologic importance, water quality and available water supply. These regulations are unaer Article 6 of the Suffolk' County Sanitary Code. The site is located in Groundwater Management Zone IV; however, public water is not available. Therefore, the under Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, th,e daily flow would be restricted to 300 gallons per day per acre (897 gallons (ler day Of sewage containing waste), for best sewage disposal practIce to minimIze potential groundwater contamination. Under the sewage system design criteria. a total flow of 30 gallons per day per seat (gpd/seat) is applied to restaurants. Of this flow, 10 gpd/seat is sewage related (nitrogen containing) waste. Therefore, only 89 seats would be allowed in connection with a restaurant at the subject site. The Health Department has completed their review and at this time are awaiting approval of water quality from the on-site well, and a SEQR determination from the Town of Southold. The SCDHS File Number is CIO-90-011. The applicant has furnished a copy of the well report to the Health Department. The results are acceptable with the exception of iron and manganese which are naturally occurring metals which can be removed bh' filtration. Accordingly it i$ expected that SCDHS approval of the project is fort coming after completion of review by Southold. ThiS ill1facr is not considered significant due (0 the project compliance with established diSC/large limitations, and the required obtainment of (l Class 2 SPDES commercial sanitary discharge permit. . . The proposed action will affect aesthetic resources, The proposed action may Impair histolie and/or architectural/ aesthetic resources. The subject site is presently vacant land. The current character of the site is that of a cleared site, which is recolonizing in herbaceous weed, and pioneer vegetation, West of the site is vacant land, residences and a gasoline station. East of the site is an office building which is presently under construction, beyond which are large commercial farm and shed buildings. North of the site is Main Road, beyond which is vacant land some of which is wooded and some of which is cleared. South of the site is Old Main Road, beyond which are residences and farm properties. The visual character of the area IS mixed including commercial, residential. farm related and vacant properties. The site and area are not particularly significant in terms of historic integrity; however, there is a tie to the historic past through extant dwellings and farm uses. The application calls for a McDonald's Restaurant which could impair the aesthetics and character of the site and area, through inappropriate architecture and/or incompatible site design. The applicant has endeavored to custom design the buildin!; for the site in order to maintain the existing aesthetics and provide a compatIble use. As a result, a building has been designed which has historically appropriate character. The Planning Board has been supplied with architectural elevatIOns in order to visualize the structure. The building has been setback from Pu(:c3 ~e-d ~:_~~~~_ ~ ~'Y~OO^'~~WOJ~ ~Y:~T "~M T6-09-NHr . . McDonald's Corporution Long EAF In the case of the subject proposal, the Town of Southold Plannina Board has received an application for a site pIAn to allow the construction ora McDonald's Restaurant, (89 seats) on a 2.9986 acre parcellocate~ on th~ south side of Main Road Mattiluck, New York. This Part III addresses In detaIl the enmonmental and planning issues relevant to the subject application. The site is predominant~ cleared of deciduous vegetation and is presently dominated by herbaceous weed. FIeld . inspection did not reveal any significant natural environmental resources at the tllr,e of site inspection. It is noted that there is a freshwater wetland on the north side of Main Road. This area would not be expected to be impacted as a result of the proposed project. Accordingly, this discussion concentrates on the following impacts areas; Impact on Land, Impact on Water, Impact on Aesthetic Resources and Impact on the Transportation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . The proposed action will result in a physical change to the projeet site. AllY cor.stmction on slopes of 15% or greater, or where the genera! slopes in the project area exceed lO%. The frontage of the project sit~ exhibits a rise in topography from the rOOod (20 feet above mean sea level to the higher elevation of the majority of the prop~rty (29.:t:. feet above mol). t.lost slopes along this risl~ are in the range of 15 to 20%. There are several localized areas along the western frontage with slopes in the range of 25 to 30%. Slopes in the area of the western proposed access driveway are in the ran~e of 15 to ] 8%, and slopes in the area of the eastern proposed access drive are less tnnn 15% (12 to 15%). The proiect will cause disturbance of some limited areas with slopes slightly in excess of 15% in the area of the western site entrance, as a result of the installation of the driveway. 111e areas with steep slopes are not comprised of native vegetation, The rise along Main Road appear to be due to grading activities from when the road wns constructed. The location of the driveways have been placed in order to minimize alteration of slopes in excess of 15%. The slopes in the area of the western driveway access are not considered excessive (15 to 18%), and are certain!" in the ran"e where compatible site improvements can occur. Some grading is anticipated a!ongthe driveway, in order to achieve a suitable access grade. Graded areas will be stabilized usin& topsoil, seed and planti ng of juniper adjacent the driveway. This impact is not consIdered significant due to; J) the aVOidance of steep slof,e areas; 2) the fact that slopes and .vegetation d~ n:1t appear to b~ natural or sign{ficant; :") the ability to minimize erOSIOn through [mlltatlon of gra4!1lg; alld, 4) the proposed re-establishment of disturbed areas with topsoil, seed and plantings. . .. The proposed action may affect groundwater qlwlity. The proposed actiOn will require a discharge penn it. The site use involves a restaurant and therefore requires sanitary discharge of kitchen waste and sewalle, The New York State Environmental Conservation Law (NYSECL) Arhcle 17, requires that commercinl sanitary discharges obtain a Class 2 CRAMER, v~\ 4\SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT. ~1.O'f~G CONSULTANTS PUI;CZ ze-d ~:_~~_~_ ~ $IU~OO^~~~W~~~ ~T:~T n~M ~6-0~-N~r . . :>JcDonald's Corporation Long EAF and analysis have led use to conclude that: (a) the t:ontinuity of the traffic flow on the adjacent roadways will not be disrupted; (I;) no adverse traffic I111,p.?Ct \Viii occur; and (c) ulldue traffic congestion will not be creatca by the addition of traffic from the proposed McDonaki's restaurant." CONCLUSION The Long EAF Part III, is intended to consider the impact, then determine available mitigation as well as the importance of the impact, based UDon certain criteria. Specific impacts considered above include Impact on Land: Impact on Water, Impact on AesthetIc Resources and Impact on the Transportation. In consideration of these impacts, it is concluded that the identified impacts will not be sisnificant, and any minor impacts have been miti~ated to the maximum extent practlcable. Accordingly, it is recommended tDat a r,egative Declaration be issued for this project. CRAMER, v~'. , SOCIA TES ENVIRONMENT~~;' ~ G cmJSULTANTS Page S ..--'--~~ a . d "S:~.. -::::. Co s s ~ "8 S l..I.... Co 0 ^ .. .....ao w I:'J .... ==- 1 ~ : a 1 a 3 M t IS - a z: - N I::;:lI r . . YEHICLES PER HOUR I ~EeKOAY SATURDAY - I , AM PEAK HOUR MIDoAY PM PEAK H';'<JR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Enter Exit Enttr I" E,1t Enter Exit El"ltcl'" E;<I t I -----' hoJoctoxl SI to Driveway Yol........,. --~~ 34 34 236 235 i 15 115 - I Driveway Voll.r.'le That Will Dc . I Pu.s-By Yrl1fclcg 17 17 118 118 32 31 , 57 57 .- Nl!t New Tr./tlc on Adjacont 17 17 118 117 32 32 58 5J Streets L -.------ TABLE 1 SITE-GEHERATED TRAFFIC SUH~ARY PROPOSED McDONALD'S' HAT1ITUCK SOX PASS. BY CREDIT 912'1-...... "E:...-=O.-.-=-==........ ~ -:: I U .....OO^ '" ......a....o"o....:-. '( 7': ~ t:'I T ""-=1M T6-02-Nt:;t,C , . . LOCATION TIME 1990 '991 1991 EXISTING NO' 6IJl LO BUILD Rout. .5 ot fo.tory A.N. A A I Avenue/slgobe. Rood HID. I C C P.H. e e c SAT. E E E/ Route 25 flit BrGY A.M. B I B A".I'IUO MID. e C e P.H. e e c SAT. Route 25 at Lourol A.M. A A A leke Drive' MID. 0 D D. P.M. A A A SAT. 0 D 4 Rout. ,5 ot W.,tern A.H. Si~~ Driveway (Enter HID. Only) P.N. N/A N/A A I SAT. I Rout. 25 ot r.otern A.M. oll Site Orlvewey (Exit HID. Only) P.H. N/A N/A SAT. E N/A . Not oppllcoble. TABLE 4 lEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PRoPOSED MCDONALD'S MATTllUC~ ~A-~ ~~_~~~~_ ~ ~I Y~oo^~~aw~~'~ ZZ:0~ a3M t6-12lx:-N""r' I' PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS , Bennett Orlowski. Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ,.JII[a:=~_ ~'~~~\(fGLK6~ ~ " ,....~ ~"'- ,", ~~ ~- =:J . \- - "), -:z: '-.= ;-' :;-"-"-. ..-.., .. '.. .1-""_., '........:.., ....-",.. ,.^. --,;. _~- - I ,,'.'- ""'.... '\ ",:;?'-"1; ,; .~\' '. . ":'~1nl" 'i-.-o ~.~ ~ '.1 . SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 January 11, 1991 John A. Falotico, Director Planning ., Program Management Planning and Development Division State of New York Department of Transportation VeteJ~ans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Dear Mr. Falotico: As per your conversation with Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner, on January 8, 1991, a copy of the additional traffic information that was received from the McDonald's Corporation is enclosed for your review. The original traffic impact study was sent to the Department of Transportation as part of the coordinated review required by the State's Environmental Quality Review Act. Please attach the enclosed information to that study. I look forward to your response. Very truly yours, d~ 12rkrvsL~fvlt/~ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. ~ Chairman Ene. . ,,,,,~2~\'>>, /ii/~ CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS ~ 'ri,.'tf ~,\\\ ~r * To: Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Date: December 14, 1990 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study McDonald's, Route 25, Mattituck ,- Traffic Impact Stllily Review 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. A summary of the study follows. 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 traffic turning right and 38% turning left seems imbalanced and should be supported. Generated Traffic: A good approach was employed by conducting a study at an existing McDonald's in Riverhead, not far from the site. Empirical data was collected to calculate generation rates using the average of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area and the observed rate per restaurant seat. Since the volumes on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Riverhead McDonald's, this is a conservative approach. It is noted that the weekday counts in Riverhead could have been extended to include 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. since the peak period of the generator is not always coincidental with the peak period of the adjacent roadway. Pass-by Traffic: The report cites various studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a McDonald's facility from the existing traffic stream. Some studies were more than ten years old and some exceptional cases were noted. Citing the higher observed diversions, a 70% pass-by rate Was deemed acceptable by the study. Given the volume of the adjacent roadway (AADT = 11,500) and the seasonal nature of the area, a more conservative pass-by credit consistent with a typical facility is appropriate. 50% is recommended. D1jve-Thru-Window: Since the existing McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead has a drive-thm- wmdow, the generation rates based on that operation have the effect of a drive-thru-window already factored in. Studies have shown that drive-thru-windows generally result in a 4% increase in daily volumes. However, those increases occur during non-peak periods and thus are not considered a significant factor affecting a peak period analysis. " .:i';':~"~_~' :. ''';":':::~~,-~ ':,,:... "'~ .~;;.-;~~'~;J, Uns/gnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis: The methodology employed to evaluate the ; "~'1:i'iJ)ff1' intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the accepted procedure for unsignalize.~,<!~~~! -.'.'.._,,'.,'<'.:".:.,:.'.,':...,,~....:..:....,.'.:".'..,:'_:'.,~.~:..'_,'::,.'. '.".:"., . .' ," , . , . ,>" '.',.,:..:...,.~_ ,', .'.... _.....,::...'...:.~..:.:..'.,:._:.....'_~~...';_...,1:.._~.......,.>...::.,...:.'!..;.:...:...~.. ..........',..,'_..;.;~.;_....._"..,.,..,....,......v_..:......~....._.. :,._",,-.~,:,-';':",'~"';,":.~...'......_L.~.~.:....'_r'L":.'~#"-"':.'.:......:~...~~:~:~~~-.,~"..':i~ :.' ~ .;:d[;;'~~~;.i;:~\.i'''ki ,:.:'1i~;i~~'~{t;:::.,>; <.~ -..;.;,': _ ,-..<,.;~ t.li-;.:<". '. .;:',54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 -.;:.~.. it'},if~~:f~~;;.,~:..;~1~1:ii\~1ii~~~~~'~~:Zilli~'k~~Sl~~~~,:W~iti~~~~~:!....;r. '. - ~ i( ~( . ". 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) 1990 existing conditions, (2) projected 1991 No-Build conditions, and (3) the 1991 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 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 ingess and egress at the intersections and the site driveways. .. 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. Parking areas are properly separated from the drive-thru-window operation. The report cites 6 to 8 car queues at the drive-thru- window at the McDonald's in Riverhead, with a maximum of 8. Storage for a minimum qU(:ue of 8 is recommended. The proposed site satisfies that minimum. Recommendations and Conclusions: > 1. Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated. . The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass-by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. 2. 3. 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 o~ 'her traffic volumes in the future. ,",: . ":t. .t'-t ". . ..-~ nr. . ",.""f-' ". ,:'- . ., ",.,' . , .".,-. " .- . r;\h~.?l . "-';"'-- ';.1'--:" ; ,.: :'L ." - ~'''~ '''''''''.'\l''''l-''''''~ ~ . >'. ,f ''I '." .;J.-.. _' " ...._::%; ,:.':1. r.'.,;;r ) ~"'. 7:'Ti~.' .'i..i.,..~... v.:r~ ,(I :: .... . l'~ -'.. , q ;;", r'.;-ir~,> ","" .= J ..;.::; . _, <~ ~\i "(1.u,,,,,,,. "'. ..._~ ..~ .,~ .... '-' ~:r~\ '. ..'''IJJ . ':,;\~_' . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett OrJowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 28, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Traffic Study McDonalds Corporation SCTM#1000-l22-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has received the enclosed Traffic Impact Study Review from its consultants Cramer & Voorhis. Please comply with recommendations 1, 2, & 3 contained in the report. Upon receipt of the requested data the Planning Board will proceed with its environmental review. If you have any questions or require further assistance please contact this office. Very truly yours, ~~,a'/0 Bennett Orlowski, Jr. T~ I':.s Chairman . . ,sUBI=KE PB !=<,K v'S .j e1<.tr~ f'a.ct- CRAMEH, VOORHIS a..A$SOCIATES ENVIRON IIIENTAL AND f?LA~l.NG CONSULTANTS December 20, 1990 Mr. Bennelt Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Somhold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Somhold, NY 11971 Re: SEQRA EAF Review McDonald's Restaurant, Maltituck lE'i Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the Long EAF, site plan and Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced project. As per your request, we have performed a review of these items in order to advise the Board with regard to environmental review compliance and environmental planning issues. The following paragraphs provide a review of the information we have received to date: 1. Long EAF The Long EAF has been reviewed and corrected as necessary. A copy of the form has been included in order to update your files with the revised form. Overall, we find the project to be a low intensity use involving 4,113 square feet on a 2.99 acre site, with a coverage of only 3 percent. 2. Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) The site is located III Groundwater Management Zone IV; however, public water is not available. Therefore, the under Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, the daily flow would be restricted to 897 gallons per day of sewage containing waste. Under the sewage system design criteria, a total flow of 30 gallons per day per seat (gpdjseat) is applied to restaurants. Of this flow, 10 gpdjseat is sewage related (nitrogen containing) waste. Therefore, only 89 seats would be allowed in connection with a restaurant at the subject site. The Health Department has completed their review and at this time are awaiting approval of water quality from the on-site well, and a SEQR determination from the Town of Southold. The SCDHS File Number is ClO-90-011. The applicant has furnished a copy of the well report to this office and the Health Del?artment. The results are acceptable with the exception of iron and manganese which are naturally occurring metals which can be removed by filtration. Accordingly it is expected that SCDHS approval of the project is forthcoming after completion of review by South old. A copy of the well report is enclosed for your convenience. 3. Traffic Impact Study The Traffic Impact Study has been reviewed and a separate document has been generated in order to provide comments on the traffic study. A copy of the review lelter is altached. It is also noted that the traffic study is based 90 seats - though not a significant difference, the applicant should have the option of amending the study for this slight decrease in trip generation. Any approvals should limit the number of seats to 89. 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ~ ~ 4. ~ Plan The site is predominantly cleared of deciduous ve~etation and is presently dominated by herbaceous weed. We did not observe any signIficant natural environmental resources at the time of site inspection. It is noted that there is a freshwater wetland on the north side of Main Road. This area would not be expected to be impacted as a result of the proposed project. The site design appears to meet code, and is expected to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible while allowing a reasonable economic use of the property in accordance with present zoning. The landscape plan will restore some shrubby and woody vegetation to the site and will improve aesthetic compatibility. 5. Conclusion The SCDHS as involved agency has no sil,lnificant comments relating to the project. The site is cleared and does not contain SIgnificant environmental resources. The proposed use conforms to zoning. The applicant should respond to the comments relating to the Traffic Impact Study. Upon receipt we will complete our review and provide the Board with a recommendation for a determination of environmental significance. If you have any questions concerning this review, please do not hesitate to call. cc: Valerie Scopaz Robert Kassner enc: LEAF Well Report Traffic Review /~~ CRAMER, V R . . SOCIATES ENVIRONMEN(~f l' . G CONSULTANTS /6-2 (2/87)-7c c. 617.21 Appendix A State Environmental Quality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM , ( " - SEQR Purpose: The full EAF is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner. whether a project or action may be significant. The question of whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer. Frequent- ly, there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable. It is also understood that those who determine significance may have little or no formal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis. In addition, many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware of the broader concerns affecting the question of significance. The full EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination process has been orderly. comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action. . Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts: Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identjfying basic project data, it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3. Part 2: Focus~s on identifying the range of possible impacts that may OCcur from a project or action. It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part:l: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potentially-large, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. ( DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE_ Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 0 Part 1 0 Part 2 OPart 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate), and any other supporting information, and conSidering both the magi tude and importance of each impact, it is reasonably determined by the lead agency that: o A. The project will not result in any large and important impact(s) and, therefore, is one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. o B. Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment. there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.' o C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will he prepared. . A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions McDonalds Corporation Name of Action Name of Lead Agency ~NameofR Signature of Rcsponsib Title of ResponSible Officer Signature of Preparer (If different from responsible officer) .2 - '1-11 Date 1 .... ....~. :t..DEC 14 '90 12:29 TOI,JN OF SO)JJ:!"_~ -PROJECT INFORMATION If' ~epared by Project Sponsor NOTICE: This document is de<iened to a<<ist in determinine whether the actiorl proposed m~v have a .ignificant ell"tt on the env"onm"nt. Please complete the entire form, Parts ^ through e, Arlswers to these Quenions will be considered a. parr of the appiication for approval and may be subject to further verification and pubiic rev."w. Provide any additional informatiM YOu beiiev" will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expecled that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information currenliy available and will not involve new studie:~, reseatch or investigation. Ii informntion requiring such additional wOl'k is un<J,vailable. so indic~lte and Spi~dfy each instance, P.3/6 NAME OF ,4.CTtON ~lcOonald ,s Corporation site plan LOCA TION DF ACTIO"~ {lneflJ'~e $tfe~t AddreSlf. MlInlClp"nty Md CCl.lnty} sls Main Road, Mattituck, New York NAME OF .A,"'lICANT'S~ONSOFl McDcnald ,5 Corporation, c/Q Hen~ ADDn~ss 320 Love Lane C!TY/PO Mattituck STATE ZIP COCE ~ i I I J I i ---, I - NAME OF' CiWNE.Ft: /U dlfferenu C()fa~ Real~ I 1o.00AeSs I CI~IPO.- O~$C;l:IPrrON o~ ACTION J srArE I ZIP CODE . NX .. 11952 eU$INESS TeLEPHONE ( f const~uction of restaurant Plu~e Complete Each Question- 'ndicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Phy~icaJ setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. ,. Pres"nt land use: DUrban Olrldustrlal OCommerciat OResidenUal (suburban) OFore.t OAgrieulture OOther 2. Total acreage of project area.: 2 . 9986 acres. APPROXfMA TE ACREACE Meadow or Brushland (Non.agricultural) Forested AgriC1l1tural (lncl.ude. orchards. cropland. pasture. etc.) Wetl~lnd (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 2S of Eel) Wate, Sutface Area Un-e,~etated (Rock. earth or fill) Road". buildings and other paved surfaces. Othe' (Indicate tvpe) 3. What i. predornina"t ~oil tvp~.) on project site! 1Qam a. Soil drainage: CiilWell drained 1 00 % of ~te OPoorlv drained % of site b. It any agricultural land is invol_ed, how many acre. of soil are claSSified within .oil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System! Oaeres. (Sell 1 NYCRR 370). 4. ^re there bedrock outcroppi"gs on project sitll! DYes IONo a, What is dePth to bedrock I .700 (in feet) flRural (non-Iarm) PRESENTLY _:) qq Ah acre. acres acr., AFTER COMPUTION o acres acres acre, acres acres~ acrf!S a.~res acres I. 0 I acre_ acreS I . q t:r acres PL 'l'l'1cc1n., Lc'i-l-'1y s1N'v:J and sand l ~VL",;)? AVY1 /"L Y/VIiJVTf-1 LA-I\/\{) C1Moderately well drained % of .ite acre~ .,)f;res 2 .-...... n'd ,,'LO 06. '0 ~n~ ____________________~~______~~~~=a_~___ -' 'DEe 14 '9012:30 TO,11'1 OF SOUTH'I" . hi. ""0-10.' 98 ;; ~10 _P.4/6 2 " .J.. ,A'(J""....,.............. ...... ....'-..~...':>.... ~. ,.. -p-'......~.. IJ......t' te wit 5 opes. \.:.:l 70 _.;.:J ..1.)'71) . . 0.5% or greater ~__ % G. Is project substantiallv contiguous to. or con tam 8 building. site. or distriCt. li'ted on the Stlltt or the Nat,""al R~g;,ters 01 I~isto;lc Places? oy". IONo 7. Is pl"ojf!c:t substantially <.:OM(i.l;UouS to a slt(l' listed 0(1 the Re~istei' of National NMurallcmdmarks? 8. What 's th" depth of the wat<::r table? ~_ (in fe~t) Z 3 7'0 23 iCt. 6"";;t." 9. Is site located over a primorv, principal. or sole source aquifer? ~es ltlNo ~ 10. Do huntin~. lishln~ or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? DYes ~No 11, Does project site cont8in any Specie. of plant Or animal life that is Identified as threatened or endangered? OVe, 1!:'No Accordine to _ Id'entily each ~pecles % CJYc. [lIN<\ --..--- 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the project site? (i.e., cliffs, dunes. other geological formations) OVes !i1No Describe 13 Is the p",ject Site presently used by the communitv or neighborhood as an open ,DaCe or recreation areal DVes filNo II yes. explain 14. Doe; th.. present site Include sceni" views known to be important to the eommunity? ::IVe, GilNo 15, Streams within or contilJuous to project area: NONE a, ~J~m~ 01 Stream and name of River to which it is tributary 16. Lakes, p01d., wetland areas within or contiguous to proje"t are~: a, Name NONE <'-."-1A-1A. UV/1Jv1 FTJ ,vt:':J>Lv{) ;4c../..)v~ b. Si.le fZJ Z'" (In acres) ,.-' S-~ 1i Is the .it. served by existing public utilities' gjYes ONo 3) If Yes, doe. sufficient capacity exist to allow connection! I19v~s ONo bl If ves. will improvements be nec"ssary to allow conn~ctionl lClVes ' ONo Is the sit'l located in ~n agricultural district certified pursuant to Agrrculture and Markets Law, Article 25./'A, Section 303 .nd 3041 eYes J1:jNo Is the sit@, located In or substantially contiguous to ~ Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of the EeL. ~nd 6 NYCRR G17? DYes ~o Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or huardous wastes? 1ft 19, 20, OYis '[lNo B. Project Description 1. Physical dimensions and .cale 01 proiect (fill in dimensionS as ~ppropriate) ll. Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by project sponsor b, Proje':t acrea~e to be developed: 2.9986 acres initially; e, P'oie,;t acreage to remain undeveloped O. _ acres, d. Length of prolp-ct, in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the prOject i$ an e-xpansiQn, indicate percent of expansion proposed I'i A %: f. Number of olhtreet parking spaces existing ~. ; proposed . ,per code g. Ma~imum vehicular trips generated per hour - (upon comoletion of project)1 (125 ingress Ii h, II residential: Number and type of housing uni~: 471 I'//lX' F2 -i. c'cJ ".'1 125 egress) _ ~:e~_FamiIV Two FamilY.' Multiple F~milY'f . Condominium Initial Iv _~ Ultimately __ i. Dim..".ions (in feet) of largest proposed structure 18 height: 5 2 width; I. LiMal' feet of frontage along a public thoroughfare proiect will occupy i.l ':\7' o 2.9986 acres. acres ultimately. ft. lOCltength, per code 0/5 & 371 ft sl 3 lat .~ 0t:L~ 06, 10 ~n~. , DEe 14 '90 12:31 Towr, OF SOUTHOLD . .. PS'E " .2. !'!ow rnuen natural ~lat~rldl fi..... rr,'.ili..r'h. etc.) will be removed from the "tV .2..-_ tons/cubic yard; '. J. Will di.turb..d areas be ,."dalmed) WI;f'Yes ONo DN/A .. a. If yes. for what inteno'J": PUrpO!* is the site being rec.faimedl l""'Clo.....j 1 ~1'~~ nQ'Ij'- ,(.. r9......"''i.Q.~ b. will topsoil be ,toekpiled lor reclamation? !l1JYes DNo as needed c. Will upper subsoil be <tockpiled lor reclamation? ~Ves DNo as needed 4. How manv acres of ve~eti\tion (trees. shrubs. ground covers) will be removed tram site? -----:t- ] acres. ), Will any mature forest (over 100 vears old) or other locally-important v.eatation be removed bv this prOj"ctl OVes OCNo 6. If single phas. project; AntICipated period of con.truction 7. If multi-phased: a. T"tal number nf phases anticipated b. Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 C. Approximate completion date of linal phase d. Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subseQuent phasesl 8. Will blasting occur during construction? DYes l3No Numb'~r of job, g!!!nerated: during construction 50 Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 __' Will I)roject require relocation of anv projects or facilitie.l <; month., (includin~ demolition). (number). month month DYes year, (indudlnc demolrtion}, vear. ONo 9. 10. : after project is compl~te + 100 11. DYe. Ii! No If yes, explain 12. Is .urface liquid waste di,posal involved? DYes l:llNo a. If ye.. indicate tvpe of waste (sewage. industrial. etc.) an? amount b. Name of water body into whICh effluent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liquid ",a.te disposal invollled? ClIVe. uNo Type domesl:'.i c sewpr"Q''' 14. Will :,urface area of an existing water bod V increale or decr!!!ase by proposall DVes DNa Explain 15. Is prCliect or anV portion of project located in a 100 vea, flood plain? OV!!!1 fJNo 16. Will ::he project generate solid wastel lOVe. ONo. a. If yes. what is the amount per month 1... tons b. If ves. will an existing .olid waste facility be used? DVe. \DNo . c. If Vel, give name locat"," ___.___ d. Will any wastes not go into a .ewage disposal ,ystem or into a 'anitary landfill I DVe. lil.No e. If Yes. explain 17. Will the project involve the dispo.al of solid waste? a. If ves. what is the anticipated rate of dispo.al? b. If ye., what IS the anticipated sit.. life? _ 18. Wi.1I '~'ojeet vs~ herbicide, at pe.tkidesl DVas DYes IONo tons/month. years, iilNo 19. Will )roject routinely produce odors (morp. tnan one hour per dav)? DVes l1JNo 20. Will i)roject produce operating noise exce~ding the local ambient noise level.1 DVe. GINo 21. Will .project result in an increale in energy use? lJ;Yes DNo If V"". indica'" tvpe(s) electriCity 22, II water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity gallons/minute. per SCDOHS code 23. T Qtld anticipated water usage per day 2120 . gallons/day. 24. Does project invQlve Local, State or Fe.deral funding? aYes 19 No If Ye.: explain . .. 5'd 0t:L006, to ~n~ C. Zoning and Planning Information "J. Dot!'s ~ropcsed a~tjon invclve a pranning or zoning decislor"l? k"lYe$ Ot~o If Ye~, indi<:ate decision required: Q,:onint amendment Cl.onin& variance Dspecial ~'e permit Dsubdivi""" &Jsi:e plan Cne\vlr~''''iM of master plan Oresource m.nagemeM plan Q.other aJil8si]~ ""~QPti 2_ \tVhat 1$ the zoning classiricatiOo(s)of the :lite? --EL- ~______.__. 3 What 15 the max.mum potential dev~lopn,,:nt of the site if developed as permitted by th~ pres~nt l.oning' p"''' SrlJ!.tll.Q.l..1_...l'Q-1in...2Qn i 09 C.QQ.a_____~_ 4 What i5 the propo'ed toning of the site? ..___'LM__....- _______ 5 Wha:" the maXimum potential development of the sit~ if developed a5 P~rm;tted by the propoled zonin _P-"_c Southold '1'()~n Zonin'1_~c>.':l'<:'_.______.___.____ 6 Is the proposed act!on ~onsistent With the recommended Uses in adOPted local land use plans> ~Ves 7 Whot are ~he predominant land users) and 7.oning c1assifkations within a /. mile radius 0; proposed a~tio DEe'14 ;"'3tJ 'i'2:':3i"T'ol~{/':,~'F"'SOUTH(I:'[1 . City. Towr'l. ViJ1a.ge EO.lrd City, TQ\'\on Village Planning SQard CitV. Town Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other Loca! IIgenc.", Other Regional Agencies State A!;e"i.le~ F~deral Asenc.i'~5 -B T L '[QJ--R::.e~~~____.~_~. ( eYes ONo I];Yes DNo 6UYe. DNo fiJYes DNo DYe, CJNo !'<JYe, ON0 :gjVes C'jNo DYes O~o P.b "' . s Type C ---.--..- ~,!LP1"J:L___ ~p~r.;aT ~X~~nn ~w~tq.\ ~ C!o".e.Y'::!I'JQ ----~'-'_.~--- _~CPC NYS DaRt ._-------....~.- of Transportatio.L!.- _._~-_._---~---......~-~-- ,3. Is tho 1'rODo'.d action ~I)mpatlble with adjoinin~.urtoundlng lal1d use~ within . ',I, mile' fJYes '1 If toe prow,sed aCtion " the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? ___u__._~,..__ a. V\ih.:H: IS the mir:im:!m lot Size propos~d? ___~. 10. Wiil prcoGsed act:on rGquir" any autho"~iltion(') fOr the lorm,ltion of sew"r Or water districts? DYes 11 Wii! th~ proposed "c.tlon cre"te a demand (or any community provided ~erv;~@. (recreation edu~ation, fire Prote~tionJ' [lYes DNa a. If~'es. i, eXiSting capacity suffk,ent to handle proiected demand' !i<iYes 0010 12 Will ,ho "r"posed aCtJon re'"it in the generation 01 traffic significantlv above prescnt levels1 a If" e" " the eXisting road network ~deQuate to handle the addition,,1 t.raffic? DVes ~-----_._------,._. ...._--~-,._.------ OVes DNo CI. Informational Details Attach .ny additIonal informaticn as may be needed to clarify YOur project. If there are or may be allY; Imp~cts ."OClated with your pr01'o<ol, please dis~uss such impacts and the me.sures which YOU propOse to miti avoid th~rn E, Verification I certlfv thet tho ""'.>rm"tion prep,ided ,bo'/e is true to the best of my know/edee. Applicantl$porsM ~iamp '0,0 \)(1 rJ,<,cr,,, CQf{,c:,':lI?P""?')I'/ Oote '7/3.; . e ,'- - ,- / . ~'~ J S'gnaturp -i' --'-::~"----<--t:.s.:..~..<=-<~ ' Title D..~ i-;"""..~,jJ_... '''u.-/T-- If 'h ' " L ('I . u " e .~t'on " HI tu. . o".t,1 Area, .nd YOll Me.. stlte 'Ilency, compJet~ the Coastal Asses.ment Form be/ore proc '''h'''''''':;''::~N'D 8, ~~ '2"1>0, S'd 60 :L0 06. lliJ ~nlj . /. .,..-::'~.~~ ,.~.l"'" . 4 ~ ....-... ....;... r ...... . r..;,~/II.:.t;r!.: . UTUllN TO: SUI'I'OLIt COUNTY DEPARTMENT 01' HEALTH SERVICES, BUREAU 01' DRINltING KATER 225 RABRO DRIVE, HAUPPAUGE, N.Y. 11788 / / Rec'd by SCDHS /I / <-0/ 'i'O App't Datic'I"'''''' IVC'S fIr, TEST WELL KATER ANALYSIS .*. Fee of $400.00/well received on .' i I I3-L~L'::' .., ~~ ~. ---'EST WELL (I/O - 'lu .-(.)/1 3' Health De~t Ref. Number f}1(!. {)Cf'yfCdct's 2. Name Number ;?cJ I fuc./< 4* House or Box fhu,n 9' Street~~e,11 f fI/l ~ 8' village Zip Code ~,f-.-,J-f? 7S'" Bu:lIiness " 7-3 33*Depth to Water 2311:' Home Telephone 7<;;- 31" Well Depth ~II 44* Water Filter Installed TAX MAP NUMBER - From the tax bill 14' L~,. 16- 1-' . District Section Block No. Lot No. - ~-------~--_.,-------- .-- --- ._--~ Mailing Address - If Different ~ocation: Reviewer comments: ~<';T- M Y\ \ . \)'l-- eJ<,.l' J j cilJ S:\~,.iu,c.{ -~r rnap/ Directions to the Sanitarian: 1. Locate test well on subdivision or tax map. 2. Total depth and~atic water level check~d? ~ 'Yes _ No 3. Run time, sample tap and GFM noted? 4. If an existing hose is sampled be sure to test the raw water only. *** *** ....'" *** This section for officia~ use only ,: __ --1--_ :0* supply]ype Pri.v Nc:.::.m Carom ___ _~~ f~~L~(.:f(J _--- ~6* Wel~r~ller i v' ~)7'* Field Tests C12 pH Electrolysis Check - Amperage 11-~o-qO 51* Sample Date 54'* Sample Tap Kit J.~ 47* Elapsed Run Time 50*51* Resample Date 50*54* Resample Tap 7* Township TEH_ TSI Code THU_ TSM TBA_ TIS TSH TBR_ TRI ~ TOS .. 9~ple5 Collected: Bac't A'rt Chem_~ __ VOC' 5 ,. ,~ & Pb ~ (4)vials .- (~AS ~ ~- 2 vials .rp~ticide ~ la't')e ---- ~- Remarks: /? ..s cfl1 ~ ~ (j(J P1 Sanitarian . . 11 n (1'19'" "" V J. I... NOV 2 0 1990 Dale Received in Lab Public Water Private Waler I Other Date Completed Examined By tfr~ Lab No, Field No, _jSJ '3 Date: _~a._Cl.~9..Q Time: _~'-1-___.-_ Col. By _v~1~.!t.:~:eR (Name not initials) -- r'{_. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF WATER s~- <;~. Owner or District Name -"tUl(JP..11~j)> Location -h/JiJ)_tl.t::L.. POint 01 Collection _ttDS';: .__._-'---_...~--_._-~ Remarks: 1113115 crccl~Ph 11\ Results Reported as Microqrams Per Liter, ~'_ ..,O_n'__ -..---.-. _....~--..... Parti _..._---_.~--_.. _._,.._-----~_._~_..-. ..~----" ,~~ ~1t . ,.-- -r-~ l5 ~ 1 84 T Alkalimty Imgll CaC031 81 MAAS (m9'11 -4 -- G "'--~,- -- nn - 'o' 73 I 62 T. Hardness Imgll CaC031 66 T Dial Hyd P Imgill 1 '-< - ._._-- -- .- J 76 Nllflles t \ ~..l 63 Ca Hardness Img'l CaC031 90 FllloMn Ilng'l FJ ~"'~'''I 1 '.) ._- - -- . 76 Free Ammo'''. Img I NI __ _ --1.- __ " " Mg Hardness Imgll CoCO,) 77 Niltlle51n1~rl N) n , ---. [\ 60 Chlolldeslmg'l CII 1- _ I - . -- --.--.-. 67 5ullalt.s In",'1 5041 ' } 120 Arsenic (11 H -- f--, / ~ .Y f 100 Iron Img'l Fel 0 12~ Selemum (11 - f I1t-1 ManganeSE' Img I Mn) :; If 122 Cadmium 11) .,;t , 101 \ 0 / .- ,2 Copperjm{l'1 Cui C) b; 17 0 123 Lead (II .; ,16 Sodrum Im'l" Na) I 0 " 126 Silver (11 rl"'t I ;3 Zinc Imgil Znl Ol 104 Chromium III lJTI 124 Mercury (11 III I 121 Banum Imgll aal J II I Complete lJ Melals Only 0 ( . .. . . ~ ,I Director ____.______.___ Lab N.,. To;4!(f,i7:J Fi~ld No. ~_ Date /J... _ ~ Time ~ Col. By 'ffI/l. . . /I /Jc/ r;J )./j Rec'd-at Lab Public Water Private Well Otht:r Exam. By ..-.'--- -,--- ""-':v , -/ i TL- SUlTOLK COUIITY DI:E'Al\'ftCKJIT or JU:ALTH SI:RVICI:S E'UBLIC JU:ALTH LABORATORY DrvISION or Ml:DICAL LI:GAL IHVi:STIGATIOHS , rORI:HSIC SCII:HCI:S 'l'IlACI: ORGANIC ANALYSIS or _TI:R HYS llelll s- ./AJ . Sample Rav____ Treated____ Tap: Name NO. , Street Kit Bth_ OT_ Villa.ge Humber of a.-ple vials submitted llell_ Tank_ Ot he r_I'I OS e:- iiiL t!l'Wnnnllntt Doh oe. Cnmnnund ppb 306 vinyl cbloride ....... 305 Dethylene chloride ... 323 ].,1 dichloroetbane ... 309 Icrans 1,2 dichl'etbene 300 ,:hloroform ... - . . . . . . . 324 1,2 dichloroetbane ... 321 1,1,1 trichloroethane 30<l "arbon tetrachloride . 294 1 br.-:> 2 chloroethane 405 1,2 dicbloropropane .. 310 II:ricb1oroetbene ...... 303 .chlorodibromometbane . 293 1,2 dibromoethane .... --:::..-';' 420 2 bromo 1 chloropropan 301 bromoform ............ 311 tetrachloroethene .... 30B cia 1,2 dichloroethene 320 freon 113 ............ 292 dibromomethane ....... 301 1, 1 dicl,lo.cCo.thene ... 302 bromodichlorometbane . 4062,3 dichloropropene .. 401 cis dichlorop.copene .. <lOB tran. dich1oropropene 322 1,1,2 trichloroethane 409 1112 tetrachlo'etbane 295 s-tetr.chlo~o.tb.n. .. 433 1,2,3 trichloropropane 450 2,2 dichlocopropane .. 451 1,3 dich1oropropane .. 452 2 chlo'ethylvinylether 250 benzene . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 toluene .................... 258 chlorobenzene .............. 259 ethylbenzene ............... 254 o-xylene ................... 252 m-xylene ................... 253 p-xy lene ................... 255 total xylene ............... 2662-chlorotoluene (0) ........ 267 m-chlo~otoluene ............ 26B 4-ch10rotoluene (p) ........ 265 total chlorotoluene ........ 419 1,3,5 tr~ethylbenzene ..... 418 1,2,4 tr~ethylbenzene ..... 415 a,p-dichlorobenzene ........ 412 1,2 dichlorobenzene (0) 432 p-diethylbenzene ........... 435 1,2,.,5 tetramethylbenzene . 43-' 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene 438 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene ..... 600 ethenylbenzene (.tyrenel 601 1 methylethylbenzene(cwnene) 602 n-propylbenzene ............ 603 tert-butylbenzene .......... 604 sec-butylbenzene ........... , 605 ioopropyltoluene (p-cymene) 606 n-butylbenzene ............. 601 hexachlorobutadiene ........ 608 1,2 dibromo 3-chloropropaoe -::-" ("; r J Result for each organic compound I"ll~d aLove Is < C.5ppb iJxccpt whulo) noted. . ~ . . La. b N TO f ',e \ ) .1 . o. - I~ :t FJ.elci NO'U_:I t) -9~ .~~~:: U1lk2~R Col. l3.y ReC'd at Lab Public Water PriVilteWcll Othux J 'J, EXam. By (. '" il-.L., 'jv ,Ii . ,. I . SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF.HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH LAB0RATORY DIVISION OF MEDICAL LECAL INVESTICATIONS & .FORENSIC SCIENCES ORCANOHALIOE PESTICIDE ANAL,{SISQ~' WA'rEI~ Name Rt!. /!6NAL1J5 SU~W. Addres:;; -IUJ IP /l.d) I1A r:nrilCK . Sample Tap Kit ---- 8th ---- OT ____ Other ~ 4 Vial~. X 2 Vials ____ Large_ 1'1-.-1 'I') . Compound ppb . Compound ppb 1 h BHC' ., (> ) a p a- ............................ 4,4 DOE..................,........ .. .;'"-, I b < "..1 eta-BHC.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 I 4 ODD................................ ~ ganuna-BHC.. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .... ,'. 4 , 4 DOT................................ ... ~ "', .~ delta-BHC......................... .. Heptachlor ...................... .. .<' ( ;1 . ., Endrln....... ......... ............... Heptachlor epoxide.....~. Al(1rin. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. < "I " Endrin aldehyde......... Chlordane. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... . .: Dieldrin.................. ; Alachlor............... ... Methoxychlor........... . Endosul fan II.......... " . ,. ') ...., Endosulfan I............, . 4. ," {~) Lab,J_~::"'.lj'L field' -:il; 'J (51)Date ~O-9D nme__--Af1, . _ Col. Bl'~~ . .. Rec'd in Ldh_-r-___ Publ.lC Wdtel." Pt:"ivdte Wate~ . Ot he r t I Ddte ~mplctedl7 ~i-:'-f-r;'ci-!7/,(-tJ SOTrOLK COOMTY DItPU'l"MJP,tf'!" OP' U~..L':":: Dzn-"I::.c:r. UIVI~IOU or WEOICAL LEGAL INVESTIGATIONS ~ rORSENIC SCIENCES Pl1BLIC Il&AI.TN LABORATORY (1) Hell' S- (SllU) Station' I I r! 'I ! (2) rir,t Ht:-')"~AL~.sJPd.-r:~ ! I PESTICIDE ANALYSIS or MATZR (3) La," N....e C~_'-IJ__OJJ_ (4) Strnet' (9) Street --/:"lAJ)J Rd. (8) Conwnunity 11.1/111 TUG K.... (54) Sample Tap --It..osF Mailing Addreos (R/T) __Raw _Treated ~ (20) __Comm _Ncom -4...... rLV __Surf _~ (31) Hell Depth Remark, (14) Diotrict (13) Section (16) Blo.ok (17) Lot COHPOUND PPB (223) Aldicarb "'I ........ ".. (425) Aldicarb Sulfoxide .( I (426) Alclicarb Sulfone -- I " . (224) Cal'bofuran ......... <' I (427) 3 -11:ydroxycd. rho f uc an .c I ~ 1 ( 428) Oxamyl ............. (429) Ca:baryl .c I ........... (554) I-Napthol .... ...... <"'I .- I (430) Methomyl ........... / " -- (',t. ,1) U";l3O/1 IS:' I) i'l1,'III/ora. i.;, -- \ . . CRAMEFl, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAl AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS To: Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Date: December 14, 1990 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study McDonald's, Route 25, Mattituck Traffic Impact Study Review 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. A summary of the study follows. 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 traffic turning right and 38% turmng left seems imbalanced and should be supported. Generated Traffic: A good approach was employed by conducting a study at an existing McDonald's in Riverhead, not far from the site. Empirical data was collected to calculate gell(~ration rates using the average of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area and the observed rate per restaurant seat. Since the volumes on the roadway adjacent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Riverhead McDonald's, this is a conservative approach. It is noted that the weekday counts in Riverhead could have been extended to include 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. since the peak period of the generator is not always coincidental with the peak period of the adjacent roadway. Pass-by Traffic: The report cites various studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a McDonald's facility from the existing traffic stream. Some studies were more than ten years old and some exceptional cases were noted. Citing the higher observed diversions, a 70% pass-by rate was deemed acceptable by the study. Given the volume of the adjacent roadway (AADT = 11,500) and the seasonal nature of the area, a more conservative pass-by credit consistent with a typical facility is appropriate. 50% is recommended. Drive-Thru-Window: Since the existing McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead has a drive-thm- window, the generation rates based on that operation have the effect of a drive-thm-window already factored in. Studies have shown that drive-thm-windows generally result in a 4% increase in daily volumes. However, those increases occur during non-peak periods and thus are not considered a significant factor affecting a peak period analysis. Unsignalized Intersection Capacity Analysis: The methodology employed to evaluate the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the accepted procedure for unsignalized 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 . . 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 ga(ls. These analyses were performed for (1) 1990 existing conditions, (2) projected 1991 No-BUild conditions, and (3) the 1991 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 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 ingess and egress at the intersections and the site driveways. " 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. Parkin~ is provided in accordance with the Town of Southold code, including land-banked stalls, WIth acceptable layout and dime:nsions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. Parking areas are properly separated from the drive-thru-window operation. The report cites 6 to 8 car queues at the drive-thru- window at the McDonald's in Riverhead, with a maximum of 8. Storage for a minimum queue of 8 is recommended. The proposed site satisfies that minimum. Recommendations and Conclusions: 1. Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated. The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass-by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. 2. 3. 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.~fr traffic volumes in the future. oelA TES G CONSULTANTS ( ( (. PLANNING BOARD . 10 DECEM~ 17, 1991 Sherry Johnson: North Fork Environmental Council - You just adop1:ed a resolution declaring yourself as lead agency for McDonalds application? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Ms. .70hnson: Can I ask, since I am new to the Southold way of doinq things could you perhaps clarify me when you will be deteJ:mining significance on this? Mr. Orlowski: First we will have to review it. We have twen1:y days so within that 20 days. Probably by the next meet:Lng. Ms. ~70I'nson: So by the next meeting you will be making a decision. Mr. Orlowski: A determination. Ms. ~Tohnson: O. K., I would like to urge you to please consider giving it a positive declaration for the reasons that I stated. I be:.ieve you all received a copy of my letter and I would like to request that you give it a positive declaration and require the narrowly scoped impact statement that North Fork Environmental Council requested. Thank you. Mr. McDonald: I read your letter and I was wondering if you have any basis? You are asking us to make it a positive declaration, this is an unlisted action. I read your letter as I said and it stated some things in general terms, in terms of the t:raffic impact and the impact of trash. The way it is phased in the letter these are only value judgements that you have in the letter in your opinion. Do you have any evidence or any factual data that you could forward to us that would subst:antiate the claim that you are makinq. Ms. ,Johnson: At this time, not really, only from a traffic study. It indicated that it could add a large number of cars to the intersections. We feel that needs more research. Mr. l"lcDonald: Let me just suggest if you have something sUbsitive, if you could put it in writing and get it to us I would appreciate that. Ms. J.ohnson: O.K. fine, thank you. Mr. Orlowski: O.K., anyone else have any questions? Mr. Warren Goldstein: I am the executive director of the North Fork Environmental Council and I just wanted to follow just a little bit further about what Mark McDonald was aSking my associate Sherry Johnson. Mark, would it help if we do a full analysis of the traffic study as well because the traffic study that was submitted as part of the application is not only in PLANNING BOARD . 11 DECE~ 17, 1991 ( gener:al terms inadequate it is probably in specific demonstrable terms inadequate as well. Would you like to see that in writing as w,=ll? Mr. l\1cDonald: I think if you have objections, you need to be qualitative but you need to be quantitative as well. It is simply a comment that you are in opposition because of the traffic problems. It would be helpful for me if you had specific problems about technical points that you bring them forward. It is very difficult if people have problems and just say I don't like the looks of it or I don't have a good feeling abou'~ it. In the SEQRA process it doesn't have much bearing. I cannot tell you if you have problems how to approach it, I'm just saying I'm going to make decisions based on factual evidence presented into the record, not on people saying well, I kind of like it, I kind of don't like it. It is not a popularity contest. How may people like it and how many people don'1: like it. If you have problems with it, under the category justified in SEQRA make them so you can bring those forward. Mr. Goldstein: I think that is precisely the kind of process we have begun. I am not sure that people fully understand, I am not sure if the board is aware or if all the boards had the OppoJ~tunity to read the letter that was forwarded to the board by my associate Ms. Johnson. I don't think that the specific cital:ions from the SEQRA law add up to we kind of don't like it. ( Mr. HcDonald: I am not trying to apply that, I'm just trying to show you that there are two ends of the stick. l Mr. Goldstein: And we don't purport to be on either end of the stick. We purport to be solidly in the middle of community character and our argument about traffic for instance is not that we think that there will be more cars, it is that the very foundations of the study, in quotation marks, which as presented to the board are inadequate for that study so that when we argue that a full study of traffic impact needs to be made we are saying that just simply transposing something that happened in Riverhead or an analysis of Riverhead traffic patterns to Mattituck is inadequate. We think that that is actually hardheaded, that actually deals with the technical assumptions underlying that study and argue therefore that when this makes a determination having to do with taking into account traffic in Mattituck that it needs a study that actually has a firm foundation. In fact, as opposed to what struck me as sloppy sociology to start with, in technical terms simply transposing numbers. There are a number of other areas that I think need to be addressed in terms of that study, distribution of questionnaires at windows in the McDonalds in Riverhead strikes me as another woefully inadequate way of conducting a study and finally the actual numbers that are used would raise the eyebrows of anyone that read it carefully. It seemed to be saying in fact that the addition of the drive- thru window might increase traffic by forty-six cars over the course of 4000 ( ( L PLANNING BOARD DECE~ 17, 1991 12 cust~mers to McDonalds which strikes me also technically, mathematically almost impossible. There are additional things that we would have problems with and I'm happy to bring them to the board's attention. Mr. i;lcDonald: That would go through on a case by case basis? I would go through on a case by case basis every line, every problem. On every problem you see and on every line on the repOl:t, I would rather see that than a one page letter saying that it is woefully inadequate. Do you understand what I am sayi::1g? Mr. Goldstein: I think I do. Mr. J~cDonald: I would much rather see that point by point. When you say this is stupid, this line is stupid because, then I can get.a hold of that and go ah, yes. Mr. Goldstein: Well, it will be our pleasure I suppose to give you precisely that kind of a analysis of a document which seems to me fundamentally irrelevant to the problem but we would be delighted to do that if that will assist the board in its determinations. I'm wondering along the same lines since one of the 1:hings we've argued at some length and continue to argue is that community character is not an easily quantifiable thing, it is something that has a kind of qualitated feel to it and I'm sure that is something that you folks struggle with on an extremely regular basis but one of the things that does effect the character of the community this way as kinds of businesses come into it setting precedence for businesses quite like that and t:hat is a point that we made in our letter. It seems to me that it is worthy of consideration and it also seems to me worthy of consideration whether or not this will add or detract from the character of the town that you serve and that we all would like to see preserved in some recognizable form so I think that we will probably mix qualitated jUdgements along with quant:itative analysis but I think qualitative analysis of the character of Southold Town is absolutely essential in figuring out whether or not to give this a positive or negative decla.ration. We would argue on qualitated as well as technical grounds that it deserves a positive declaration, that it requires that narrowly scoped impact study that Sherry talked about. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Thank you. Any other questions this evening. Mr. Raynor: Mr. Chairman, I didn't realize this was going to be a hearing but on behalf of McDonalds Corporation, I will completely stand behind the engineer's report. Mr. Dunn has had many, many reports before this board and is know nationally for several of his studies. As to community character, I'm not sure that has any bearing in reference to SEQRA. As speaking generally and not prepared to have any comments because I did not see this listed as a public hearing, I would certainly think ( ( c PLANNING BOARD ~ . 13 DECE~ 17, 1991 that the mitigating circumstances that have been presented would cause the board to come up with an unlisted action to a negative declaration. Thank you. Mr. Orlowski: This is not a public hearing, I am just aSking if anyone has any comments. It is Christmas and I want to be nice. Anyone else have any questions or comments on anything? It doesn't have to be MCDonalds, and it isn't a public hearing Bruce Issacs from Cutchogue - I am not an expert at all in SEQR~ but I was just wondering. It seems to me that this will set a precedent for more fast foods coming into this area and so then'!fore it will have an environmental impact on the rural quality of our town and what would it hurt to examine this in more depth? I mean, who is going to get hurt by aSking for more in depth environmental impacted study. Could someone give me an answer to that one. Why does it hurt to look at it carefully rather than say ah, no problem. Mr. Orlowski: Well, I can assure you that we will look at it very carefully. Mr. Issacs: Isn't that what SEQRA provides for? Mr. Orlowski: Yes. Mr. Issacs: But if you give it a negative declaration then essentially that part is over with. Mr. Orlowski: But, what information will be provided to us by other sources we will review very carefUlly. Mr. Issacs: O.K., thank you. Mr. Orlowski: Anyone else? Hearing nothing, I will make a motion to adjourn. Mr. Ward: Second. Mr. Orlowski: Motion made and seconded. All those in favor? Ayes: Mr. Ward, Mr. Edwards, Mr. Orlowski, Mr. McDonald. Mr. Orlowski: So ordered. Mr. Eitses: May I address the board? Mr. Orlowski: We adjourned but go ahead. Mr. Bitses: I spoke to the Town Attorney because I received a letter from you indicating that you have examined my covenants and restrictions and in the letter is a copy of the covenants and restrictions that you have examined which were dated June, .') - . suBFiLE PB ""P.,K tis j' e1ttt~ f'a-ctc CRAMER, VOORHIS & ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAl:AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS December 20,1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: SEQRA EAF Review McDonald's Restaurant, Mattituck Dear Benny: We are in receipt of the Long EAF, site plan and Traffic Impact Study for the above referenced project. As per your request, we have performed a review of these items in order to advise the Board with regard to environmental review compliance and environmental planning issues. The following paragraphs provide a review of the information we have received to date: oT' .':J 1. Long EAF The Long EAF has been reviewed and corrected as necessary. A copy of the form ~~~b~n;~~~~r;~=~~u~~t~.i13 :;;~ f:~6d~ sitlll, 411lfK lllitl.J.. ... (jf ~nt.j 2. Suffolk County DeJ,1artment ill Health Services (SCDHS) The site is located m Groundwater Management Zone IV; however, public water is not available. Therefore, the under Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6, the daily flow would be restricted to 897 gallons per day of sewage containing waste. Under the sewage system design criteria, a total flow of 30 gallons per day per seat ~~~~~~~t~~~~~~~~~:s~~t.a~~flW;i~~ =a~s~;::d ~~~~ectiqn with a restauraat attbcsubject--.. The Health Department has completed their' review and at this time are awaitmg approval of water quality from the on-site well, and a SEQR determination from the Town of Southold. The SCDHS File Number is ClO-90-011. The applicant has furnished a copy of the well report to this office and the. Health. Departme.n.:..t: ~.'I ~,~~GI'IlHlUoaot.ima wi "'~.-U.Mid1;!!B_~~me . .....liJ}'~.~edbyfiltratiQn. .. '.. . .,' . . . .~ ohhe project is forthcomins after review by SoU 0 . A copy of the well report is enclosed for your convenience. 3. Traffic Impact Study The Traffic Impact Study has been reviewed and a separate document has been generated in order to provide comments on the traffic study. A copy of the review letter is attached. It is also noted that the traffic study is based 90 seats - though not a signifi,cant differenc,e, th,e applica~t shoul~I~ay~ the option of !l~endin.c~.b.:tudy for thIS slight defrease m tnp generatIOn. ;dtf..&iulnl....tiI<Hittiitthe 'r of" seats to 89. . 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 , , 4. Site Plan The site is predominantly cleared of deciduous vegetation and is presently dominated by herbaceous weed. We did not observe any significant natural environmental resources at the time of site inspection. It is noted that there is a freshwater wetland on the north side of Main Road. lbisarea would not be expected to be impacted as l!- result of the proposed project. I The site design appears to meet code, and is expected to minimize environmental impacts to the maximum extent possible while allowing a reasonable economic use of the property in accordance with present zoning. The landscape plan will restore some shrubby and woody vegetation to the site and will improve aesthetic compatibility. 5. Conclusion The SCDHS as involved agency has no si~nificant comments relating to the project. The site is cleared and does not contain SIgnificant environmental resources. The proposed use conforms to zoning. l)e applieant shoU14tespond totbe comments relating to the TrafficlmpaQ SUr.. Upon receipt we will complete our review an6 provide the Board with a rec:otll1'nendation fur a determination of environmental" significance. ~ If you have any questions concerning this review, please do not hesitate to call. cc: Valerie Scopaz Robert Kassner enc: LEAF Well Report Traffic Review ~~~~ CRAMER, V ,'R I. "rt... SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT \\~A" ~G CONSULTANTS . .' "- ,DEe 14 "30 12:29 TOI"N OF SOjJ.~"" -PROJECT INFORMATION"'-' "l'repared by Project Sponsor -' NOTICE: 'Thi. documenr is des.&ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed m~v have a significant effect On the en""Onm<!nt. Please complete the entire form, Parts A through e. Answers to these questions will be con.idered a. part of the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public revIew. Provide any additional information vou believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3. It is expected that completion of the full EAF will be dependent on information cunently available and will not in,olve new studi@s, research or Investigation. Ii information requiting such additional work i~ unavailable. $0 indicate and ~pl~clfv each instance. P.3/6 NAME OF .,lr,CTIO~ McDonald ,s Corporation ,site plan LOCATION OF ACT10U (Il'lefo,e Streel Address, MtltUC1Ptlll1y al"ld COl,lnlYt s/s Main Road, Mattituck, New York NAME OF /l.$l'lICANTfSPONSOP: McDonald ,s Corporation, AoonESS 320 Love Lane C!iY/PO Mattituck NAME 0': OWNE~ (If dlffersnu C()f<~m Real ty ..OO~eSs I STATa ZIP COOE NY 11 <J5, eU$'NESS TalEPHONe I f ~ i I I I J I i ---, I Coun~ of SuffOlk I BUS! Nass TElEPHOII e c/o Henry E. Ravnor, Jr. 516)298-4567 Carl/PO STATE I ZIP COOE m;SC;l:IPrrl)~ OJ; ACTIOr~ COnstcuction of restaurant Please Complete Each Question-Indicate N.A. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical se'tt,ng of overall projeCt. both dev~loperJ and undeveloped areas. 1. Present land use: DUrban Olndustroal OCommerciaf OResidentiaf (suburban) OForest OAgriculture OOt~er 2.9986 f/JRural (non-farm) 2. Total acreage of project area: acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAce PRESENTlY AFTER COMPLETION Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) , . qq AI> aCres 0 acres Fore, led acre, acres A~"c"ltural (Include, orchards. cropland, pasture. etc.) acres . acres Wetlf,nd (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24. 2S of ECl) acres . acres Water Sudace Area acres acre~ Un'e'l~tated (Rock, <tanh or fill) acres acre, Road:l. building. <lnd other paved 'urface. ' acres /, 0/ ' .ere ~ Oth.., (Indicate tvp<:l acres /. q 8 1-v'6cres Et.-'It'1//vlH i-OiV1Y 5. 3. What is predo"';na"t .oil tvpel.) on projeCt .lte1 loam and sand ('IV? vn? ..:lvY1 Pi Y M Ih'TH lA-IV() .. Soli drainage: [iilWell dr'IOed 100 % of <lte C1Moderately well drained % of site OPoorly drained % of site b. II any agricultural land is involvp.d. how many acres of soil are dassified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NYS Land Classification System! 0 acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppinss on proJect sit<tl DYes IiJNo a. What is depth to bedrock I - 700 (in feet) 2 .. .... ~. ....,. ...,-'" H'd tt:l006. to ~ ',. - 'A 'DEe 14 '90 12:30 TmJN OF SOUT~' ': 'Ih I . no0-10.'. 98 ~;; ~10-1<e..4/6 2 "!. .:J,., Pt"'...................,...................,.........r.."'...............f.. tewl sopes. \::I 'C ...... ,,;,<7 ~v . , . 015% or gle,,!el _ % . 6. Is project substantlallv contiguous to. 01 contain a buildins. site. or distriCt. listed on the Statf or the NatIonal Resiste.. c,f l-fistodc Places! DYes ltJNo . 7. Is proj"ct "ubstantiallv contil.unu. to a site listed on the Regi.ter of National N.turallandmark.1 OVes [lINCl 8. What is the depth of the water table? .:.~ (in feet) 23 '7'0 Z8 I=r: ~ 9. I. site located over a oli/MrV. principal, or sole source aquifer! )i':tes ltlNo' ~ 10. Do huntil18. fjshln~ or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the Project lllea! DVes I3No 11. Does project site contain .nv species of plant Or animal life that is Identified as thleatened or "ndange,ad? eiVes 25No AcCordine to Identify each species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land form. 0'; the project sitel (i.e., cliffs, dunes, othel geologkal fOlmations) C/Yes &'I No Describe 13. Is the project sit" presently used by the community or Mishborhood a. an open 5paCe or recnMtiOn aleal [::I Yes IXlNo If Ve5. explain 14. Ooe$ thl! pre.ent site indude scenie views known to be Important to the community? e1Yes IXINo 15. Streams within or contilJuQUS to project area: NONE &. Name of Stleam and name of River to which it Is tributary 16. Lakes. ponds, wetland aleas within or contiguous to project area: &. Name NONE ~HA-U UIV/IIM F:O W{;7')"A/(} tlc.RQSS b. Size (In acreS) 0, '.> ~ 1i Is the site served bV exiStln8 public utilitle.7 gjYes ONo IZT ZS- 3) If Yes. does sufficient capacity exisl to allow connection7 (!9Yes ONo bl If Yes. will imprOvements be necessary to allow conMctionl lOYes . ONo ,a. I. the site loc.ted in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Malkets Law, Artlde 2S-I'.A. Section 3')3 and 304? DYes JUNo 19. Is the lite, located ,nor substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pUlsuant to Article a of the Eel. and 6 NYCRR 6171 t;JYes ONo 20. Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? DYes . SNo B. Project Description 1. PhYSical dimensions and scale of project (fll! In dimensionS a. appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage Owned, Or controlled by project sponsor b. P,oie,:t acreage to be developed: 2.9986 acres initially; c. Plo;e':t acreage to lemain undeveloped O. acres. d. len~th of plOJect. in miles: (If appropriate) e. If the proj"ct is an expansion. indicate p"rc"nt of exp3nslon proposed N.4 %; f. Number of off..tre"t parking .paces existinC ~ ; proposed . per code S. Maximum vehicular trips eenerated per hour (upon completion of project)1 (125 ingr..s '" h. If resrdential: Numb"r and tyP" of housing uni;': #71 /fir>': IZ ~/: 00 PI"f 125 e<;1rQSs) .'c. . One Family 'two Family' Multiple Family Condominium" :;.",f,;:.J,;.'j, . :~/,.,,~'-I': ;;(,-;.. o 2.9986 aCles. acres ultimately. Initially UltimM,~Jy I. Oimellsions (In feet) 'of largest proposed structure 18 height; 52 j. l.ineal ftet of fronta,e along a public thoroullhfare prolect will occupy Isl '. :.: ''''Ii. . ''<--''l loqensth. per ,CO.d~ ,--",,~:,"",$ n/I!S , 371 tt 15/ .. ".. "'~,,,~ Ii~;:: . , DEe 14 '9121 12: 31 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~ P. 5/6 ". .;2. ,H~w muCI1 natural mater.al (i.e., rra ('h. etc.) will be rllmoved from the s~ ~_ tons/cubic yards 1. Will distutb"d areas be rile/aimed> ~ !:i'Yes ONo ON/A . ~ -. . a. U yes. for what in'tend.~": PUrpO$" is the site being rec;.taimedl 1""a'" ",;1 bH~4 t*I~(!!., ~ r~rt,...; n~ b. Willtopseil be stockpiled for reclamation1 !lgY" DNo as needed c. Will upper ~ubso" be stockpiled fOt reclamation1 I!9Yes ClNo as needed 4. How many IIcres of velletiltion (trees, shrubs. ground cOVllr,) will be removed from site! + 1 acres. S. Will ,lnY mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important veeetation b. removed bv this prOjectl CjYes CiNo .,. , . . 6. If single phase project: Anticipated period of construction 7. If multi-phas<ed: .. l'otal number of phases anticipated b. AntiCipated dale of commllncement phase 1 c. Approximate completion date of final phase d. Is phase 1 fUnctionally dependent on subseCluent phases? 8. Will blaJting occur during conwuction! DYe' l3No 9. Number of jobs generated: during ~onstructlOn 50 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilitie.l " months. (includin~ demOlition). (number). month month year. (inciudlnc demolition). year. DYes ONO : after project is complete + 100 DYe. Ii!No If yes. explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved! DYes ClINo a. II' yes. indicate type of waste (sewage. industrial. etc.) an~ amount b. Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged ____ 13. Is subsurface liqUid waste diSPosal involved! (iVe. aNo Type dom"!lti c sewerage 14. Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proPosal1 DYes DNa Expl. in 15. Is pmject or any portion of project IOcitted in a 100 vear flood plain? OVes tJNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? lOYes uNo. &. If yes. what is the amount per month l~ tons b. It yes, will at) existing ..olid waste facility be used? DYes IUNo . c. If yes. give name ; lOcation d. Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or Into it sanitary landfill I DYes '&No e. If Yes, explain 17. Will the project involve lh. disposal of solid wastel a. It yes. what is the anticipated rate of dispo,al! b. If yes, what is the anticipated site life! Yllars. 18. WijlprojltCI vSol herbicides 01 pestlcidesl . aYes IlJNo 19. Will ,project routinely produce odors (mor/l then one ho;'r per day)l DYes l1JNo 20. Will Iproject produce OPerating noiSe exceeding the local ambient noise levels? 21. Will project result in an increase in energy \lse? aYes' ONo If ye" . indicate type(,i electricity 22. If water supply is from wells, Indicate 'pumplng capacity 23. Tot~1 anticipated water u.age per day 2120 gallons/dav. 24. Does project involve'local, State or Fe.derel funding? OYe' If Vel.: explain .' aYes IONo tons/month. -,,... DYes GiNo , :.~::,t1f:'!,- ..,;1. '.'i,-"j ,:t:,;",.;~~ ,.;~::ip.~f:{-, <.~~:',:j;;J~' gallons/minute. per SCOOHS Q9No ",~'~' C. Zoning and Planning Information 1, Does ;lropcsed action invelve a planning or zoning deciSion? \flY"s DNa If Yes, indicate decision required: Ozonine amendm'lnt w1.onin& variance Osoecial use P'lrmit Osubdivision 10,;:<: plaf Onew/re',ision of master plan Ore.ource management plan Q.other -1'881:a~ QXGQp::; 2. What is tn" zoning c1assification(sJof the sitel B ""_ 3 What is the maximum potential developm<:nt of the site if developed as permitted bv the present zoning . P"r' ~'1JltholQ_..l'Q_\i.cL.2QO i no ~~ 4. What i; the propmed tonln. of the site? .---FL___. 5. What 1\ the maxImum potential development of the site if developed as permitted by tile proposed zoni, _12-"_1:' Southold TOWn Zonin~~ode 6. Is the proposed actlon r.:onsistent With the recommended lIsesin adopted local land use pians? !JVes 7. What are the predominant land use(.) and >.oning classifications within a Yo mile radius of proposed acti< J:l, L'[Q.J R-flQ, A-C__ D~': :.4 ,"3D 12:~:1 Tulln 'T SCIUfLD City. Town, I'd'age Eoard City, TQwn. Viilage Planning 60ud City, Town Zoning Board City. County Health Department Other Loca! Agenci". Other Region.11 Agende, State AgenCies Fedeoral Agenciozos < C;Ves ONo QlYas DNa IiCiYes DNo ~Y"s DNo DVes CJNo !!'JYes ONo ~Ves DNa DVes ONQ P,6 6 . Type , C --- ~!21.iw.. ~p~~;~l AV~~on -w~t~,:" ~ C'Ol,t;j'Y":!Il')r'!I SCPC NYS Depe of TranSDortatio2l- ---.----- ~Ya$ DVes education OVes ONo tl. Informational DQtails Attach any .lddltional information as may be needed (0 clarify your project. II there are or m<lV be a"y In'pac!, aSSOCiated With your propo,al, please discuss such impacts and the measures which YOU propose to mit .\loid them. 8, Is the prOPOsed action compatIble With adjoinin~l.urroundjng 'and use, within a \1, mile? ~. If the proposed action is the subdivision of land, how many lot< are proposed? a. What is the minimum lot "1.. proposedl "10. Will prOPosed a<:llon require any authori~ation(s) fOr the formation of sewer Or water districts? 11 Will the proposed act.on create a demand for anYCOmmunitv prO....ided serviCe) (recreatiOn, fire proteCtion)' iJYes ONe a. If \'es, is existing capacity sullicient to handle projected demand1 (WYes ONo 12. Will ,he ~'roposed action result in the generation of traffic signilicantlv abo....e present levels? a. If yes, i~ the eXisting road network adequate to handle the' additioMI traffic? ClVp.s e. VerIfication , I certilv that the information PIQvided above is true to the best of mv knowledge. APPlicant/Sp,".!,5or Na"'e.--....r~~ \)(' rJALr"('~ Cql? ~~IPA"":'tI,./. Date . <::_~- .- / -' ~' . J S'I.lnature i~-~-- , {<.....~ ,a ',.-. ....-' TJUe {;.'~ J-;"~',~_......jJ_~ IC'-.-::r-- "v;. lI,the .~tlon is in.the doa"., Area, l':d YOu ale!.J sta.te agency, COmplete the Coastal Assesslllent Form be'o~;'~;~~ wlllh I'm assessment. ., , ....., , '2.; , I :;.?I . IlGVICN1SQ Ii r . /. /' '~W'''''~'' >>~" . ,,. ~ ....-..... ......~... --"- , ~..."':III';;.,.t;r!.; ~ RETUIUI TO: surrOLIt COUNTY DEPARTMENT or H~ALTH S~RVIC~S, BUREAU or DRIHltING WAT~R 225 RABRO DRIVS, HAU~~AUG~, N.Y. 11788 I I P.ec'd by SCDHS 1/ I W I 't~O App't Dat<; a. 7 v/;-<, {GiffY! T~ST HELL WAT~R ANALYSIS ~.~ ~. ... Fee of $400.00/we11 received on ---=t~ST W~LL (1/0 - '!U -()! / 3" Ilealth De~t Ref. N~er _ mc-. L.)(t'y(Ci! leI's 2'* Name Nwnber /?c.J I /ve-l< zip Code <5(f,f- .- ,;) f 7 S"" BU3iness . 4* House or Box fhCt, n 9" Street~~e,11 I !7!'l ~ 8" Village 2 3'~ Home Te lephone '7S- 7~3 31* Well Depth 33*Depth to Water ~.', 44* Water Filter Installed l'AX MAP NUMBER - from the tax bill 141 '* 13* 16- 17* District Section Block No. Lot No. *** *** -----.-----.-.----- /i I Il~' .." Hailing Address - If Oifferent uocation: Reviewer comments: F~;+- M y\ \ .O'l- e.><-l' ,,, cKJ s.:\~da,c~ ~ r map~ Directions to the Sanitarian: t. Locate test well on subdivision or tax map. 2. Total depth and~atic water level check~d? ~ Yes ____ No 3. Run time, sample tap and GPM noted? 4. If an existing hose is sampled be sure to test the raw water only. ... ... This section for officia~ use only ZO. .L- supp~y .ype Prlv Nc~m /' '-f,' I '-. ~ ~ -, '/ ~.-'l _-...t:~_,-L I Wel r'l.ller ; J Carom .0116. ~p. Field Tests C12 pH Electrolysis Check - Amperage 11- :;to-qo 51. Sample Date tt" sE r 54* Sample Tap Kit I.L-A. 41* Elapsed ,Run Time . ~O*51. Resample Date 'i,.' 'j ::~~*j~~~;,;,:&,~&:!,:i. .~?? '.', ,,,~i,<'t;~l:>::,i::::~'t::,~., 7* Township TEH_ TS! Code THU_ TSM_ l'BA_ TIS_ TSH_ TBR_ TRI V TOS_ __ 9~ples Collected: Bac't ~'rt Chern ~ VOC' · ..... {"....g<:i & Pb _ 0vials ...... (~AS """"" 2 vials . Cj>'Sticide......-' lar')e tl'J1 ..' "I: ' 10<'" .' / ./' ". '. ~:,;'..,'0>.:~ s :r.-' j... ,Itj,. ,;~,,':i~~::'2f~:~ . . lU.lC192 NOV 2 0 1990 Date Received in Lab Public Water Private Waler ( Other Date Completed Examined By tt,,; Lab No. Fie!d No. Date: Time: Col. By: _J..SJ '3 _&...;}.._Q..~9..(J _-A~._...- _.v-6.-B...!1!...~R (Name not initialsl -- r"',_. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY CHEMICAL EXAMINATION OF WATER Name 1ftUl(JP..ll~/J > Location _tfA lJ.1_I<<:L~ - s~JI.J ()<;.~ Owner or District Poinl of ColI,ection _11 0 s ~. Remarks: )113115 <t'ccJ~Ph (1) Results Reported as Microc,r~ms Per Liter. ~."'"."". -------. --"~-' Parti _,0____...--.. -....-.---------.'.. ~~=f - .. --- IS ~ 1 84 T. Alkallnlly 11119'1 CaCO)1 81 M6AS Im9'11 \ \ 1-1 :Tlhos'cm ...- ..' ..-....- - 11- 73 pH ~ I 82 T. Hardness Im9'1 CaC031 88 T ola' Hyd P Imgil) NI'''''' t -' - - k .,-,- -' .JI 78 '.) ~..1 83 Ca Hardness Im911 CaCO)1 90 fl'lQllde Illig 'I FJ "'~I", ". =\= '. - .- - -" - ~I" 76 Free Ammo". Img.1 Nj r, ., M9 Hardness {mgil CaC011 77 Nilrlles!m!J.'1 Nl r., -' - '- [Ll 80 Ch1o"des (m9'1 CII I~ I- 87 Sullall'sl~i'1 5041 ' J 120 Arsenic (11 'lJJ_ -. ~ .. Ill. 100 Iron Img'l Fe) / 0 lv ~ 125. Selenium (11 Manganese Im9 I Mnl 1.5 trI Cadmium (1) I L,.:r . 101 \ 0 1~ / .. - T 102 Copper Im9 'I Cui ::; Vi l7 0 123 Lead (II .. ~ ~ 106 .~ 1""1:1 Nal I 0 " 126 SIIveI 11) . ]I - 103 Zinc Imgil :1nl Il l 104 Chromium (11 [IT '. -"'i;<l\t:~F II - 124 Mercury 1') .... .'. . ~..;;~-,..,.,,,.'.';"..,. I .;j~;,/" . . . 121 Barium (1119'1 Bal '3,> :';' ',-,,' ..:,U ':> .:"~.' ,.,'., . ':$':';, ~~~~.. ""fi..:;....J.,. C', .' ,i,- 'iJl:\ .> ..,.. "..;" ....., ".,} "~7 Complete lJ Motals Only 0 Q 1] n I 1 I II 1 I I "".,," - ",.C.^,' .~'.,,,,,,*:," ""'~' 'ie' :'i'.""'-""""K>,,,~,'I'\J It: 'N'.'-"'~-"';";;:- . Lab ~o, To~i7:;' Field No. Da~" /,''' _ ~ Time ~ Col. By 'ffI1l - . /I be'; r: J J./j Rec'd-at Lab Public Water k-rivale Well Other .Exam. By /"':11' ~----- './: I TL- SUFrOLK COlJHTl' Dl:l'lUl.'DCI:1lT or I\J:ALTU SI:RVXCES l'UBLXC HEALTH LABORATORY DrvISION or Nl:DICAL LEGAL XNVESTXGATXONS , rORI:NSXC SCXI:NCES 'fttAC& ORGANIC AIlALYSXS or _TI:R NYS ~Iell' s- ./AJ . Sample Raw____ Treated____ Tap: N....... No. .i Street Vill"ge Well____ Tank____ Kit____ Bth____ OT____ NumtH.r of eample viale eubmitted Other_I'IoS e- D>>.L ~-""nunrl Dpb 310 trichloroethene ...... 303 chlorodibromomethane 293 l,2 dibrOlllOethane .... -.::-' ,-';' 420 2 bromo 1 chloropropen 301 bromoform ........................ 306 .,inyl chloride ....... 30S .oethylene chl.oride ... 323 1.1 dichloroethane ... J09 l~r.na 1,2 diehl' ethane 300 l::hloroform ...................... 324 1,2 dich10roethane ... 321 1,1,1 trichlo..oethan. 304 ,carbon tetrachloride . 294 1 brOlllO 2 chloroethane 405 1,2 dichloropropane .. 311 tetrachloroethene .... 30B cie 1,2 dichloroethene 320 freon 113 ............ 292 dibromomethane ....... 301 1,1 dicl,lo!:"e~hene ... " 302 bromcdichloromethane . 406 2,3 dichlorop..opene .. 401 cie dichlorop!:openo .. 40B trane dichloropropene . 322 1,1,2 trichloroethane 409 1112 tetr.chlo'ethane 295 a-tetrachlocoetbane .. 433 1,2,3 trichloropropano 450 2,2 dichl.oropropane .. 451 1,3 dichloropropane " 452 2 chlo'ethylvinylether ." -' Doh DB' Cnmoounct 250 benzene .................... 251 toluene ........................................ 258 chlorobenzene ............................ 2S9 ethylbenzene ............... 2S4 o-xylene ................... 2S2 m-xylene ................... 2S3 p-xylene ................... 2SS total xylene ............... 266 2-chlorotoluene (0) ........ 267 m-chlo~otoluene ............ 26B 4-chlorotoluene (p) ........ 265 total chlorotoluene ........ 419 1,3,5 tr~eth.ylbenzene ..... 418 1,2,4 tr~ethy1benzene ee.e. 415 a,p-dichlorobenzene ........ 412 1,2 dichlorobenzene (0) 432 p-diethylbenzene ........... 435 l,2,4,S tetramethylbenzene . 437 1,2,4 trichlo!:ob"nzene ..... 438 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene ...e. 600 othenylbenzene (etyren"l 601 1 methylethylbenzene(cwnene) 602 n-propylbenzene ............ 603 tert-butylbenzene .......... 604 eec-butylbenzene ........... . 605 ieopropyltoluene (p-cymene) 606 n-butylbenzene ...... e _ . . e . . 607 hexachlorobutadiene .e...... .r. '. "}~2~'(~::,,:': 608 1,2 dibromo 3-chloropropane ...:::- ('\ \' ~ Result for each organic compound /I'llild above Is < O.5ppb except willi,;) no led. . 'Lab. N TO ~I ',e \ ) .J . (). - i~_:t. FJ.elc1 NO'1/_:Jt:>_9L) Date - __ 'l'iIRe - ~1~~IJil Col. fly ,. - ReC'd at Lab Public Water PriVuteWQll Otht.a - J l EXan\. By { \ (. l~' ~ ,'" jJ ".2.:. '-1(,.. ,. I . . . SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF.HEALTH SERVICES 1')..I.;'i-) Sample Tap Kit ____ 4 Vial:~ ~ 2 Vials ____ PUBLIC HEALTH LAB0RATORY DIVISION OF MEDICAL LECAL INVESTICATIONS & .FORENSIC ORCANOHALIlJE PESTICIDE ANALYSIS .Q~' WA'fEU Name..Ht!. LJ6~1J.5 SUIL:I:W. Address -ItA / P B.d) HA TTJTi/G It!..- . . Bth ---- OT ---- Other ..f:l65c SCIENCES Large - , Compound ppb , Compound ppb J alpha-BHc. . . . . . . . . . . . " .~ (\ 4,4 DOE............... . .."'.:.' I :J be:ta-BHC............... .t.P. 4,4 000................ ~ ganuna-BHc.............. .~.. delta-BHc.............. , '~', ,J 4 , 4 DOT................ .. Heptachlor . . . . . . . . . . . . .( ( ~i . ....... Endrln................ . Heptachlor epoxide..... ~., Al:1 . "., .. I rJ.n............... II Endrin aldehyde........- Chlordane.............. ~ Di.~ldrin. . . . . . . . . . . . . " ..: 1 ....' Alachlor............... ~ .-" , Endosulfan I........... ._.! . Methoxychlor........... _ Endosulfan 11..........- ,. . 4' . ,'d)Lab,J..~'10j3L freld' -Li,Sf3- (51)Date ~O-"JD T1me_--A,.,. _ . Col. B:(~~ ~ Rec'd in Lan- ~ubl.LC Wdter . Privc:lte Water . ~ Oth~r "~ 1 Ddtt! c;mplctcd 1I{'n r,"5J/(v. J SorrOLI( COl1lfTY DII:P.llP.'n<P:H'!' 0.. 1It:1.l.':'H :lZ:>'''I::;;:~ UlVISIOU or MEDICAL L&GAL INVESTIGATIONS ~ rORSENIC SCIENCES PtJBLIC IlEALTH ~RATORY I I " . (I (SllU) Station' I (2) Fir3t ~~PAL~.$JIJ~. 7:'J I I (1) Hell' PESTICIDE ANALYSIS or MATER S- (3) La3t N....e C~_'--(J-O'J_ (4) Str'.et, (9) Street ~N Rd. (a) Con.unity h4IflTUG J.L... (54) San'ple Tap ~ (R/TI__Raw _Tre;ated Hailing Address (20) __Carom _Heam ~..r1.v-- __Surf ~ (14) Di3trict (31) Hell Depth Remark3 (13) Section (16) Block (17) Lot CO/ol1'OUNO 1'1'8 (223) Aldicarb ........ "0 <I (425) Aldicarb Sulfoxid~ .( I (426) Aldicarb Sulfone _. j '" (224) Cal:bofuran ......... <' ( (427) 3-"lydroxycarbofuran ~ I E I (42a) Oxa.myl ............. (429) Ca:baryl ~ I ........... <' I (5541 l-Napthol .......... ... I (430) Methomyl ........... r'r-t.v) -J.. _. C"'i'~O'.1 IS:;,) IlI,'II,/()(a, Iv -"- \ ," .r ;.:~. ., . . ~" I/!/p" CRAMEF~, VQO'RHI$ a;~A$SOCIATES ENVIRONMENT~~t'jP~~t~G CONSULTANTS . To: Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. Date: December 14, 1990 Re: Review of Traffic Impact Study McDonald's, Route 25, Mattituck Traffic Impact ~ Review The report was prepared using sound traffic engineering practices and followed the anallytical methodology detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Selected calculations were checked using HCM software and the results were consistent with the report. A summary of the study follows. , Generated Traffic;.;Ai"ood ~roacb was emJlloyed by condul'ti'1g a study &tan C'listi.D& McDonald's in Rivemeac:J,tiot far from the site. Empirical data was coneeled to calcnla~ generation rates using the average of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area and the observed rate per restaurant seat.~. vnh.'~>OD the toad.way ~t to the I pr~ site are lower that those at ~s, nns1n:~i ' ~acl. It is noted that the weekday counts in Riverhead could have been extended to include 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. since the peak period of the generator is not always coincidental with the peak period of the adjacent roadway. Pass-by Traffic: The report cites various studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a McDonald's facility from the existing traffic stream. Some studies we~ 1DOl"$ than ten yelll"S 01" and some exceptional cases were noted. Citing the higher observed diversions, a 70% pass-by rate was deemed acceptable by the study. Given the volume of the adjacent roadway (AADT = 11,500) and the seasonal nature of the area, .",.more CObServative pass.by credit " consistent with a typical facility is appropriate. SO% is recommended. ' Drive-Thrn-Window: Since the existing McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead has a drive-thru- window, the generation rates based on th.!lt operation bave. the effect of a drive.thru~window already factored in. SIId&I have shown thatdrive-tbru-windoWs generally result in a 4%1 increase in dally vohiWies.1Iowever, those increases occur during non-peak periods and thus are not considered a significant factor affecting a peak period analysis. Uns~rsnalized Intersection Capacity Analysis: The methodology employed to evaluate the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the accepted procedure for unsignalized 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ~ . , - 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) 1990 existing conditions, (2) projected 1991 No-Build conditions, and (3) the 1991 Builld 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 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 ingess and egress at the intersections and the site driveways. .. Access, Circulation and Parkins: Access is provided by separate ingress and e~ress. drive. ways with separate left turn and right turn exit lanes for the exit driveway. GeomA~'liII'" finn, circulation and pa.rkiIJI are sufficient for good 80wi Parkin~ is provided in accordance with the Town of Southold code, including land-banked stalls, WIth acceptable layout and dimensions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. Parking areas are properly separated from the drive-thru-window operation. The report cites 6 to 8 car queues at the drive-thru- window at the McDonald's in Riverhead, with a maximum of 8. Storage for a minimum queue of 8 is recommended. TI)e,~ site satisfies that minimum/ Recommendations II1rd Conclusions..,. 1. f , 2. t 3. t 4. CRAMER, V ENVIRONMENT Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated. The analysis to determine the directional distribution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary. The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass-by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review. ~ .' 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 o~ /er traffic volumes in the future. SOCIATES G CONSULTANTS CRAMER, VO~~.IATES ENVUlONIlfENTA" "'-i . CON$l,IUANTS . ~ .suf;f":,u:; P6 ~r V;) FAX . TRANSMITTAL QEC Fu N"lflb~r (~16) 331-6046 ])a le: iJ~~ISL/? /~ /090 Z?o~ &~N&? ~r.:. ){O/? tf"7 S , fife .lJ./J/lA"'h.,(j ~ . J"Yj1"1/1 TI,.1 c< / To: From: He: Number of Pages (including cover): 3; lr the Lollll LI'Qn.rnillQI Is Ilot received cull numuol' belcl\Y, Commenls: 80"/ 4rre---.:) IS /V<. a1/~~ . ~ C /Z(;:y'/N 1-4~ //~ G' A..;Z c- s. CVCrvh_ f'OIt'J~ wlhCff W(7 /"ail.. S/~1A!J tzE- C4-A./'S1 tJ 5)2 CO (s ~ r'O/NIS tSrS' 1-'1) _ 'I cv I L<.. 6 rs-r ,4 ;?r:y I CY\.J t C7T6;Y? )10 Y() U (/AJ H (lA-AJ /I-f Nv2 ()I.I~(. - r'i'UJ :;c;z,.., . /I-/A.,vfc So 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MII.:L!:A plAce, NY 11764 (516)331-1455 ;;fi""1"" l'~ . CRAMEFI, vo~'~i~ ~;A$SOCIATES ENVIAONMENT/l:~U~,N"D:t0N'~I:~G CONSUL T.J\NTS . To: Town of Southold Planning Board From: Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. DatE:: December 14, 1990 Review of Traffic Impact Study McDonald's, ROllte 25, Mattituck DEG "i Re: Traffic Impact S1wh Review The report was prepared using sound traffic engineering practices and follow~r.1 !he analytical metbodology detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. Selected calculations were checked using HeM software and the results were consistent with the report. A summary of the study follows. Directional Distribution: In determining the ori$ins and destinations for site generated traffi~, a directional distribution was performed utiliZing census information frem the publication ''Population Swvey" and from turning movement counts at kev intersections nearby. It would be helpful to see the actual analysis and the components of the generated and pass-by trip~ in the distribution. The conc\usfon of 62% exiting traffic turning right and 38% turn:ng left seems imbalanced and should be supported. Generated Traffic: A good approach was employed by conducting a stud" at M existing McDonald's in Riverhead, not far from the site. Empirical data was caliected to calculate gene ration rates using the average of the observed rate per 1,000 SF of gross floor area and tbe observed rate per restaurant seat. Since the volumes on the roadwav adinc. ent to the proposed site are lower that those at the Riverhead McDonald's, this is 'n con~ervative approach. It is noted that the weekday counts in Riverhead could have been extended to include 6 P.M. to 7 P.M. since the peak period of the generator is not always coindderllal with the peak period of the adjacent roadway. Pass-by Tra!fip The report cites various studies on the amount of traffic diverted to a McDonald s facility from the existing traffic stream. Some studies were more than ten years old and some exceptional cases were noted. Citing the higher observed diversions, a 70C;" pass-by rate was deemed acceptable by the study. Given fhe volume of the acja.:ent roadway (MDT = 11,500) and the seasonal nature of the area, a more conservative pass-by cre.-.;it consistent with a typical facility is appropriate. 50% is recommended. Driv,~.Thndt7ndow: Since the existing McDonald's restaurant in Riverhead h"s a drive-tiE ,,- window, the generation rates based on that operation have the effect of a. drive-thru-windnv already factored in. Studies have shown that drive-thm-windows generally result in a 4% incr,~ase in daily volumes, However, those increases occur during non-peak pedod'; lIOd thus are not considered a significant factor affecting a peak period analysis. Un.signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis: The methodolOgy employed to evalu~te the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed facility is the accept eo procedure for nnsignaliled PUl)t 1 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 33101455 .. . , McDonahr.l$, rAattith'k T....llit R., i"W inter:;ections detailed in the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual. The analysis determires t~le lengths of the gaps necessary to safery execute given turning movement, :.md how m"ny S,l':.: gaps exist in the traffic stream during the analysis period. The turning movement Ge;n~ '''b. are then comp~r~d to the .a:ailability o~ corresponding gal?s. The~e. analyses ",;.el'e p~rkn:. ;: for (L) 1990 eXisting condItIOns, (2) proJected 1991 No-BUIld condltlons, and (.0) the 199 j Build scenario. The results indicate sUlficient gaps in traffic to permit safe ingress aid :gre',> at th" site driveways and nearby intersections. 1t is suggested tliat the level of sClvice If:n:)t,, of these analyses be arrayed for easier evaluation and corroboration of conclu.;ions in the text that "... there wU! be a sufficient !lumber of gaps in the traffic flow to a!:ow for safe inf'css and l~gress at the intersections and the site driveways. " ~ A~cess, Circulation and P(1jk!ng: Access!s ~rovided by sep'ara~e ingress and egress dri\'~w~j; with separate left turn and nght turn eXIt ,anes for the eXIt dnveway. Geometrics for J.c:~s' circulation and parking are sufficient for good flow. Parkin~ is pro'.ided in ac<;ordar:. ~ "~I r'. the Town of Southold code, induding land.banked stalls, WIth acceptable layout an:: dimensions suitable for comfortable maneuvering. Parking areas are prc,perly st?a~a:ed from the drive-thru-window operation. The report cites 6 to 8 car queues at the dri,.,,.,hL- window at the McDonald's in Riverhead, with a maximum of 8. Storage for a minimum que\:,e of 8 is recommended. The proposed site satisfi.:s that minimum. Recommendations and Conclusions: 1. Trips generated by the proposed facility shouid be recalculated ba:;ed on a maxin;urr. pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections retvalL,ated. The ~1):SislOdeleLmille the directionaLdisllibution shOuld be provided and reassignments made if necessary. The ~apacity. an~lysis sh.ou\d b~ re~alculated ll,ase9 on ~!}x.changes from. the I''''s l'y creda and directlOnal dlstnbutlon. Levels 01 se!Vlce should be arrlyed to: t:,y review. "l ~. 3. 4. The Town of Southold, in conjunction with the NYSDOT, may wish to (e9.Jjr~ :he construction of a w~stbound 1...'ftlVrn ~!1.~_911-RQute,2S for improved traffIC s<1'ety Jrd in anticipation of hlgher traffle vo,umes In tIle future. {lEe 1 CRAMER, V~~\ ~SOCIATES ENVIRONMEN~~~I\~~G CONSUL TANTS Pu~.! [lEe 18'90.-09: 48 . . Dc:C. 18. lcJC)Q! TO: SGUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD FROM: f~NRY RAYNOR RE, MACDONALD'S SITE PLAN PLE~SE FORWARD ANY CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO SEQRA AND SITE PLAN QUESTIONS DURING SEQRA. THW WILL ENABLE f',PPLICANT TO ADDRESS ~INY FURnlER CONcEf<NS THE PLANNING BOARD MAY HAVE IN AN ORDERLY FASHION. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING A LETTER HAS ALREADY BEEN SUBMITTED FRCM THE ~mRTH FORr', t:N'iI RO~H~Et,!"J'AL COUNSEL. PLEASE ["ORWARD COFY OF SAME. YOWl TRULY, CtJ_~" /(, . HENRY Ri'lYNdR ~ DEe \3 ---..~-_._-' -- --,- . or "~____..___~~ SI/3n~ IfK ;:>6 !(p- ~ 9..d. =1', <>t4-. ( . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York] 1971 Fax (516) 765-1823 December 18, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattitu~k, N~w-York 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonalds Corporation SCTM#1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolutions were duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Monday, December 17, 1990. BE IT RESOLVED to adopt the Town Engineer's report dated Noverr~er 28, 1990. BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board, acting under the State Environmental Quality Review Act, assume lead agency status on this unlisted action. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, ~!!!t:~, /~, Chairman r ~ Encl. ! . . ....,. . ~..' . W'. ,.,~, ~..'" t: ~'~,. , '. .. U' ' -:-,~ -:, '~','~;~ ~: FOUNDER Sidney B. Bowne, P.lO., L.S. (1922-1!l59) PARTNERS Chester C. Kersey, P. E., L.S. RobertA. Stanton, P.:. AobertW. Brown, L.~i. Zabdi,aIA. Blackman, P,E., L.S. Frank J. Antetomaso, P.E. ASSOCIATES GeorgeA. Style, P,E. Jerry D. Almont, P.E. George L. Fagan, Jr., "h.O., P.E. Frank Capobianco, C.E. r>a,.IF, Stflv..ns P.E. Roger L.. Cocchi, P.E. SPECIAL CONSUL TANTS Thomas R. Pynchon, 1..5. Prof. H. F. Soehngen, P,E., loS. SENIOR STAFF FranCls.J.lynch PhihpSc:hloUhauer Joseph F. Stegman Wilham T. Styne RichardS,Weber Ralph Anderson, L.S. A. Barton Cass, P.E. FredflcC. Gfllfiths, Jr., L.S. Andrlam Hams, P,L G'8gg0. Kelsey, P.E. Dane C. Kenny, P.E. Howard W. Miller, P.E, Richard P. Srulzah. P.E. -~---_...~~ _......& SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON S-/V3Alk ~J< 16 .J Y(,OIT/:]2 November 28, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Ma inRoad Southold, NY 11971 Re: '~cDona 1 d's at i~att i tuck S.C.T.M. 1000-122-7-3.1 SBB No. 87674 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have reviewed the drainage plan for the above refer- enced project and we have the following comments: 1. The proposed drainage is adequate for all paved areas. 2. It is not clear how grassed areas will be graded and drained. All runoff directed toward paved areas must be handled by additional depth of appropriate structures. Upon receipt of a plan revised to show this information, we will complete our review. Very truly yours, ZL:1i @;,g71[((iJ.L~ 9~ V NCENT MARICONDA VI~: 1 s l ,_' 45 Manor Road . Smithtown. New York 11787. (516) 724.0611 235 East Jericho Turnpike . P.O. Box 109. Mineola, New York 11501 . (516) 746.2350 ( ~ Phone 298-8833 MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT P.O" BOX 666, 1000 PIKE STREET MATTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11952 December 4, 1990 Planning Board Office Town of Southold Southold, N.Y. 11971 Re: SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 McDonald's Restaurant, Main Road, Mattituck Gentlemen: Enclosed please find plans for the above mentioned site with the required Fire Well location marked in red. ** Specification as to a shallow or submersible well will be determined by the well drilling contractor. As to the requested rear access to this site, please note that the Fire Department will require key access to any gate that may be installed. Site owner should be notified that a common keyed lock as used on fire department equipment is available if needed. Cordially, e South **Well location: Approximately 25' East of side of Main Road. c ( . ;- ~~.lc;\-;on!~ ::{f~~ October 15, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Town of Southhold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southhold, New York 11971 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: Thi.s submittal is in response to comments in your letter addressed to Henry Raynor dated August 10, 1990, in regard to the above application. Since then, we have met with your staff on several occasions in an effort to address your concerns. Thi.s package reflects our considerable progress to date. We understand that the site plan herein is subject to additional modification, pending further review by the Town and McDonald's Corporation. We believe this submittal completes our application before you, and look forward to the next phase in the review process. Should you have any questions, please call me at (516) 872-0202. Thank you and your staff for your ongoing cooperation. Very truly yours, g:/ ~/7 '/ /' ~~./~-(~~ Ernest P. Annibale Project Manager Ne~' York Region as/2806A cc: Randy Young Tony Bonwell Judy Pascucci P. Mineo H. Raynor Raymond Fellman Associates MTK Enterprises File . BOWNE FOUNDER Sidney 8. Bowne, P.E. L.S. (1922-19~9) PARTNERS Chester C. Kelsey, P.E ,L.S. RobertA. Stanton, P,E, Ro bert W. Brown, L.S. Zabdiel A. Blackman, P.E., L.S. Frallk J. Antetomaso, P.E. ASSOCIATES GeorgeA. Style, P.E. Jerry D. Almont, P,E. George L. Fagan, Jr., Ph.D., P.E. Frank Capobianco, C.E. Papl F. Stf'!Vf'lIlS P.E. Roger L. Cocchi, P.E. SPECIAL CONSUL TAr- T5 Thomas R. Pynchon, L.S. Prof. H. F. Soehngen, f'.E., L.S. SENIOR STAFF FrancisJ. Lynch Philip Schlotzhauer Joseph F. Stegman William T. Styne RichardS.Weber Ralph Anderson, L.S. A. Barton Cass, P.E. Fredric C. Griffiths, Jr.,LS. Andnani Harris, P,E. GreggG. Kelsey, P.E. Dane C. Kenny, P.E. ~oward W. Miller, P.E. Richard P. Slutzah, P.E. SIDNEY B. BOWNE & SON SA fflr..k ~~ f6 .J f( ((jf~-,e. r . ,,~. ,,-.~. """", //'11-"/) ?"-;..,,,... November 28, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Re: McDonald's at Mattituck S.C.T.M. 1000-122-7-3.1 SB9 No. 87674 Dear Mr. Orlowski: We have revi ewed the dra i nage plan for the above refer- enced project and we have the following comments: 1. The proposed drainage is adequate for all paved areas. 2. It is not clear how grassed areas will be graded and drained. All runoff directed toward paved areas must be handled by additional depth of appropriate structures. Upon receipt of a plan revised to show this information, we will complete our review. Very truly yours, ~~~/-xlCiM.j 9~ V CENT MARICONDA W1:1s 'il' I\!\: 45 Manor Road . Smithtown, New York 11787. (516) 724 - 0611 235 East Jericho Turnpike. P.O. Box 109 Mineola, New York 11501 . (516) 746 - 2350 t'OUNTY OF SUFFOLK \ :9.J~f'l~ ,f/<. PATRICK G. HALPIN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE JOSEPH P. HURLEY, P.E. COMMISSIONER DEPAI~TMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS November 26, 1990 Town of Southold Planning Board Office 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 At tent i on: Robert G. Kassner RE: McDOIALD'S CORP. - lOT 01 COUITY ROAD Gentlemen: Since this proposed development is not adjacent to a County maintained road or a road proposed for improvements by the County, a permit will not be requlred from this Department. This development fronts a roadway maintained by the NYSDOT, We are forwarding this referral and plans to them for their review and comments. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, Very truly yours, C. ROGER MEEKER CHIEF ENGINEER "--- /' 1tIIlf([L By: M. Paul Campagnol Junior Civil Engineer CRM/MPCljfb cc: Vito Lena, Regional Permits Engineer, NYSDOT . DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. BOX !59. YAP-HANK, N.Y. 11980-oo!59 (151 6) 282.1 600 FAX 0516l282-1E'159 FAX (!516l 282-1 7'63 ,. -- ',- '" , . ; .J- , /;"~.) .,-, -, Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Soulhold, New York 11971 , ~~-:; SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 1~~.2. r , 197.:> John A. Keogh, Secretary Mattituck Fire District Pike Street Mattituck, New York 11952 Dear Mr. Keogh: ~.~~Enclosed please find {2~u~eY~fO~ ~ ~~4Dh?"'~ ~ ~sc:r~;/o..g-}JJ.-'!'-J,. Please nO;ifY this office as :0 whether any firewells are needed. Please specify whether shallow wells or electric wells will be needed. Please reply bY~P~. I ~ , 1990. Thank you for your cooperation. a~crs Bennett Orlowski, JF. Chairman enc. hp . .. . ~~FILE -s.L &Ff ce:- R.K. ,0 BOARD MEMBERS (Orlowski, Jr., Chail1Ilan .orgo Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard O. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth 1.. Edwards scon L. -HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Suuthold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765.1823 , Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold. Town Planning Board P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: t1~~u:"" ~~f'. SCTM No. IOOO.IU.."1-3.1 S.B. File No. OtJlls.sl~t-leD Dear Mr. Orlowski, Jr., It is estimated that the cost application as per your letter of exceed $ 5~ No work in excess of that amount will be und.ertaken by this offi:e unless so authorized by the Planning Board in writing. of reviewing the above-noted NOV.! , 1910' should not Please notify this office in writing if ou wish us to unde:rtake the review. Southold Town Planning Board Facslmile Number: 765-1823 ," "J j ;, NO'! 1 4 \ ..~-. - . : , ---..,...." .'~"-_..,.....~,>,">....-. .......--t...'..- "'-~--""""-.'._'''''- ~:"-~.' I c PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF sourn~ Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 //1 1990 / 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 3. Issues of concern which you believe should be evaluated. Enclosed please find a copy of Environmental Assessment Form ( AF) Proj ect Name: "E. a completed your response. Requested Action: Cont3.ct Person: SEQRA Classification: ( ) Type I ( )<) Unlisted 170 B&,fr G. /!ri-S5/iE~ (516)-765-1938 ( ( The lead agency will determine the impact statement (ElS) on this project. th.e date of this letter, please respond have an interest in being lead agency. need for an environmental Within thirty (30) days of in writing whether or not you 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. Sincerely, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc : '* Board of Appeals . ~o~rd of T~u~L~~~ -1< Building' Department Southold Town Board ~Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services NYSDEC - Stony Brook NygDl,;:C Al13aRY ~ S. c. Dept. of Public Works U..:3. ALWY C.....lp of Eu.":::I~.L.lt;;t;:;.L;;;;' ~N.Y.S. Dept. of Transportation_ * Naps are enclosed for your review Coordinating agencies ._~...:..._'-.---i .~ I!! ( DATE []J~uu~OO @[f 'uB,%~~[TI]Duu,%[L ':;;;IJbA(E I?f~ 'OB NO. 82:=;') , '0 RAYMONO F. FELLMAN ARClilTECT A.I.A. 570 BROADWA1'. AMITYVILLE. NV 11701. (516) 789-3555 10222 GLACIER CI)URT. ORLANDO .FL 32809. (305) 351-4596 "' TO 1WJt~ -CF CbJf1t1IDLD ~~ pANNi\~n \ WE ARE SENDING YO~ttaChed 0 Under separate cover Via o Shop draWings ~rints 0 Plans o Copy of letter 0 Change order 0 the following items: o Samples 0 Specifications COPIES DATE DESCRIPTION n .t:; - THESE ARE TRANSMITIED as checked below: o For approval ':'-~or your use "'0 A:5 requested o For review and comment o Approved as submitted 0 Resubmit_copies for approval o Approved as noted 0 Submit_copies for distribution o Returned for corrections 0 Return_corrected prints o o FOR BIDS DUE 19 0 PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS A~ 12U2.RC-rtb ~1f;~lk -----t(2 O~\ M (-rJ-:Nb{ 0 ~ (CftJ /1 COpy TO-f~)( (~ ,1 SIGNE~I\"~ l0fn (:('; ('B PRODUCT24(l.2~lnc,G'mon,Mass.0147J If enclosures are not a. noted. k.indly notify us .t once. t !...,~,'-::'':'~. . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards -~~ v.'Jfn ~_ /{ ','1 '-<';'ZZL> scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 November 14, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, New York 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonalds Corporation SCTM#1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The following resolution was duly adopted by the Southold Town Planning Board at a meeting held on Tuesday, November 13, 1990: BE IT RESOLVED that the Southold Town Planning Board having received a complete application, start the coordination process on this unlisted action. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any questions regarding the above. Very truly yours, l!:::~:!(7!1;"5 Chairman ( ~ .l . " . . "' ~ ~, ( )" . .':' scon L. HARRIS Supervisor .. , ! j " ,,>', .,..""",~ '''1 , l PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Dennen Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ;.~...v.,.... 'c.____- Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (5 i 6) 765,1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTH OLD Fax (516) 765-1823 1~/d7.N<.'''' k~ ?, I '1 7 () RobeJ:t W. Brown Sidney B. Bowne & Son 45 Momor Road Smithtown, New York 11787 Dear Mr. Brown The Southold Town Planning Board hereby refers the following application to your office for review. Application Name:_p~opc>5e1> s.lre Pt.,f-/t ro,< /)fc ODr{ ,,1,-]) S Co~p. Tax Map No.: .5~r'" #- lo~- 1-'-~-7-J.1 Bowne File No.: Hamlet Location: 111 A-"'Jrue K' / So <eTlloLl) , Type of Application: Sketch Subdivision Map (Dated / / Preliminary Subdivision Map (Dated / / Final subdivision Map (Dated / / Road Profiles (Dated / / Gradinq and Drainaqe Plans (Dated / / Other (Dated / / Sketch Site Plan (Dated / / ) Preliminary Site Plan (Dated / / ) Gradinq and Drainaqe Plans (Dated If / 6 //0 ) Other (Dated / / ) f~ . Please develop an estimate of what it will cost to under.take the fOllowing review of the enclosed plan (s): l?p~-----1f d# ~:1Y /.-.k~.4'L.~ L; -' Enter the cost estimate on the enclosed reply sheet, then send its facsimile to this office. If the Planning review, it will send the work to be done. through the mail. Board wishes you to proceed with the a facsimile of a purchase order authorizing The actua.l purchase order will be sent If there are any questions, please contact Planning Staff. Very Truly Yours, ()~(fJ Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman cc: Ray Jacobs, Highway Department (j . " "...\ "'- '. .~, "1r" ~__~ <.1 ,;., J "Jr . >C. .~ : .:;-~ " f . "'.:>/ ., ,- ~ SCOlT L.HARRIS Supervisor -" PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ~~ ~-~ ..-,/ --''-0.''-'__--. Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman Southold Town Planning Board P.O.Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: SCTM No. S.B. File No. Dear Mr. Orlowski, Jr., It is estimated that the cost application as per your letter of exceed $ of reviewing the above-noted ,19 should not No work in excess of that amount will be undertaken by this offi~e unless so authorized by the Planning Board in writing. Please notify this office in writing if you wish us to undet"take the review. Very Truly Yours, Robert W. Brown Southold Town Planning Board Facs:lmile Number: 765-1823 . ~ p-' ',~, A .F , . Ii ',,; ,-: . ,/",\\(1""1 /"c~ / ::"....... ..:~ ...."y,.., / ,~_i: >"'-. '. \":1. ~ ,.,.;,,_C~.. ...fi'.: '.:....t.......y ?- ~ .,= , \,.", =..:1 . "~:::::' ~. , ,'i.~" ,...,.., ~ \ ~ ~ "', :<""- ~ /1 I. "1:> ,~, , ... - .' \., ;" ..,~ ,.'~\;\ \,:' In, ., \0_ .~_#. ;l / , \t PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOlT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P,O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Fax (516) 765-1823 November 8, 1990 HenLY Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck NY 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has received a cost estimate of $600.00 from their Environmental Consultant for review of the Long Environmental Assessment Form, and an estimate of $800.00 for a review of the Traffic Impact Study. A copy of the estimate is enclosed. The sum of $1,400.00 must be paid in full by your client before we can authorize our consultant to proceed with the review. The check(s) should be made payable to the Town of Southold. When the consultants complete their review, the Planning BoaJ~d will consider their findings in making a determination of whether the project will have a significant environmental impact. Very truly yours, /2. /} / . /1. / O--n'}uC0 CJL.L{d7Y12-~; :JI~>ti Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman enc, cc: Judy Pascucci, Real Estate Representative William A. Diconza Esq., D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo, and Carlino -'" ;;',~, l' ,AMER, VOORHIS, &);SSOClh reS ='V,ViilONMENTAl. AND,PlANNING CONSULTANTS - .:" ';'/j~ ' I ,J-(I:Y' Ice; A!( Is Mr, Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Sou thold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 November 6, 1990 Re: MacDonalds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7.3.2 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of your request for a cost estimate for review of the ahove referenced Tr:.lffic Impact Study and Long EAF. The following is provided for your review and consideration. Trallie Imp"ct Study Review rcpon for accuracy and provide a letter 10 the Planning Board, Letter will indicate either if the ",nducion5 of the report are vaiid bJsed upon the method of analys,s, or will outline deficiencies and addition;)l nccl.!cd information for the B()ard's consideration. The fee for thi, service is $80000 Long EAF Review )<tvi~w PMt ! LF'AF: Field inspect parcel, determine accur;)cy of ;nform;)tion provided and ~()rrcct/iniiial as m:ccss.ary. P"'n~rJ; P,;;t li Lf'AF; Complete Pan II LEAF chcckli$t, and u,e" a basis for providing (urther narr~!ive on the in'portJnce, magnitude and mitigation associated with the project. P'.D"'C Part III LEAF' Prepare p,tft 1Il LEAF narrative to discuss potenti;)1 impacts identified in Part 11. NarrJtive will be brief in discussing imporl;)nce, magnitude and mitigation a"ociatcd with a project. Norra,ive wHl prOYiJc a basi, for the Determin;)lion of Significance, DGlfi DC'l!,;rmi";,li,'n ill SiQnjli(,"~('e: Ba,ed upon Tasks 1 through 3, prepare a recommendcd Ddcrminalion of Significance (Negative Declaration, Conditioned Negative Declaration, Positive Declaration). This document will be intended to fulfill the SEQR requirement' providing reasons for thc del",min;)lion in the appropri;)te (ormat for a Delermin;)tion of Significance. The fees for the',e services arc ;)s folluws: Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 $260.00 40,00 2(,0,00 ~ $(,00.00 Pagtt of2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD, MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331.1455 ---- . - ~'\ -. ..CI.", ... .. ....- '\ ClIAMER, '"Oq,cr~l~i\ '''''',AONMENTAL ~ . . seClAlES CONSULTANTS FA.X TI~ANS~1ITTAL rux Nurnb~r (~16) 331-0016 Dale: j;~u, ~ /990 !?G';VI i 7' a UJcJ~ Ie // t:;;ra/r::". ;;; O~A ? G'hr 1/bu/~,6;) /VA<: J:4A/'/'nAS iZvll'5?\/ To: From: He: Nurnbcr of Pages (including cover): I:i tho Lot..j tn,n,rnilloJ i. \lot fo"dved cull numb,,,' below. <:: ~ Comment s: ffi ;J~ V$vrZ 12~{/53T, rt}eIV,..v'vh IS IN !vih~, ~ Ir (?~na-<fl\, !,4 NonTt-1 COUNTnv nOAD. MI~lCR PLAcE NY 117C.1 (S16) 331-1455 ~~;'~""'" . -:-... II. .-...-........~.....".~"_.;..""'-..___,~__~_ . ...: .......~>""- f/J '^- LT/(. 0/'1 1/- J"7-;, ~.... .L T/(. O/'f Ii -J--7o ~? c./f,f _ . . , , . ~-..:> _ - ~l'()~~\ \ .' ~:.1 ~'-. ;". .....- . '" ......~'/-~-} ''I, ;.- I ~'-/ ." PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchi!~ Latham. Jf. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L Edwards ;-.~2 ~ ~:.ii SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765.1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 November 5, 1990 Thoma.s Cramer Charles Voorhis Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, Inc. 54 N. Country Road Miller Place, NY 11764 RE: McDonalds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Messrs. Cramer and Voorhis: The Traffic Impact Study for the above-referenced proposed McDonalds Restaurant was received by this office on October 29, 1990 and given to you on October 31, 1990. Please send an estimate for the cost of reviewing this document for completeness. After receiving written authorization from this office, proceed with your review. Also being sent under seperate cover is a Full Environmental Assessment Form for your review and cost estimate. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Enc. '" .... ~ ..'^ l . ".\'\ "".\' CRAMER, VOORHIS ~:ASSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAl. AND,PLANNING CONSULTANTS ~"" ~' ':~' lj',W.. :,.'\'\ . ~~(Lt ls- Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Ch~lirman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: November 6,1990 MacDonalds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7.3.2 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of YOllr request for a cost estimate for review of the above referenced Traffic rmpact Stud)' and Long EAF. The following is provided for your review and consideration. Tranie Impact Study Revkw repon for accuracy and provide a lettcr to the Planning Board, Lctler will indicate either if the conclusions of thc report arc valid bascd upon the mcthod o( analysis, or will outline deficiencies and addilional needed information for lhe Board's consideration. The fce for this service is $80000 Long EAt Review Revi",!! &u r LF'A F: Field in<peet parcel, determine 3ecurocy of information provided and correct/initial as necessary. Prcn~re P,,'lll LEAF; Complete Part II LEAF checklist, and u<e a< a basis (or providing further narrative on (he import"nee, magnitude and mitigation associated with the project. Eren~re Eil.tlll! U::AF; Prcpare Part III LEAF narrative to discuss potential impacts idcntilied in Part II. N~rr~live will be brier in discussing imporlance, magnitude and mitigation associated with a pfOjecl. Narr~tive will provide a basis for thc Determination ofSignifie"nee. Drafl Oclerrninalion ill Sicnilieance: Ba<ed upon Tasks 1 thrOllgh 3, prepare a rccommended Delermination of Significance (Neg~tive Declaration, Conditioned Negative Dcclaration, Positive Declaration). Thi< document will be intended to fullillthe SEQR requirement< pfOviding reasons for the d.:t.:rmiOUlion in the appropriate (ormat (or a Determination o( Signilicance. The fees for these services arc as folluws: Ta<k 1 Ta<k 2 Ta<k 3 Ta<k 4 $260.00 40.00 2(,0.00 ~ $(,O().OO ,-'\,' ., Page I of2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. MILLER PLACE, NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 .I ~ . ( MacOonalds Review Southold Planning Board I hope this provides you with the information you need. Please do not hesitate to call if yeu have any questions. cc: Valerie Scopaz G\j .. Page 2 of2 \~ t) . CRAMER, VOORHIS &l\SSOCIATES ENVIRONMENTAL AND i"L.ANNING CONSULTANTS YvtM ()~ jZlC November 6, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Southold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Re: MacDonalds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Benny: We are in receipt of your request for a cost estimate for review of the above referenced Traffic Impact Study and Long EAF. The following is provided for your review and consideration. Tranic Impact Study Rcvicw report for accuracy and provide a Jettcr to the Planning Board. Letter will indicate either if the conclusions of the report are valid based upon the method of analysis, or will outline deficiencies and additional ncedcd information for the Board's consideration. Thc fce for this service is $800.00 Long EAF Review Review Part! LEAF: Field inspect parcel, determine accuracy of information provided and correct/initial as necessary. Pre Dare Part !! LEAF: Complete Part II LEAF checklist, and use as a basis for providing further narrative on the importance, magnitude and mitigation associated with the project. PreDare Part III LEAF: Prepare Part III LEAF narrative to discuss potential impacts identified in Part II. Narrative will be brier in discussing importance, magnitude and mitigation associated with a project. Narrative will provide a basis for i.he Determination of Significance. Draft Determination of Significance: Based upon Tasks 1 through 3, prepare a recommended Determination of Significanee (Negative Declaration, Conditioned Negative Declaration, Positive Declaration). This document will be intended to fulfill the SEQR requirements providing reasons for the determination in the appropriate format for a Determination of Significance. The fees for these services are as follows: Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 $260.00 40.00 260.00 -1QJ!Q $600.00 ~nv - 8 Page 1 of2 54 NORTH COUNTRY ROAD. MILLER PLACE. NY 11764 (516) 331-1455 ~ ,~ \) . MacDonalds Review Soutbold Planning Board I hope this provides you with the information you need. Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions. Charles J. Voorhis cc: Valerie Scopaz Ig\\f R CRAMER, v~J..\ 14s0CIATES ENVIRONMENT~~,\,~G CONSULTANTS Page2or2 ~0;:;',~'~. \:IiF \,\\\ 'l . jl{ I~Fi '-t i?!C 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 October 18, 1990 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Suuchold, NY llY/l 11; ') .'-' RE: Site plan application of McDonald's Corporation at Mattituck, NY 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Sirs: Pursuant to today, the requested your letter of October 12,1990, revised site plan indicating the in your Item 1. I have delivered proposed parking The amended plan also stipulates for pavers to gain access for emergency vehicles from Old Main Road to the site. The parking layout has bem amended pursuant to your Item 3. This 15 in full compliance with the three items requested. With regard to the roof sign,please note that it is the only slgn on the building. The three dog house dormers requested will be shown as two so that we can accomodate same. As this is a minor factor with regard to your request, and a very pertinent factore with regard to the operation and recognition of this business, I would request the Board's agreement on this. Also under separate cover, we have study prepared by Dunn Engineering fOI:warded for your the traffic review. Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, ~S~;~ HR:ml CC: Judy Pascucci Ernest Annabel .~ I!! , t [lJ~uu[OO .. uOO~~~[Kj] Duu~LL RAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT A.I.A. 570 BROADWAY. AMITYYILLE. NY 11701. (516) 789-3555 10222 GLACIER COURT. ORLANOO .FL 32809. (305) 351-4598 DATE ATTENTI TO .~ {' - '., . . .~. .~Ci~ !: 'I ., > WE ARE SENDING YOU "AttaChed D Under separate cover via ' the following items: SubHU;:- D Shop drawings ~prints D Plans ,.,' p Sa~les r D ~pecifications D Copy of letter D Change order )( i~n1!(1,1~1 (J(':l\O( lr;:OJ :lei COPIES DATE NO. 1'1 THESE ARE TR/\NSMITTED as checked below: D FN approval o Fer your use o As requested ~~or review and comment D FOR BIDS DUE D Approved as submitted D Resubmit_copies for approval D Approved as noted C Submit_copies for distribution o Returned for corrections 0 Return_corrected prints D 19 D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS 8-2 COpy TO filif ~. SIGNED, ( ~[)(jCTlllt-2 {~~I"C,G"'t"'M"",J!~!1 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us a once. .~ . PLANNING BOA RD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchit: Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1197 I Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: FRml: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman 'B.D. 70s Refund of Application Fee for McDonald's Site Plan RE: DATE: October 24, 1990 Please place a resolution on the next Town Board meeting to refund the application fee for the McDonald's site plan. The reason for the refund is that the application has been returned to t:he applicant's agent. The check was signed by Raymond F. Fellman, Architect, in the amount of $580.00. The Town Clerk's receipt number is 36579. The date of the receipt was August 10, 1990. cc: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk t . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman George Ritchie Latham, Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOIT L.HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 19, 1990 Certif' i mA;l: P-531 924 798 Henry ;( 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDona1ds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.2 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has reviewed your application and finds it to be incomplete. The roof sign indicated in your application is prohibited by Town Code, Article XX, Section 100-203.D. In addition, the Board found during its architectural review that the roof sign is inappropriate for this area. If you have any questions or require further assistance please contact this office. Very truly yours, t9./H/'U-CC &~ r/6 Bennett Orlowski Jr. / ~ Chairman _.' "I,'" . . McDonald's Corporation 70 E Sunnse Highway Suite 619 Valley Stream. New York 11581 516/872-0202 MCDona,ld"S October 15, 1990 u Mr. Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Town of Southhold Planning Board Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southhold, New York 11971 '1 Re: Proposed Site Plan for McDonald's Corporation SCTM #1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Orlowski: This submittal is in response to comments in your letter addressed to Henry Raynor dated August 10, 1990, in regard to the above application. Since then, we have met with your staff on several occasions in an effort to address your concerns. This package reflects our considerable progress to date. We understand that the site plan herein is subject to additional modification, pending further review by the Town and McDonald's Corporation. We believe this submittal completes our application before you, and look forward to the next phase in the review process. Should you have any questions, please call me at (516) 87:2-0202. Thank you and your staff for your ongoing cooperation. Very truly yours, f:F:~-~r~~-e~&_ ;-- . . Ernest P. Annibale Project Manager Nel~ York Region as/2806A cc: Randy Young Tony Bonwell Judy Pascucci P. Mineo H. Raynor Raymond Fellman Associates MTK Enterprises File }<-.., <'- .y' @ 10/29/90 To: Southold Town Planning Board From: Henry Raynor Re: McDonald's Corp Site Plan Enclosed herewith are site plans submitted per requested changes from Planning Board. Any questions please do not hesitate to call. please place this on the Nov. meeting schedule to commence processing. Front profile of building in forthcoming renderings to be submitted to reflect present rendering. H [;; I!' OCT 3 0 1990 ~ l.......,~ ~t;- , Sit bFI u:r !<:.k. pe:. .0." " .....'::'.."=,..,,._"'~..i October 17, 1990 Ms. Valerie Scopaz Planning Department Town of South old Main Road Seuthold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Scopaz: Dunn Engineering IIciates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 Sf! r5FicG Re: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck As agreed, enclosed please fInd five (5) copies of the Traffic Impact Study for the above project. It i:, our understanding that the revised site plan is to be sent to you directly from the office of Raymond Fellman, Architect. --. If you have any questions, or need any further information, please contact me. S:;':;? / /_ VINCENT CORRADO Senior Engineer VC(I;!nJ L900427 P90055 Ene. "0 . .~u.ar::~~~ "..<,:,,\..'J"U. I.>>~~ " 'i .,.... . . ~y"" J .":'",,' .' t~\,' ~.t- !./ ",::! : ," "\." ~;-~, _"I;~ ",,~. ""',,:- ~~: 1::::;, " " ;'..:::-1 Ie, ~ .( ';;,1 ,~ ',~ .7 '61'" ~,;,..r '?' ' _ ' "\,. \ '\ ~'."-~I "-O.;.)i ~! ',' ,\;' .,.<~:::~....wJ',)/ f PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S, McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1938 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P,O, Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 October 12, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY 11<;152 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDona1ds Corporation SCTM# 1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: This letter will confirm the details of our meeting of October 10, 1990. The following agreements were reached: 1. Fifty five (55) of the eighty nine (89) required parking spaces will be shown on the site plan. The remainder of the spaces will be shown as landscaping but available for future use. 2. Access to Old Main road for emergency vehicles will be provided. Pavers will be used to gain access for the emergency vehicles. 3. Parking layout will be as per the marked up plans given to you at the meeting. The Board requests that the roof sign be removed and that three (3) dog house dormers be installed. The Board also requests that the promised traffic study be submitted as soon as possible, so that exit and entrance requirements can be reviewed. . - If you have any questions or require further assistance please contact this office. Very truly yours, ~~/4A Bennett Orlowski, Jr. j/-: ~ Chairman Telephone (516) 765-1938 · ..~:~~l=.~.."....'~~ ,t:I'. i"'~':;;: ~{. ("1H....~.... .'t..~:~ A~ .,' i. ~~.'_\" ~ .\1= " .\.;" ~ '~'~;l~ 'i~Z:;; %~tV' PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchie Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards SCOTf L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 MEMORANDUM TO: Scott L. Harris, Supervisor Members of the Town Board . i'd-ILlS Bennett Orlowski, Jr., Chairman'O.O-'j . McDonald's Corporation: Recycling Program FROM: RE: DATE: October 11, 1990 In light of the Town's recent efforts to encourage recycling, you may find the enclosed material of interest. It explains the recycling program that the Mcdonald's Corporation plans to institute in the Mattituck facility. It also describes the compostiion of the food packaging. A copy of this material is available for public review in the Planning Board office. Enc. McDonald's Corporation 70 E. Sunrise Highway Suite 619 Valley Stream, New York 11581 516/872-0202 . . McDonalld'S '. September 26, 1990 Valerie Scopaz Town Planner Town Hall of Southhold Main Road Southhold, NY 11971 OGi 2 Dear Ms. Scopaz: Let lI,e begin by saying we share your concerns about our environment and will always look for ways to improve it. I'm glad we have this opportunity to put McDonald's Recycling Program into perspective. The fact is we actually began using polystyrene for some of our products in 1976 in direct response to the concerns of environmental groups. They noted that the use of paper packaging required the destruction of countless trees and its manufacture resulted in excessive energy usage and the pollution of nearby water resources, while polystyrene is made from petroleum by-products that are already with us, and its manufacture is both clean and energy efficient. We asked the Stanford Research Institute to examine the issue; they reported that our polystyrene packaging would have a less adverse environmental impact than paper, and we made the change. We've made it a priority to discuss this matter with experts in the packaging industry as well as with environmental experts. These are facts upon which we've based our current choice of packaging: The total amount of landfill space devoted to all quick service restaurants, convenience and grocery store polystyrene foam packaging is less than one-quarter of one percent (.14%). By contrast, newspapers account for over 14% of landfill space -- or approximately one hundred times more than all polystyrene. Disposable diapers, in fact, represent slightly over one percent of landfill space or about seven times as much as polystyrene food packaging. True, polystyrene doesn't degrade. But there are aspects of biodegradability that must be kept in mind...one specific problem with landfills is the fact that they contaminate soil and water through the leaching of inks, dyes, and other toxic residuals, and also the air through the emission of methane. Polystyrene, on the other hand, remains inert and intact, causing none of these problems as it compresses. as/2615A SU&::ILt 'PI? -re:> 2M September 26, 1990 Page 2 . . Further, the biodegrading of alternative packaging, such as paper, is misleading. Studies prove conclusively that paper may not degrade for forty or even sixty years. Dates are still clearly readable on the newspapers disposed of that long ago. (And, those newspapers weren't even coated with wax or plastic, as food wrapping paper would be.) And, even if the alternative packaging did eventually degrade, that wouldn't help the present shortage of landfill space. It would still take up space at the time of disposition and for some time thereafter. On August 5, 1987, McDonald's took the industry lead when we instructed our suppliers to begin prompt phase out of the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the manufacture of our foam packaging. The phase-out was completed as of December 31, 1988. Given the above, we at McDonald's believe that the best approach to the solid. waste problem is to minimize rather than substitute what goes into landfills. McDonald's is already our industry's largest user of recycled paper for non-food use, and we intend to expand that leadership even further. Effective this fall our "to go Bags" will be made from recycled paper! We are currently recycling in many of our restaurants. We plan to be recycling in all of our restaurants by April 1990. The Mattituck store will automatically be placed on the recycle program when it opens. The Mattituck restaurant will have special trash bins designated for recyclable items only. We have asked our dining room customers to separate their plastic and non-plastic items after their meal. The recyclable plastics go to reCYCling plants to be made into such items as flower pots, coat hangers and building insulation. I'm enclosing several brochures fact sheet with information regarding McDonald's position related to the solid waste issue. I'm sure you will find these brochures very informative. If you would like a tour of the Brooklyn Recycling facility, please feel free to contact me. Please be assured McDonald's is a responsible company. We have been continuously working towards solutions to the problems where we can make some meaningful impact. I sure this letter and the enclosed brochures will convince you that such is the case. Very truly yours, /~ ~l;titll!tYLit{{~.{~ / iJ Judy Pascucci Real Estate Representative New York Region as/2615A . McDonald's Recyclina Proaram . McDonald's Corporation 70 E. Sunrise Highway Suite 619 Valley Stream, New York 11581 516/872-0202 McDonalld's (ii; Fact Sheet OB,JECTlVE To improve the recycling of polystyrene and encourage the deqree of customer separation in McDonald's restaurants. FOJ\M FACTS o Polystyrene foam is 100% recyclable. There is no reason to throw it away. o Poly packaging is safe for the environment. o McDonald's uses poly packaging for the same reason that schools, hospitalS, and other restaurants do -- because it keeps our food fresh and hot for our customers and allows us to serve them in a portable, safe and sanitary manner. o Polystyrene packaging can be converted into useful, durable products, such as; McDonald's trays, office and kitchen supplies, videocassettes, building and insulation materials. CFC (CHLOROFLUOROCARBON) FACTS McDonald's polystyrene packaging contains no chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's), a material which is expected to affect the earth's ozone layer. We discontinued the use of any packaging containing CFC's in 1988. j pcl/2 611A . . paqe 2 September 25. 1990 WHAT DO CUSTOMERS HAVE TO DO TO ASSIST IN RECYCLING? Customers are encourage to separate polystyrene from other trash after they have consumed their meal. McDonald's has provided special trash containers located at major exits in our restaurants to assist the customers in separation of their trash. On top of each waste container are posters explaining to the customers what items should be place in the particular containers. WHl~T DO WE DO IN THE KITCHEN Thl! Recycling programs includes kitchen waste. We have designated two separate waste containers. one for recyclable polystyrene only and one for food and other waste items collected in our kitchen area. The polystyrene is then recycled in the same manner as the polystyrene collected from our lobby area. WHl~T HAPPENS TO THE RECYCLABLE MATERIAL? Trash bags containing the recyclable material are picked up from the stores by a hauler. The hauler on Long Island is Tri-State Recycling. Their responsibility is to inspect the trash bags for specific purity levels and haul the material to the recycling facility in Greenpoint. Brooklyn. jpa/2611A . . September 25, 1990 Pa'le 3 ~\T HAPPENS TO NON-RECYCLABLE TRASH? Each store contracts with private trash haulers. The trash is taken to landfills. The Greenpoint facility washes and grinds the polystyrene into plastic pellets. The pellets are than sold on the open market and are used to make useful, durable products, such as McDonald's in-store trays, office and kitchen products, videocassettes and building and insulation material. WHY SEPARATE MCDONALD'S TRASH? The purpose of separation is to obtain pure polystyrene. Food, paper and other items commingled with polystyrene make it difficult to recycle at the recycling facility. Technology has not: yet been developed to automatically separate recyclables from food, paper and other items. THl~ RECYCLER The Recycler is responsible for converting the polystyrene into reuseable material. If you would like to visit the polystyrene recycling facility at Greenpoint, please contact McDonald's representative and we will be happy to make arrangements. jpa/2611A . . FOAM PACKAGING VB. PAPER 0 & A Q.: Why doesn't McDonald's switch from pOlystyrene packaging to paper, which is biodegradable? A.: McDonald's has commissioned studies and evaluated the alternatives, and we're absolutely convinced that pOlystyrene is the most environmentally sound packaging available. The alternative, paperboard packaging, is necessarily coated for sanitation and consumer safety concerns and to retain the temperature of the food. Because coated paper packaging is a mixed material, it cannot be recycled. There are also a number of environmental trade-offs with paper, including deforestation, high energy consumption and water and air pollution in the manufacturing process. Q.: But isn't pOlystyrene non-biodegradable and damaging to the environment? A.: Polystyrene is non-biodegradable -- and that's precisely why it's NOT damaging to the environment. Because pOlystyrene is inert in a landfill, there is no risk of inks and dyes leaking into the ground water, a danger that exists with some paper products. POlystyrene is also 100\ recyclable, unlike coated paperboard manufactured for food service use -- so it is the one packaging material that can be eliminated from the waste stream -- totally and safely. o McDonald's pioneered polystyrene recycling programs across the country, and led the way for the largest-ever pOlystyrene recycling program involving 450 restaurants in the New England area. o Through recycling and packaging reduction initiatives, we're actually able to eliminate millions of pounds of packaging, thereby reducing the amount of waste going into the solid waste stream. Q.: But doesn't McDonald's polystyrene take up a large amount of landfill space? A.: HQ. In fact, ~ QSR packaging including foil, paper and plastic make up only 1/4 of one percent of a landfill, or only about four ounces per hundred pounds of solid waste. McDonald's packaging is just a small fraction of that, and our polystyrene, even less, according to archaeological evidence produced by Dr. William Rathje of the University of Arizona in Tucson. Also, since pOlystyrene is 93\ air, it compresses to a fraction of its original size in a 1 andf ill. as/2659A ~ . roAM PACKAGING VS. PAPER 0 & A (Cont'd.) Recent studies and excavations of landfills have proven that materials once thought to biodegrade in a landfill -- like newspapers - don't even biodegrade after 60 years, if at all. In fact, today's landfills are made to crevent biodegradation from occurring; in order to prevent against toxic leachates that result from materials biodegrading. Q.: Is McDonald's considering any packaging alternatives to polystyrene? A.: At McDonald's we're never satisfied with the ways things are today -- so we continue to look for improved packaging alternatives, as do our suppliers. To date, no alternative has proven as good as, or better, environmentally than polystyrene. If we found one, we'd use it. Q,,: What about using biodegradable plastic packaging? A.: McDonald's is interested in real environmental solutions; eliminatina rather than substitutina one material for another in a landfill. At this time, there are no cornstarch additives commercially available that are Food and Drug Administration approved for food packaging use. with the help of packaging and plastics industry experts, we have researched the effectiveness of new -biodegradable- plastics and at this time, there are serious questions about the degradability of this product. The technology requires that you actually use m2IA plastic, so this product takes up more landfill space than other plastic items. Environmentalists also believe that use of biodegradable plastics inhibits recycling efforts, since the mixed material cannot be recycled. . . SQll1~CE REDUCTION 0 &. A Q.: Has McDonald's made any efforts to cut down on the amount of trash you produce? A.: Yes. In addition to the recycling initiatives we're involved in, we've also made significant packaging reductions by modifying our packaging designs and changing to lighter packaging materials. We insist that our suppliers use as little packaging as possible for products delivered to our stores. Redesign of the shipping packs for our french fries and orange juice for example, has already amounted to a reduction of millions of pounds of packaging per year. Likewise, we redesigned much of the packaging for the food we serve our customers in order to use less material from the start. McDonald's is already one of the nation's largest users of recycled paper products, and we're increasing this effort by switching to recycled paper for our tray liners and Happy Meal boxes. Q.: Can you tell me the details of the new coke delivery system? A.: To stores not already using reusable tanks, soft drink mix used to be delivered to our restaurants in cardboard containers. Today, the syrup is pumped directly into the restaurant's own reusable tanks, a method that uses no disposable packaging. This new delivery system cuts millions of pounds of packaging out of the waste stream each year. Q.: How much more do you anticipate doing in the area of source reduction? A.: A lot. While I can't give you specific numbers, I can tell you that we are looking at a number of ways to do our part in managing solid waste. We agree with experts who say that the answer lies in the three R formula - reduce, recycle and reuse. McDonald's is actively participating in all three of these areas. . . ~INERATION 0 & A Q.: Doesn't incineration emit toxic gasses into the air? A.: The EPA-approved incinerator units used in McDonald's tests were closely monitored for emissions. The results indicate that emissions from these units were well below the federal guidelines, as well as the restrictions in 49 states. Based on the tests, incineration proved to be a safe, clean and efficient way to dispose of refuse. Q.: If incineration is so great, why aren't you testing more incinerators? A.: We have considered incineration as a possible alternative, as recommended by the EPA, but negative perceptions about incinerators have created strong opposition in many communities. And while incinerators are safe, and emissions fall well below federal guidelines, public opinion makes it difficult to secure permits for incineration tests. Incineration may be part of the solid waste solution, but it is not a program that could work for us because of our widely dispersed, multiple locations. We have no plans to test incineration in the future. Q.: What are the advantages of incineration? A.: Incineration reduces refuse to ash comprising 1/500th of its original volume, which drastically reduces the amount of material going into the solid waste stream. We have closely monitored the ash and emissions levels from incineration tests, and find them very safe and acceptable from an environmental standpoint. . i . ~) & A Q.: Why does McDonald's continue. to use polystyrene packaging with CFCs that damage the ozone layer? A.: We don't. All McDonald's polystyrene foam packaging is manufactured with hydrogen-based blowing agents. Even HCFC-22, a hydrogen-based chemical compound used to make ~ of our foam packaging has been recognized as a part of the solution to the ozone depletion problem by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the leading environmental organizations. Q.: Isn't HCFC-22 just a different name for harmful, ozone depleting CFCs? A.: Absolutely not. McDonald's and its packaging suppliers rely on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for determining what is, or is not, a CFC. We have been assured on more than one occasion, and in writing by the EPA, that HCFC-22 is n2t considered to be a CFC. In fact, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement by the United Nations which defines harmful CFCs, excludes HCFC-22 from its list of regulated chemicals. . , ~rN FOREST 0 & A 0: Is McDonald's contributing to the destruction of the rain forests, either directly or indirectly? A: Absolutely not. McDonald's does not purchase beef grown on rain forest land, or recently deforested rain forest land. In fact, McDonald's has a corporate pOlicy that states that in all cases McDonald's does not, has not and will not permit the destruction of tropical rain forests for our beef supply. This policy is strictly enforced and closely monitored, and any McDonald's supplier who is found to deviate from this policy or cannot prove compliance with it -- will be immediately terminated. . McDonald's is committed to using only locally produced and processed beef in every country where we have restaurants. For example, in the United States, we use only 100\ pure U.S. beef. In Canada, McDonald's uses only 100\ pure Canadian beef. And in the EEC, McDonald's restaurants use only EEC grown and processed beef. . In those isolated areas where domestic beef is not available, it is imported from approved McDonald's suppliers in other countries. These suppliers are required to guarantee and prove that they do not supply beef to McDonald's that has grazed on rain forest land. Q: Corporate policy statements are easy to write. How can I be sure that you follow it? A: We take meticulous steps to ensure that our suppliers meet the requirements established in these polices. . McDonald's inspectors check our suppliers' plants regularly. We carefully check and double check every step of the beef process, our suppliers' ranches, invoices, Shipping and packing documents, government stamps and labels to ensure sourcing, origin and handling. . We also have written affidavits from our suppliers stating that they do not supply McDonald's with beef from the rain forests. - ~ RAIN FOREST 0 Ii A (CONT'D.) . Additionally, we would have no economic or other motivation to use rain forest beef in our restaurants. It would be more expensive for us to transport or import Central or South American rain forest beef than it is to use our local suppliers. For example, in Brazil, for rain forest cattle to be shipped to any of the slaughterhouses which supply our processing plants, it would have to be shipped across the Amazonian frontier. The tariffs and taxes for doing this would increase the cost by over 30\. That, plus the shipping charge itself (about 5\ in this case) would simply make it cost-prohibitive, and certainly noncompetitive with the non-rain forest beef we actually use. Q: What about your restaurants in Central and South American countries? If they use local suppliers, wouldn't it come from the rain forests of these areas? A: No, it does not. Since McDonald's opened in Brazil in 1979, we took and have continued to take aggressive steps to ensure that none of the beef for our Brazilian restaurants comes from land that's been deforested since we had any presence in that country -- and probably long before. In Costa Rica, our four restaurants purchase beef that comes from only the southern ranches -- in areas that have been non-rain forest land for over thirty years (long before McDonald's opened in Costa Rica in 1970). We insist on this, we monitor it, and we demand and receive necessary documentation to assure us that our pOlicy is met, even though only four restaurants are involved. In Guatemala and Panama, our beef suppliers are required to meet the same source/origin documentation and guarantees. Even if we didn't have a policy against using rain forest beef, the freight charges involved with shipping beef from the rain forest regions to our slaughterhouses in these countries would be prohibitive. Q: In Europe, how can you prove that McDonald's beef does not come from the rain forest? A: McDonald's restaurants in Europe only buy beef distributed and approved by the European Economic Community. While some other companies buy meat on the open market, McDonald's does nee. Our beef is grown and processed and supplied through a rigidly controlled closed-circuit supply system -- McDonald's uses only suppliers who are dedicated to supplying beef to McDonald's, and who comply to McDonald's corporate policy of refusing to buy rain forest beef. ( . Phone 298-8833 MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT P.O,. BOX 666, 1000 PIKE STREET MA TTITUCK, LONG ISLAND, N.Y. 11952 Sd bFrU2' KK.. rb October 9, 1990 Mr. Bennett Orlowski Jr., Chairman Planning Board Town Df Southold SouthDld, N.Y. 11971 Re: Proposed McDonald's Facility in Mattituck Dear Sir, In regards to the above mentioned facility the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Mattituck Fire District hereby requests that consideration be given to access to the rear from Old Main Road and installation of a Fire Well on the West side of the driveway entrance off Route 25. ~ny further information needed please contact the undersigned at 298-4263. Cordially, Copy: Henry E. Raynor Jr. U\J\ - " --. . . Sllj) fiLE Pi:!> ((fL SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehring er, Chairman Charles Grigonis, JT. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinii.o. Jf. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board FROM: Jerry Goehringer, Z.B.A. Chairman DATE: October 2, 1990 SUBJECT: McDonalds Corporation Site Plan - CTM *1000-122-7-3.001 Supplementing our memorandum of earlier today, please find attached additional SEQRA form which may be attached to our October 2, 1990 memorandum. OOT 3 . n~._. .... ...., .... . , ,....J "l';"" . f' , :",," j",""-,'2'\ \',,' '''",',1 " ..-..- ./ ... ~ ,'i ",.)<,'1;.;>~ ..j~_/' "1', ,'/y' ,:~::.~~^,.::.../~,' SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P, Goehringel, Chairman Charles Grigoms, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr, Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio. Jr. - 'f,' Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION UNDER S.E.Q.R.A. September 26, 1990 Name of Project: PropeJ:ty ID: McDonald's Corporation CTM #1000-122-7-3.1 South Side of S.R. 25 (Main Road) and North Side of Old Main Road, Mattituck Pursuant to Part 617 of the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and Chapter 44 of the Code of the Town of Southold, this department has determined the application, under SEQRA, to be incomplete in the following areas: a. Lack of a grading and drainage map with existing and proposed topographical grades at two-foot intervals and 200 feet beyond the property lines. b. Lack of a drainage plan. Furth,=r, please note that: {X} 'rhis project is subject to SEQRA; {X} 'rhe Town Agencies involved are (1) Planning Board under its site plan reviews, and (2) Board of Appeals for consideration of the Special Exception which is a listed permitted use in this Zone District; {X} Lead Agency Determination is pending at this time (Lead Agency to be accepted by Planning Board upon receipt of full application) . Copies of Notice to: Southold Town Planning Board ... ( r- \,... SI/6FILG- ;16 R.,t APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS scon L. HARRIS Supervisor Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizi,Q. Ir. Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 TO: Southold Town Planning Board FROM: Southold Town Board of Appeals OCT 3 Iqsn DATE: October 1, 1990 SUBJECT: Appl. No. 3970 - McDonald's Corp. (Spec. Exc.) County Tax Map 11000-122-7-3.001 Gentlemen: This will confirm our discussions on August 31, 1990, between Valerie Scopaz and Mark McDonald of your office, concerning the above project, that the Board of Appeals as an involved agency, waives lead agency status and urges the Planning Board to proceed as a lead agency under the N.Y.S. Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) regulations, particularly due to the following: a. the site plan elements and physical construction of the access driveways, drainage facilities, landscaping, and/or contour alterations are major considerations to be determined under Planning Board jurisdiction; b. the application under consideration in this application before the Board of Appeals is not directly related to physical change of the land. Also, determinations must be made by the Planning Board as to: 1. Whether proposed traffic accessways are adequate in width and visibility for safe exiting onto the Main Road and whether they are located in proper relationship to pedestrian crossings from other business or residential areas; 2. Whether the accessways are in conformance with overall traffic safety considerations, including N.Y.S. Department of Transportation reviews in the preliminary stages of the application; 3. Whether on-site circulation is designed with extreme safety to pedestrians entering and leaving the building; ". . . 4. Whether on-site drainage will be sufficient to retain waters from heavy rainfalls -- particularly in the walkways for pedestrians from the parking areas to the building (eliminating any u:nsafe detours for pedestrians in other vehicular areas to get a.round to the building); 5. '['hat any outside activities, such as picnic tables or the like, be treated as part of the principal use of the site, and not be located less than the minimum setback yard areas required for a. principal use/building structure; 6. '['hat exterior lighting be of a type to project light toward the gTound and not projecting toward motorists. 7. That no telephone facility structures (normally for public use) be located within the visibility of vehicles exiting the site. 8. '['hat the site comply with the zoning code without necessity for any variance. 9. 'I'hat in the event the Board of Appeals places conditions under the Special Exception which appear to be different than the zoning code, then the more stringent requirement shall be adhered to (i.e. fencing, etc.) Also, members of the Board of Appeals have had discussions with the Board of Fire Commissioners and three Chiefs of the Mattituck Fire Department concerning permanent emergency access from Old Main Road, the nature of the composition of road surface and width and emergency access barriers, if any (such as fences or chain barrier, with gate). By way of a copy of this memorandum, the applicant is urged to proceed with a complete application through the Planning Board office. Please keep us advised, as an involved agency, of all written communications and developments under the SEQRA and Site-Plan procedures. Thank you. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ w'<<6FILt 1"6 ;(J( Gerard P. Goehring"r, Chairman Charles Grigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. Joseph H. Sawicki James Dinizio, Jr. SCOTI L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box I 179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Board Attn: Mark McDonald, Member FROM: Jim Dinizio, Member Board of Appeals ~ September 27, 1990 DATE: SUBJECT: Site Plan - McDonald's Corporation CTM *1000-122-7-p/o 003 with refererence to our discussion on September 13, 1990, I have reviewed the site plan for the proposed McDonald's project. It is my opinion that some sort of ingress/egress should be considered for the southern portion of the property. This would allow for them to take advantage of that unique situation of having the road to help minimize the traffic problem and hazardous conditions that might be created by delivery trucks when they try to enter and exit on the Main Road. School buses and fire-fighting equipment could also take advantage of the rear exit. It is requested that this memorandum also be made a part of the Planning Board record and file. r"'" , " SU8FtU?: (<-'K.- 320 Love Lane Mattituck, NY September 24, 11952 1990 Southold Town Planning Board Main Road Southold,NY 11971 and Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeal' Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: Site plan application of McDonald's Corporation at Mattituck 1000-122-7-3.1 Dea'~ Sirs: As all the necessary applications have been filed with your Boards, we hereby request that one of your Boards declare themselves lead agency and begin the SEQRA process. Please advise as to which Board will be the lead agency and the date of this resolution. l~Yi"y~,~ ' HER:ml CC: Peter Mineo, Esq. D'Amato, Forchelli, Libert, Schwartz, Mineo and Carlino 120 Mineola Boulevard Mineola, NY 11501 Judy Pascucci McDonald's Corporation 70 East Sunrise Highway Suite 619 Valley Stream, NY 11581 ';j. ~- PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS Bennett Orlowski, Jr.. Chairman George Ritchi., Latham. Jr. Richard G. Ward Mark S. McDonald Kenneth L. Edwards ;/~,~.!~7/~7:::~~" ..'_JoT ('...\.\, i --\"d,^,,;'~ or' 'c-. ....... .]......_.....;/.......~. . "-'-,) . f. ". . _,.1 , ~ .' t -:?> il;;.:, jr . '.'. ....:..'\ fJ S; I ~,',':':<, ..~ ~ ,~::::J. , ",' r-y, '..;l, (.1,"A . :r-.~ .( ',\ "" .., . "". :1 \~;Y>""" :.... ..ii.'. q . ~. ,"1fJ( . ~ '\0 l .", :j J,-l _,' '.. 1 SCOTI' L. HARRIS Supervisor Telephone (5] 6) 765-1938: PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall. 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 August 10, 1990 Henry Raynor 320 Love Lane Matt:.tuck, New York 11952 RE: Proposed Site Plan for McDonalds Corporation SCTM~1000-122-7-3.1 Dear Mr. Raynor: The Planning Board has received your application. fOllowing Changes must be made to the site plan before Planning Board can proceed with its review: The the 1. Floor plans showing the proposed use of floor areas, 2. The scale of the plan must be 1" = 20'. The mUltiple page subdivision is otherwise acceptable. 3. The zoning district must be shown on the map. 4. Street trees must be placed along NYS Route 25 and Old Main Road (thirty (30) feet to forty (40) feet on center depending on the species). 5. The name and address of the landowner of record must be shown. 6. Detailed diagrams of all signs on the site showing all dimensions must be provided. The Board would like the main sign on Route 25 to be a ground sign such as installed at the nearby business of the North Fork Bank and Trust Company. 7. All utilities are to be underground. a. Show location of transformers. 9. The addresses of adjoining landowners must be shown. -.. . . 10. A separate key map showing location and owners of all adjoining lands within five hundred (500) feet, as shown on the latest tax records, at a scale of one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet must be shown. 11. Proposed "playland" areas must be indicated. 12. Tie distance to nearest public intersection must be shown. 13. Indicate if there are any easements, rights of way, covenants or other encumbrances on the property. 14. A grading and drainage map with existing and proposed grades at two-foot intervals on the site and two hundred (200) feet beyond the property line must be shown. 15. The location of any existing cultural and historical features must be indicated. 16. Sheet SP-3A, lighting layout and electrical requirements was not submitted with the rest of the site plan. Please submit copies of same. 0.' 9;-/1 17. The application for consideration of site plan is incomplete. (Missing items are indicated and enclosed for your use.) 18. A traffic study is required. 19. All interior roadways shall be twenty-four (24) feet in width. 20. Parking must be calculated at one space per fifty (50) square feet of floor space or one space for every two (2) seats whichever is greater. 21. The parking area on west side of building should be moved fifteen (15) feet to the west. A landscaped island should be placed between the interior road and the re-located parking area. Please refer to enclosed diagram. 22. Traffic flow should be directed around the restaurant by use of pavement markers. All traffic is to move a in a counter clockwise direction (when facing the site from SR 25). :23. The line of existing woods must be maintained and a statement must be placed on the map that the existing tree line as of August 8, 1990 will be maintained. -2- .......- , Finally, the Planning Board would like architectural design for the building; one compatible with the architectural heritage to see an alternative that is more of the area. A special exception will be required for the fast food restaurant. Upon receipt of revised site plan with the existing and proposed topography and drainage plans, the Town Engineer will be authorized to review the calculations. Upon receipt of the revised plans and other requirements, the Planning Board will proceed with its review. After (if) the Appeals Board grants approval, you will need to obtain curb cut approval from the New York State Department of Transportation and '~ealth Department approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services before site plan approval can be granted. Very truly yours, ~ZC &~~. f'v'/u'Y Bennett Orlowski, Jr. Chairman Encl. cc: Victor Lessard, Principal Building Inspector Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman, Board of Appeals -3- i:.. ; ~- v ,~_..--' '--../' sue ALE; ,e~ . , SUBMISSION WITHOUT COVER Ll:irJ:.ta( fd E ,r.J R.. Y', R r1 Y Iv 6 f( SENDER: J h.CbarV4-(.b~ 5J-fE Pl.-II) SUBJECT: , . , , SCTM,: /0 () 't:J - , "2- z... - 7 - ':>' r COMMENTS: ~}V'c U)~F- J) ftERf' t,.,) IT'if- ( , . (r r ~ ~) .. J "J , , ..~ , - ...."""'- . " Dunn Engineering Associates Consulting Engineers 66 Main Street Westhampton Beach, N.Y. 11978 516-288-2480 January 8, 1991 Bennett Orlowksi, Jr. Chairman Town of Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53295 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 RE: Proposed McDonald's Restaurant Route 25, Mattituck Dear Chairman Orlowski and Members of the Board: We have received the Traffic ImpaCt Study Review performed for the Town by Cramer, Voorhis and Associates regarding the above project, and your letter to Mr. Henry Raynor requesting that we respond to three issues raised in the review. ' Our responses to these comments are as follows: Comment: "Trips generated by the proposed facility should be recalculated based on a maximum pass-by credit of 50% and the impact on adjacent intersections reevaluated." . Response: Trips generated by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant have been recalculated using a pass-by credit of 50%. This information is contained in Table 1. We do, however, continue to support the 70% figure used in the study, in light of the fact that it is the result of a study with the largest available data base and that the study was restricted to McDonald's patrons only. Comment: "The analysis to determine the directional distnbution should be provided and reassignments made if necessary." Response: The analysis used to determine the directional distribution was performed as follows: 1) Assuming that the westerly limit of the drawing area for the proposed McDonald's Restaurant is a line equidistant from the proposed facility and the existing McDonald's Restaurant in Riverhead, and that the easterly limit VEHICLES PER HOUR WEEKDAY SATURDAY AM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PM PEAK HOUR MIDDAY PEAK HOUR Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Enter Exit Pl~ojected Site Driveway Volunes 34 34 236 235 64 63 115 115 Ddveway Voll.ll'le That Will Be PIISS.By VehicLes 17 17 118 118 32 31 57 57 N~~t New Traffic on Adjacent 17 17 118 117 32 32 58 58 $1: reets TABLE 1 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC SUMMARY PROPOSED McDONALD'S - MATTITUCK 50X PASS-BY CREDIT January 8, 1991 Page 2 is the eastern Southhold "census designated place" border, (see Figure 1) then 80% of the population in the drawing area lies to the east of the site, and 20% to the west (See Table 2). Therefore, 80% 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). 2) 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 McDonald's. This information is presented in Figure 2. 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 50% pass-by credit is applied instead of 70%, the right turn exiting component becomes 66%, as shown on Figure 3. In order to examine a scenario under which the left turn movement out of the site is at a maximum, the pass-by trip pattern for all four peak hours was determined. Table 3 shows that, during the weekday A.M. peak hour, the pass-by trips pattern becomes 54% from the east to the west and 46% from the west to the east, which would represent the greatest percentage of left turns out of the site. Although the northbound to westbound left turn component leaving the site increases in terms of percentage the volume is such that no adverse impact will occur, since site generated traffic is significantly lower during the A.M. peak hour. It should be noted that in compiling the information for this letter, it was found that this logic was not applied to entering trips, as it should have been. This omission has been corrected in all further analysis. Comment: "The capacity analysis should be recalculated based on any changes from the pass- by credit and directional distribution. Levels of service should be arrayed for easy review." ~onse: The unsignalized intersection capacity analysis has been revised to reflect the above adjustment and the results are contained in Table 4. As can be seen in Table 4, no adverse traffic impact occurs with the new analysis. A copy of the analysis is enclosed. January 8, 1991 Page 3 We trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineemu,g -r.ll'. d. die above project. If you have any questions or need any further information, pIcIR: ailllD1r.. Sincerely, WALTER M DUNN, JR, P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910004 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's I, I " <I I,) ) <.f: 0' (' \ ; I,' '" c: ::, C> <J) '" c: . ~!I ~ (' , :. '~~.' ,';, "",'{'- ~. r , i 1 , , 1,:,- \,---' t., -'c :" l) I ~ '. t Ul ,": ;l',1 L, (I'i\ . .I:. i '),,-:.~ .. )-/ <, "" '" III r ~/) (Ii ~ .~ I' ~,)I\;\ "......,'~ ..:}.(.,' ;/.", : <,l "', /. ~'-.~ . L "-'\ "",' . ,\ . ~", " 'J"", ' , ,',:!, ", ''''." I';, / 1", i ."", \' ",,,,,,, )c' I ,I i~;,\~'\, (i';, ~ :; : 'I;'1-:}I'1 ,i,.I.:' I, 1.-"1 " " '" '.\. l' 'f',: I:' l,l' '.' ", , "', "'" " "'d', ", '''' ',,' , "e" ... ,:-<, '; - "'t ":11'; I _ \1 , /1 ' ,'t ';, ,,".' ,:' 'i"",'1 II " I . ,'. . ", '\ '"'t~.(-,J ~-~'I~,rl! I'.., <I.""" "'f':l '"I"f '. I ,. , '''. , ' ':) ,\,~, '.'... - t J 1 '\ ~<..oI1 '. I I.., : ! ) "'v , ~"q't' /,:--'" "-",~",,,:t ""f " -' ,........, '., " I, (./ '. ..I "'\,... "'-'. \. '1...;:"''1' '. ~ ~ }:;J >1' .\~.." ,t. / "';~ i '\.i\ "J '{ 'i~Yi~ r~~ · - (V, '. , 0, iI , I. < ..J , . "".....t.. .... .., 1~ ,">, \; I ( " o Za: ~ ~\-.,;- \ . . ~ .~ ). I\~) t, r", .~..'." ._.".....~ Z ~ _...;, ~.:.':~ ,",,'4 I ~ -UJ . ,..r^; :"'t{ ''''''-, ""'i"f',,! ("'~"\ . " - .. "r'" " I'.',. ,,' '~"'" ~ ~ " ~',." \ r'-- \ . . l" 'Id" .,:i J' ", C w~ 2 J@~7)'" /' \ 8i~\r, n' ': \ !\~'\@>~-"l.' ,'~J~I" ~ !~ :J / ~I\ \ '" "", "', !n /. -.;:_~ ,/ '\ (') \ 1--, () \, ;" -fl' ,"'i "" '\ 1', '; ;1 J ~~ ~ ;,) I, iil)>l ;.~\ ...........] \ 'I .):c: ( ~ ' .. . '" "I -. <J) i; L.~.~...~,?U)\ #\ i It' ,~': ,tJ' .' .k....... :~.. ') I \ ..- '~" i """ " '. \ .... ..- (EJ .." ..~ i/"\,., ~~ ..; .".' \ 1)- " ,0\ r"',;, I,' ';".' '-. '-" '\1" '" ,. '" " . 'j' 'J I' ; 'f.' j '\ Y'':'" >( .. "/ : f::,', , :, /';.' C I ~"\l ';1' \- I \ /I~' v.,J\ ~ ';);~f':i\ I'~ .. (" ,: IJ : ..:'.-'" f :\ t " \,:z-, " 'o' J i "o'~, ""1 ..' "" I:I) '.., I ,i J f-l:'jf~'::'1 ..- \, . (:\'~T' . ..1--, J . '" 1; '''--:.:,.' ~'''i\ '~" l~.~.,,~. j ',.. - . 1':1 "~)" \ r" ,(~_ ;.i _I' '.', ' -.................... ,. , " .~ " '., 1 '/ .. , 'J ".1.. I l "..,,: ,.t: I ',' ""J ' '., ,\ ,,(t) '-',.. \, \' lIJ ' 1, \. r ~... CI) , ", 'I'-~,,'..,. '" ( ,..o\,J.,;;;.-...../' ~l" \ ~. .. l.l , .... I I ' ...., I , .. .1<;/ ~~ '\ : j ">'\.""")1 :, \~I,-~ -, ': 1 /...._'!~:~:/.' ;(, ' , \. .,' " -..,;:'1.. <../ , " III ~l < z o Cl <> :I: Cl ILl I/) Cl Q., o a:: Q.. 'I- ~~ a::J <z Oa: ZUJ -I- ~f3 c:c I Ul Q ..J ~ g " ::E o Z 1= Ul t;j '0 l1l ...~ L.. Q) > '': ! ,j .;;.t...:; t,.., ,-'''' " , ; .. ; \ ,. .,~, (Jt. '~ t '}. ......'-1 J r II j , :1 =1 , /-.~..~.~. -. ~...-:.., ~.-\ " I r~'iy -...:-.::.~._...._ i I I l/l l( UJ -' ~ ~ D. iil fil ~ !;( z "l :z: ~l( t:::1 Q 9u8g-,~~ l/l OZJ:t:~f3t- ~ ~8UI:;::t~:5 l/l 0 LU ~"i j ~ z ;:)(/)""U";,,;<6"; UJ .,.: ~ cwi ~ ffi u (J) Q <~ LUZ~ ,-$OU ~C:J W c.J CJ t- o: Z::E- :J- t- c.J ~ C t;: - C(W~ U. 0: (J) oC CO a. o 0: D. peconic - Southold - Cutchogue - Mattituck (80%) Laurel (10%) - 1309 5540 3082 - 3553 113 13,597 TO WEST Mattituck (20%) - 889' Laurel (90%) - 1015 Northville (20%) - 686 Jamesport (70%) - 837 3427 TO EAST TABLE 2 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED McDONALD'S MATTITUCK PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN ~~u.!- _ _ _ _80%!!! 46% OUT 46% IN 20~N_" I t I , 80% OUT /-- ( I -54%IN- - - 54% M \ I t , \ I '-' PRIMARY TRIPS=30% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80x .30 = .24 = 24% FROM WEST TO WEST = 20% .20x.30 =.06 = 06% PASS-BY TRIPS =70% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46x.70 = .322 = 32% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54x.70 = .378 = 38% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING ~ , I 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 PASS-BY = 70% PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN ~ ~ - -,T'\ - _80~ IlL 20'liN _ "": I .... 80%.E.!!L \.. I I ( 't I: 46% OUT 46% IN - --- 54% IN ----.. 54% OUT , / , ~ \ I PRIMARY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80x.50 = .40 = 40% FROM WEST TO WEST .20x.50 = .10 = 10% PASS-BY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46 x .50 = .23 = 23% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54x.50 = .27 = 27% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING t t I r FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST 10% 40% 10% 40% +27% +23% +23% +27% 37% 63% 33% 67% FIGURE 3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY = 50% TIME DIRECTION FROM WEST FROM EAST AM Peak Hour 46% 54% Midday Peak Hour 54% 46% PM Peak Hour 56% 44% Saturday Peak Hour 52% 48% TABLE 3 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PATTERNS ROUTE 25, MATTI TUCK LOCATION TIME 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO-BUILD BUILD Route 25 at Factory A.M. A A B Avenue/Sigsbee Road MID. B e e P.M. e e e SAT. E E E Route 25 at Bray A.M. B B B Avenue MID. e e e P.M. e e e SAT. Route 25 at Laure l A.M. A A A Lake Drive MID. 0 0 0 P.M. A A A SAT. 0 0 0 Route 25 at Western A.M. A Site Driveway (Enter MID. A Only) P.M. N/A N/A A SAT. B Route 25 at Eastern A.M. 0 Site Driveway (Exit MID. E Only) P.M. N/A N/A E SAT. E MIA = Not applicable. TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPOSED MCDONALD'S MATTITUCK January 8, 1991 Page 3 We trust that this addresses any concerns you have regarding traffic engineering aspects of the abovc~ project. If you have any questions or need any further information, please call me. Sincerely, ~) ~C-. )-h. 0''''->)., WALTER M. DUNN, JR., P.E. Principal WMD/bf P90055 L910004 cc: Cramer, Voorhis and Associates Judy Pascucci, McDonald's Ernie Annibale, McDonald's ,......- AM PEAl( HO Enter El ?f Projected Site Driveway Vol~s 34 3- Driveway Volume That Will Be lur Pass.By Vehicles 17 17 r Net New Traffic on Adjacent 17 17 Streets ! ~~ / lAY IIllJR Exit 115 7 t: -," ,." ..- TABLE 1 SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC SUMMARY PROPOSED McDONALD'S - MATTITUCK sax PASS-BY CREDIT TO EAST peconic - Southold - Cutchogue - Mattituck (80%) Laurel (10%) - 1309 5540 3082 - 3553 113 13,597 TO WEST Mattituck (20%) - 889 Laurel (90%) - 1015 Northville (20%) - 686 Jamesport (70%) - ~ 3427 TABLE 2 DRAWING AREA POPULATION PROPOSED McDONALD'S MATTITUCK LOCATION TIME 1990 1991 1991 EXISTING NO-BUILD BUILD Route 25 at Factory A.M. A A B Avenue/Sigsbee Road MID. B C C P.M. C C C SAT. E E E Route 25 at Bray A.M. B B B Avenue MID. C C C P.M. C C C SAT. Route 25 at Laurel A.M. A A A Lake Drive MID. D D D P.M. A A A SAT. D D D Route 25 at Western A.M. A Site Driveway (Enter MID. A Only) P.M. N/A N/A A SAT. B Route 25 at Eastern A.M. D Site Driveway (Exit MID. E Only) P.M. N/A N/A E SAT. E N/A = Not applicable. TABLE 3 LEVEL DF SERVICE SUMMARY PROPDSED MCDONALD'S MATT I TUCK TIME DIRECTION FROM WEST FROM EAST AM Peak Hour 46% 54% Midday Peak Hour 54% 46% PM Peak Hour 56% 44% Saturday Peak Hour 52% 48% TABLE 4 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC PATTERNS ROUTE 25, MATTI TUCK PROPOSED McDONALD'S DRAWING AREA WESTERN UMIT ~~LD'S ,c i; ", .' ". ... .,.>'''' ",.",..,:. ....- -~ :......----., rivernead .t. " i~ . . '-. ,. i FIGURE 1 DRAWING AREA PROPOSED McDONALD'S MATTITUCK ~- '1(.. i ~ :~.~..-' . ; , , ;. . , ; .._-.... , ; -...~i"'.~ .... " , ...... '--; i i . , . . . -''':'- Gardin::s Bay . . . i i /: /~~ ~ / . '. i '. ",<; ~- " I,' ~ .::-:-:::::' ~: " .- " n.." ~ ~ "",,:..:. .......n'..... . ~ -:-;;:- .....,.. ., ';-~L_,,' I ......... \..::.'---.. '~l..~~.......;~;. ---- --. '.:"'-- .-r;;' Block is/and Sound CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES 1. SOUTHOLD 2. PECONIC 3. CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK 4. M.4UTITUCK 5. LAUREL 6. JAMES PORT 7. NORTHVILLE PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN 20% OUT 80% IN ---7'\---- 20~'L..... I ,,80%~ \ I ( , , I PRIMARY TRIPS=30% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80x .30 = .24 = 24% FROM WEST TO WEST = 20% .20 x .30 = .06 = 06% 46% OUT 46% IN -54%IN- - - 54% ou~f PASS-BY TRIPS =70% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46x.70 = .322 = 32% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54x.70 = .378 = 38% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING -. , I 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 PASS-BY = 70% PRIMARY PATTERN PASS-BY PATTERN 20% OlJT 80% IN ---7""'\-- -- 20%~_~ I I ~80%~~ \. I I ( '. I: 46% OlJT 46% IN - --- 54% IN -- --. 54% OlJT PRIMARY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO EAST = 80% .80x.50 = .40 = 40% FROM WEST TO WEST .20x.50 = .10 = 10% PASS-BY TRIPS = 50% FROM EAST TO WEST = 46% .46 x .50 = .23 = 23% FROM WEST TO EAST = 54% .54 x .50 = .27 = 27% FINAL TRIP PATTERN ENTERING EXITING ---. t I r FROM WEST FROM EAST TO WEST TO EAST 10% 40% 10% 40% +27% +23% +23% +27% 37% 63% 33% 67% FIGURE 3 DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS PASS-BY -' 50% ROUTE 25 AT FACTORY AVENUE/SIGSBEE ROAD llJ'}J COivlPOSITE TRAPPIC' * INCLUDES: 1. An adjustment of 3% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. 2. The traffic generate by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *****'k*************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALyST.................. DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOC. VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................. WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND:' STOP SIGN TRAFF:[C VOLUMES ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 53 19 4 34 THRU 381 468 2 6 RIGHT 5 36 21 78 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE ---------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 2 LANE USAGE L + TR L + TR ADJUS'rMENT 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 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 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 SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 SB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40. SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSI3EE ROAD DA'I'E AND TIME OF TIlE ANALY~l~..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 11-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 4 156 128 128 123 D THROUGH 2 213 199 > 199 > 196 > D RIGHT 23 622 622 > 525 622 > 500 599 >A A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 37 178 161 161 124 D THROUGH 7 219 204 > 204 > 198 > D RIGHT 86 548 548 > 489 548 > 397 462 >B A MAJOF~ STREET EB LEFT 58 658 658 658 600 A WB LEFT 21 751 751 751 730 A IDEN'I'IFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERl\.GE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALyST.................. DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOC. VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................. WEEKDAY NOON-l MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK Y INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 1991 BUILD 50% PASS B -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFF'IC VOLUMES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 36 33 4 34 THRU 636 543 7 6 RIGH'I' 3 33 23 44 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 2 LANE USAGE L + TR L + TR 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 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 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 SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS ED 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 SB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF TilE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD DATE AND TIME OF TilE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS B 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 4 97 82 82 77 E THROUGH 8 131 121 > 121 > 113 > D RIGHT 25 447 447 > 274 447 > 241 422 >C A MINOR STREET SB LEFT 37 103 89 89 51 E THROUGH 7 134 123 > 123 > 117 > D RIGHT 48 497 497 > 364 497 > 309 449 >B A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 40 603 603 603 564 A WB LEFT 36 560 560 560 523 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY NOON-l MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS B Y 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *****,**************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----'---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERlI.GE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOC. VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy) . . . . . . 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD Y INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 50% PASS B --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 52 41 9 30 THRU 669 539 7 9 RIGHT 8 35 31 45 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 2 LANE USAGE L + TR L + TR 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 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 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 SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 SB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS B 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 10 86 69 69 59 E THROUGH 8 120 108 > 108 > 100 > E RIGHT 34 427 427 > 276 427 > 234 393 >C B MINOR STREET SB LEFT 33 91 75 75 42 E THROUGH 10 123 110 > 110 > 100 > E RIGHT 50 499 499 > 314 499 > 254 450 >C A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 57 605 605 605 548 A WB LEFT 45 535 535 535 490 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS B Y 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE ROAD NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOC. VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (rnrn/dd/yy) . . . . . . 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . SATURDAY NOON-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: 4-LEG MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND:' STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 38 38 19 59 THRU 841 774 23 23 RIGHT 13 26 47 69 NUMBER OF LANES AND LANE USAGE -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 2 LANE USAGE L + TR L + TR ADJUS'l'MENT 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 0.00 90 20 N VEHICI,E COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND 0 0 0 SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 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 SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR THROUGHS NB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 SB 6.90 6.90 0.00 6.90 MINOR LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 SB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/STGSREE D^,l'E AND TiME 01-- TilE ANAI.Y~; u;. . . .. 10/16/90 ; SA'l'UIWAY OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD ROAO NOON-1 PM 50% PASS BY 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 21 63 36 36 15 E THROUGH 25 79 70 > 70 > 45 > E RIGHT 52 332 332 > 149 332 > 72 280 >E C MINOR STREET SB LEFT 65 63 38 38 -27 F 'THROUGH 25 79 70 > 70 > 45 > E RIGHT 76 361 361 > 178 361 > 76 286 >E C MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 42 455 455 455 413 A WB LEFT 42 428 428 428 386 B IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS RTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... FACTORY AVE/SIGSBEE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; SATURDAY OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD ROAD NOON-l PM 50% PASS BY ROUTE 25 AT WESTERLY (ENTRANCE) DRIVEWAY 1991 COMPOSITE TRAFFIC' · INCLUDES: 1. An adjustment of 3% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. 2. The traffic generate by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDEN'I'IFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 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)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 22 1 THRU 426 555 o RIGHT 12 o 1 NUMBER OF LANES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB wn 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOF~ RIGHTS NB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOH LEFTS WB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOH LEFTS NB 7.40 7.40 0.00 7.40 IDEN'I'IFYING 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..... 1/3/91; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 1 164 161 161 159 D RIGHT 1 586 586 586 585 A MAJOR STREET WB :LEFT 24 709 709 709 685 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..... 1/3/91; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ****it**************************************************************** IDEN'l'IFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 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) . . . . . . 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 151 1 THRU 524 535 o RIGHT 85 o 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 ----- VEHIcr~ COMPOSITION ----_.~--------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 1 111 87 87 86 E RIGHT 1 492 492 492 491 A MAJOR STREET WB l:.EFT 166 579 579 579 413 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..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 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 1\~J\~1[f)~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 41 1 THRU 705 590 o RIGHT 23 o 1 NUMBER OF LANES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WI3 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 94 89 89 88 E RIGHT 1 402 402 402 401 A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 45 502 502 502 457 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..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 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)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 74 1 THRU 835 853 o RIGHT 41 o 1 NUMBER OF LANES ------.--------------------------------------------------------------- EB wn NB sn 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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..... 1/3/91 ; SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 63 54 54 53 E RIGHT 1 328 328 328 327 B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 81 417 417 417 336 B 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..... 1/3/91 ; SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 ROUTE 25 AT EASTERLY (EXIT) DRIVEWAY 1991 COMPOSITE TRAFFIC' · INCLUDES: 1. An adjustment of 3% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. 2. The traffic generate by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ------.--------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 1 12 THRU 426 565 o RIGHT 1 o 22 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 13 169 169 169 155 D RIGHT 24 590 590 590 565 A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 1 717 717 717 716 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERA.GE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 1 80 THRU 524 606 o RIGHT 1 o 155 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o SOUTHBOUND CRITICAL GAPS -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOB: 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.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 88 136 136 136 48 E RIGHT 171 521 521 521 351 B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 1 642 642 642 641 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 1 21 THRU 705 610 o RIGHT' 1 o 42 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 23 100 99 99 76 E RIGHT 46 408 408 408 362 B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 1 516 516 516 515 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDEN1'IFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 1/3/91 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 o 1 39 THRU 835 888 o RIGHT 1 o 76 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 2 ADJUS'rMENT FACTORS Page-2 PERCENT RIGHT TURN GRADE ANGLE CURB RADIUS (ft) ACCELERATION LANE 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 ; SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 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 43 63 63 63 20 E RIGHT 84 338 338 338 254 C MAJOR: STREET WB LEFT 1 437 437 437 436 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... EASTERN (EXIT) SITE DRIVEWAY DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 1/3/91 : SATURDAY 12-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD DIST.2 ROUTE 25 AT BRAY AVENUE/OLD MAIN ROAD 1991 COMPOSITE TRAFFIC' · INCLUDES: 1. An adjustment of 3% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. 2. The traffic generate by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ****~~**************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ____4_________________________________________________________________ AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... BRAY AVENUE NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 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 o 22 26 THRU 359 398 o RIGH'l' 6 o 48 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTI TUCK 1991 BUILD 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 29 250 245 > 245 > 216 > C > 409 > 327 >B RIGHT 53 641 641 > 641 > 588 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 24 770 770 770 746 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... BRAY AVENUE NAME OF THE 1\}{A~1rf)T.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED............................... .. WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK SS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 1991 BUILD 50% PA --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT o 35 13 THRU 580 482 o RIGHT 9 o 26 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES 1 1 1 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PA SS BY 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 14 143 137 > 137 > 123 > D > 262 > 219 >C RIGHT 29 480 480 > 480 > 451 > A MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 39 593 593 593 555 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 : WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PA SS BY 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... BRAY AVENUE NAME OF THE 1\l{A~~f;~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL 50% PASS -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE NORTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT o 86 7 THRU 640 534 o RIGH'I' 28 o 35 NUMBER OF LANES -----'---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 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 AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND o o o 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.... BRAY AVENUE DATE .AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 8 107 94 > 94 > 87 > E > 272 > 226 >C RIGHT 39 438 438 > 438 > 399 > B MAJOR STREET WB LEFT 95 541 541 541 446 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... BRAY AVENUE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY ROUTE 25 AT LAUREL LAKE ROAD 1991 COMPOSITE TRAFFIC' · INCLUDES: 1. An adjustment of 3% per year to account for normal background traffic growth. 2. The traffic generate by the proposed McDonald's Restaurant. 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTW)L TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 0 1 THRU 390 446 o RIGHT o 1 3 NUMBER OF LANES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 ADJUS'I'MENT 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 ----- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND o o o CRITICAL GAPS -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR LEFTS SB 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.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 SB LEFT 1 227 227 > 227 > 226 > C > 416 > 412 >A RIGHT 3 576 576 > 576 > 572 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 0 702 702 702 702 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 8-9 AM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 *****.**************************************************************** IDENTIFYING INFORMATION AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALYST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................ . WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 0 0 6 THRU 611 465 o RIGHT o 2 o NUMBER OF LANES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 ADJUSTMENT FACTORS Page-2 -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- PERCENT RIGHT TURN CURB RADIUS (ft) GRADE ANGLE FOR RIGHT TURNS ACCELERATION LANE FOR RIGHT TURNS EASTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N WESTBOUND 0.00 90 20 N NORTHBOUND ----- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR LEFTS SB 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.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 SB LEFT 7 148 148 > 148 > 142 > 0 > 148 > 142 >0 RIGHT 0 562 562 > 562 > 562 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 0 687 687 687 687 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY NOON-1 MID OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE 1\lJA~1{f)T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALYZED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTlTUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 5 0 0 THRU 656 534 o RIGHT o 1 4 NUMBER OF LANES -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB ------- LANES 1 1 1 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 ----- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION --------------------------------------------------------------------- % SU TRUCKS AND RV'S % COMBINATION VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES EASTBOUND o o o WESTBOUND o o o NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND o o o CRITICAL GAPS --------------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR LEFTS SB 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.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 SB LEFT 0 121 120 > 120 > 120 > D > 515 > 510 >A RIGHT 4 515 515 > 515 > 510 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 6 635 635 635 629 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 i WEEKDAY 5-6 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 1985 HCM: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Page-1 ********************************************************************* IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- AVERAGE RUNNING SPEED, MAJOR STREET.. 45 PEAK HOUR FACTOR..................... 1 AREA POPULATION...................... 150000 NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET......... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET....... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE NAME OF THE ANALyST.................. DUNN ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, VJD DATE OF THE ANALYSIS (mm/dd/yy)...... 10/16/90 TIME PERIOD ANALyZED................. SATURDAY NOON-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY INTERSECTION TYPE AND CONTROL --------------------------------------------------------------------- INTERSECTION TYPE: T-INTERSECTION MAJOR STREET DIRECTION: EAST/WEST CONTROL TYPE SOUTHBOUND: STOP SIGN TRAFFIC VOLUMES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LEFT 2 0 4 THRU 744 598 o RIGHT o 3 4 NUMBER OF LANES --------------------------------------------------------------------- EB WB NB SB LANES 1 1 1 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 ----- SOUTHBOUND 0.00 90 20 N VEHICLE COMPOSITION % SU TRUCKS % COMBINATION AND RV'S VEHICLES % MOTORCYCLES ----------- ------------- ------------- EASTBOUND 0 0 0 WESTBOUND 0 0 0 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND 0 0 0 CRITICAL GAPS -----.---------------------------------------------------------------- TABULAR VALUES ADJUSTED SIGHT DIST. FINAL (Table 10-2) VALUE ADJUSTMENT CRITICAL GAP -------------- -------- ----------- ------------ MINOR RIGHTS SB 6.10 6.10 0.00 6.10 MAJOR LEFTS EB 5.30 5.30 0.00 5.30 MINOR LEFTS SB 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.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE AND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; SATURDAY NOON-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY 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 SB LEFT 4 95 94 > 94 > 90 > E > 157 > 148 >D RIGHT 4 469 469 > 469 > 465 > A MAJOR STREET EB LEFT 2 584 584 584 582 A IDENTIFYING INFORMATION --------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF THE EAST/WEST STREET...... NYS ROUTE 25 NAME OF THE NORTH/SOUTH STREET.... LAUREL LAKE DRIVE DATE .l'.ND TIME OF THE ANALySIS..... 10/16/90 ; SATURDAY NOON-1 PM OTHER INFORMATION.... MCDONALDS MATTITUCK 1991 BUILD 50% PASS BY LASER FICHE FORM Planning Board Site Plans and Amended Site Plans - SPFile Tvoe: Aooroved IfOV ,.. . Proiect Tvoe: Site Plans Status: Final Aooroval Records Management SCTM #: 1000 -122.-7-3.1 Proiect Name: McDonald's Restaurant , Address: south side of NYS Rt. 25. east of Brav Ave.. in Mattituck Hamlet: Mattituck Aoolicant Name: McDonald's Corooration Owner Name: COFAM Realtv Comoanv Zone 1: Aooroval Date: UtJjJ.,.:lOw,.J OPTIONAL ADDITIONAL INFORMATION A date Indicates !hat we have recelved the related information End SP Date: Zone 2: Zone 3: Location: south side of NYS Rt. 25. east of Brav Ave.. in Mattituck SC Filina Date: C and R's : tlome Assoc: Rand M Aareement: SCAN Date: a 41 I 'm y` III � i °N. ecE ep, 0 —�❑N ZEGT4W ❑ ❑ � $o, IN3�Y ❑ s° T 71 �I QN� E M I�Lluuu Y --ml 'r°";.,,. (`fSl ygja I OP71 NAL UTIJ go I Ni AREA SQUARE FEET 80 SERIES IRALDIMG ANALYSIS KITXHm V/D-T low BASE VOLUME-PLUS - UP TO $__ D�mffa n s 230 s 8 — ANVN. TRANSAOTI(N G➢A[Itt 352,DD0 ��� � gg7 ,�, s w FA § WALY iRANSADTIQI PATE 211 WDIFA E 1 oho MT&r Y ST= WKITY . M% PAD I I.Do =R Ixm� scAisrtA3Lss 1104% M' IDI oN 1%Wool D o c CIEIOEA PWING 35 DFFIIF 71 G'RY PAINING 9 Y6muIE W 1A 01 APP]I PAINING 2 TOTAL IEi 3m Fk �TDTAL PAIMRLPAIMRL 46 m fDi11 IA65 alld P gRA� P_ LL GENERAL NOTES LU 1. McDONW_D'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. H CONDUIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. MID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER m SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL COYTRRCTER. R 70-SA "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/4' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- INS FIXTURES, BASES. POLES. CONDUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. r . 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR z • / BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. 0 ` G_ N• UH 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFEMATIC ONLY. EXACT E `` LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE. MOST U N+p Awn ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. LU i N S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL. UTILITY COMPANIES W p TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING "M cDONALD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. RAPER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING IIT DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. RNID 4 / M (- ®� CIRCUITING. Cih K cT" o 0 "McDONALD'S" GROUND SIGN h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND HANDICAP RAMP ' \ 6'X18" CONCRETE GRO "T BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT N- a GRDurmBREAIc. w CURB (TYP. ) ¢n PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / \ PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL 6. FINISH WALK AM CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH PAINTED PAVEMENT. HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / U V. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW 70-SA "WELCOME" SIGNFp'p 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CURBS. FINISH GRADING, LANDSCAPING. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. x 10. LOT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS •p•` REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. 3 o u �p Mp ti yo �#,• p'602CP PAVING SPECIFICATION,D�IF}y,DG • 6„ m, (MINIMUM 3' TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) t 5� p• 0„ p' 1 t/2" N.Y.S. TYPE t-A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE / (}T' 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE �.O„ �l• „ D 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE 6" CONCRETE FILLED 10 - a GUARD POST (TYP. OF 8) ,- „ T 6 o„ 0 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK REINF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. 1 Ude C • d ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED C ' 0 6 „ PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NDE: Mrm+a_D•S E NEER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REd.EST A COMPACTION 0 a L) 4 2LN AND" A CORE p n PROVE CORRECT. FER ABOVE SPECIFICA IM, TEST�LL BE ATTHHE EXPENSE OF H p.o'S. o o w MENU BOARD Gr�Irvxs6. G.m uxu, BE cHrwnm. �O J LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION o W m \ 11UN -T 1991 - O } CD 70-5 EXIT SIGN a�O _ ¢ B 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER i a w AO i� o z PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) C4 MOTE: FIECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. y 50'0" 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. PARKING INFORMATION Q E W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . w LANDBRNKED PARKING NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) v °' TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL S2 SPACES 9' X 20' B 7S a o OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACES 'A z 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 6"X18" CONCRETE — 0" CURB (TYP. ) R SO '0" 28 R \ VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 N O O 1l LRNDBANKED SPACES 9' X 20' 0 40 � BUS PARKING ZONE 200• \ - SPACES - X - 0 it UTILITY INFORMATION w Nn R 4 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION UL W LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER - p r p p � 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER 6 STORM SEWER x x x O 0 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. - ELECTRIC - Q o F- W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. GAS - PRINTED DIRECTIONAL SURVEY INFORMATION w ARROW (WHITE) TYP. a °• '',,, ,� •', p \• PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT, LANZISERA. 8 FRANK =o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) m; p. 125 CHURCH STREET ¢ w. r MALVERNE. NY 11565 N (516) 599-3663 O P DATE: 06APR90 CD 1 W p LEGEND N ¢ H z 2g.a$,Lo a SANITARY SEWER GAS CE Z 6"X18" CONCRETE 5 56 6 WATER LOT LIGHT lea LP:30 0 N O CURB (TYP. ) 28 STORM SEWER EXISTING ELEVATION (76.5) _ ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) — S 84* 42 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20 ' , STREET ADDRESS OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX_-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. IKDOGS (OSMAYEI) GENERAL NOTES Ij Lu m 1. MCDOJALD'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N CONIDUIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, ti } 2 2. BASES, ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. AID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER DO le G , 70-SA "THANK YOU" SIGN SIGNS ARE BY THE OENERRL CONTRRCTER. \'`V R 3'O•Q, O 3. 3/4' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERA_ CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- LANDSCAPED ISLAND ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES, CODUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE C, • / OWNER/OPERATOR. 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR z �• BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. O J� \N F- (v(✓ I- N 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT ty o ^ ' LOCATIONS SHAUN BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST 04 �• I V ECQYOMICgL INSTA_LgTION. y O p W� 6. THE CONTRACTOR "ALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES Z "McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN43 TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICECONNECTION AT IXISTIIJ.^ �,�N• G UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICEENTRAWCE LOCgTI0N5. SIZES. AND V CIRCUITING. "McDONRLD'S" GROUND SIGN f aNDICAP RAMP 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK h \ - 6'X18" CONCRETE AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT CURB (TYP. ) GROLNDBREAx. w a PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / \ a HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL e. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH PAVEMENT. p 70-SA "WELCOME" SIGN ro 24 0•• > 0 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF, V. ALL w c AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW x W/ 6X6 #I0/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CLIMBS. FINISH GRADING. LANIDSCApINO, A AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. 10. LETT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS ` l?2 / REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. pC. d 0 (MINIMUM 3" TOTALG COMPATEDICATIOR ASPHALT THICKNESS) PAVINV p6" CONCRETE FILLED l0 4 1 1/2" N. Y S. TYPE t-R ASPHALT HERRING COURSE T6" HV. 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE GUARD POST (TYP. OF 8) ! •fid♦ _ 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK REINF. W/ 6X6 1:110/10 W. W. M. 0 ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED = C o' 6•• pp N £ � PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) mre: N-DONAX'S ENGINEER REmaes_THE RIGHT To RmuEST A COMPAcTOW w I o U `Os 1 ,4 \ / TEST I�CgTIgJ. TESTS WILL BE AT TIEn M,, C a . P R Z U_ " MENU BOARD % / - /� OTHERWISEZNOMT1: 6-MTRIC�AL 0CWILL BE CAVG,D, f M LL IGHTING RECOMMENDATION O M ¢ S � N 70-5 EXIT SIGN �" m• -'1 \ _ Gam. 5 Lu m 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER $ .11��1 �9�� _ O PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N } R S' CONCRETE SLAB REINF. ONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS HOTEL. o � wRNDBANKED PARKING W/ 6X6 #10/10W. W. M. zNO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) RKING INFORMATIONTO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0"6"X18" CONCRETE OF VEHICLE DETECTOR2SPACES 9' x 20' m 75CURB (TYP. ) R 50 '0" 8 " R VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR DICAP PACES 9' X 20' m 90 n BUS PARKING ZONE 0.0'• 0'0" \ 6 5J \ J it LRNDBRNKED SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 ' \ - SPACES - x _ m I 4 UTILITY INFORMATION s' 0 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION L) 13 Q, LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) p M SANITARY SEWER _ F LL D 6 c 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER p STORM SEWER ¢ X o f 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINA. ELEciRIC i x x x x PRINTED DIRECTIONAL '' W/ 6X6 YS10/l0 W. W. M. i 1 I I ARROW (WHITE) TYP, o• o GA5 3 a \NI I I I PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) u1 SURVEY INFORMATION a \'o LU m UPN PBY: TEAS. BARRETT, LANZISERA. & FRANK 0 � REPAARED ' 125 CHURCH STREET N W UJ o MALVERNE. NY 11565 ¢ z DATE: OSAPR90 (516) 599-3663 p N Z a 6"X18" CONCRETE LEGEND CURB (TYP. ) 6 S SANITARY SEWER GAS z¢ z z _ _ 55 J —� 28 WATER LOT LIGHT aME LP:30 ti ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) STORM SEWER W U S 84- W EXISTING ELEVATION (76.5) ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77.0 F ©LD MAIN ROAD PLAN SCALE: 1" = zD STREET ADDRESS N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROADw 1 9q CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU RS-BUILT --XXX-- --- REGIO - _REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. MmaoS KoAGYe7) — i GENERAL NOTES uWl w N I. M.DGNALD'S ROAD SIGN MID BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N H CONDUIT PID WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CONDUIT. AND WIRING FOR ALL OTHER m Z' SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACT". , \ R 70-5A "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/4" EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- f v� 30 'Da METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES. CODUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE �1p LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. • ` / 4. DAMS FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR Z BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. OH `N S. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFEMATIC ONLY. EXACT F /UNP- H LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST V O A I ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. LU r- I V S. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES LQ O Y Dy TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING Z "McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL AND PLUMBING R / M O DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. AND OR '* CIRCUITING. "McDONRLD'S' GROUND SION h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK 11' AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT HANDICAP RAMP 6'X18" CONCRETE EIROUNDBREAK. w CURB (TYP. ) ¢ L" n S. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6• ABOVE FINISH PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) / PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PAVEMENT. HANDICAP STALLS ONLY / w 0 70-SR "WELCOME" SIGN T. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO S' BELOW Li 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF.°a 2S W/ 6X6 410/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL WALKS AND CURBS. FINISH GRRDINO, RPINO. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. X 10. LAT LIOHITNG CgJCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS " •L\ REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. " p• 6" ro PAVING SPECIFICATION �. (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) O" °9 " 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE 1-A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE ° G" CRUSHED STONE BASE 6" N`. 6" CONCRETE FILLED _ GUARD POST (TYP. OF CONCRETE SIDEWALK r o � ' • „ ° REINF. W/ 6X6 410/30 W. W. M. ON 1 1/2" MORTER BED _ $ Ld 6 ¢ a PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NOTE' M00NALD'S ENGINEER RESERVES TIE RIGHT TO PFA EST A COMPACTION 0 p�p Z LL) E TEST AND)/OR A CORE SgPLE. IF TESTS PROVE CORRECT. PER ABOVE R W H wmxFICATIm. TESTS WILL BE AT TIE FOO'ENSE OF HCDONALO'3. >: U- "' 'J\ MENU BOARD OTHmWISE a.C. WILL BE CWYNFD. U' P- � ,�s �" � � � � o � J P- LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION ¢ �s\ / - 4 o CD G ' m 7 1991 - fyY 70-5 EXIT SIGN a ', 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER _ 8 } O CD O 3 PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N MOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. Z 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. S � W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION LL m NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) LANDBANKED PARKING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' X 20' 0 75 d o OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACES rn z 6"X18" CONCRETE „ 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' ® 90 q � CURB (TYP. ) R SO'0' 28' D R 0.0„ , VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 LRNDBANKED SPACES 9' x 20' 0 90 BUS PARKING ZONE 2° - SPACES - X - 0 - w UTILITY INFORMATION w ` y w 1 0" 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATIONr Nom+ L LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER - 0 oWATER X60 " 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL STORM SEWER - ¢ x 5< x ° ELECTRIC A W/ 6X6CRETE##10 /10LWBWRMINF. GAS PAINTED DIRECTIONAL o N SURVEY INFORMATION LU ARROW (WHITE) TYP. 3 W PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT, LANZISERA. & FRANK C3 N PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) \ °� n oLu 125 CHURCHS1 w m MALVERNE. NY 11565 ¢ F N (S16) 599-3663 O ,N_, Z '01 DATE: OSAPR90 H AL n z g0, u LEGEND Z z ,L6. 20 SANITARYSEWER OAS ¢ Z H 65 C T �® N 6"X18" CONCRETE _ — e� WATER LOT LIGHLP:30 O CURB (TYP. ) 28 STORM SEWER EXISTING ELEVATION (76. 5) �- ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 g ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' a o STREET ADDRESS g OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MA COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --xxx-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. - SP - 1 MC9005 IDSTNY,T) I GENERAL NOTES w w 1. McDONALD'S ROAD SIGN MID BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. N E CONWIT AND WIRING ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. } m Q 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS, CONDUIT. ANDWIRINGFOR PLL OTHER r SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTER. 70-5A "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 314" EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT PERI- METER FOR LOT LIGHTING IS BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. LIGHT- \ ING FIXTURES. BASES. POLES. CONDUIT. AND WIRING ARE BY THE �O LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR ZO BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. A N S. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCHEMATIC ONLY. EXACT LOCATIONS SHALL BE DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST L) n ECONOMICAL INSTALLATION. w O ' V Q 1n 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES W O TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING n "McDONgLD'S ROAD SIGN UTILITY. REFER TO THE BUILDING ELECTRICAL MD PLUMBING � n O V(V DRAWINGS FOR UTILITY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS. SIZES. AND _ q M r CIRCUITING. 5h 0! A '0 0� "McDONRLD'S" GROUND SIGN ~ SJR •� 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT LU HANDICAP RAMP — ' \ 6'X18" CONCRETE oRoUNmeREa . ¢ k \ CURB (TYP. ) IWa e. FINISH WALK PLAID CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6" ABOVE FINISH PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PAVEMENT' HANDICAP STALLS ONLY � w •• 9. ALL LAM)SCAPE AREAS SHALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6" BELOW 70-SR "WELCOME" SIGN 24 ° 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. TOP OF ALL WALKS Aum CURBS. FINISH GRADING, LANDSCAPING. O W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWNER/OPERATOR. x 10. LOT LIOHITNO CONCRETE FODTINOS TO CONFORM KITH THE SOILS .. /� REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS PPRTICULM SITE. u. . 0 5 PAVING SPECIFICATION •6,. GI" (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) 5� N•0"„ ' 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE I-R ASPHALT HERRING COURSE � „ p 5 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE p"" K 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE e 6" CONCRETE FILLED W GUARD POST (TVP. OF 8) „ 6 4" CONCRETE SIDEWALK _ p od'6 �, • 0• ONI1F1/ 2/ MORTER BED W. W. M. _ o .• �1 � o_ w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NICE: McDG*$ ENGDAHEI RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REaLEsr A aWWgw $ z� u �1 p TEST PND/OR A f SAMPLE. IF TESTS PROVE CORP , PER ABOVE U_ SPECIFICATION. TESTS WILL AT TIE DwBNBE IP McDONA.S'S. V V £ N LL OTiQI1I5E G.C WILL BE CWAGE9. w O / MENU BOARD O LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATIONco z w LX CE / 1 \ w M 70-5 EXIT SIGN V )HN _7 1991 - OQ B Q ao ' 25'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER i U'n w Nr / NOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. Z N PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) 50'0" 5" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. no z W/ 6X6 4I0/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION „ w NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) u m N LRNDBANKED PARKING TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' X 20' 0 75 y` OF VEHICLE DETECTOR SPACESu, Z CONCRETE SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' 0 90 6"Xl8" CONi J R 50 '0" 2a°„ R VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 qi CURB (TYP. ) 0 '0" \ - SPACES - X - m - G 2D °• a BUS PARKING ZONE \ R UTILITY INFORMATION 4y . w r 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATIONE- o LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER „ _ ° 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL WATER Lli 6° STORM SEWER - ¢ x X x Q ♦ Q ° '1 ELECTRIC - Q Q, 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. o z W/ 6X6 #10/10 W.W.M. GAS - I I I I I o SURVEY INFORMATIONa PRINTED DIRECTIONAL o � \� SUR � ARROW (WHITE) TYP. s "T PREPARED BY: TEAS, BRRRETT. LRNZISERR. b FRANK 7o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) o �� \ OG 125 CHURCH STREET ¢ Ui MALVERNE. NY 11565 N (516) 599-3663 O Z DATE: 06APR90 H 1 LEGEND ¢ z Z 2a a�2o a SANITARY SEWER ORS Cc Z N 56 6 WATER LOT LIGHTo_ 6"X16" CONCRETE 9 STORM SEWER ~� LP:30 N U CURB (TYP. ) 2g EXISTING ELEVATION (76. 5) �"�� ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 0 q ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TYP. ) SS8q PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20 ' w� P �, � STREET ADDRESS OLD MAIN ROAD N. Y. S. RTE. 2S & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUCK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19PPR91 MR COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --XXX-- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX-- -- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. SP - 1 M0000G KOSM9Ye,7 I GENERAL NOTES w N 1. MCDONRLD'S ROAD SIGN AND BASE ARE BY THE SIGN CONTRACTOR. Nn H CONIDUIT RNID MIRING ARE BY THE GENFJtPL CCHRRACTOR. 2. BASES. ANCHOR BOLTS. CIXmUIT. MID WIRING FOR ALL OTHER 0] SIGNS ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTER. V R 70—SA "THANK YOU" SIGN 3. 3/{' EMPTY CONDUIT TO LOCATIONS SHOWN AT THE LOT 30PERI- METER ERI- METEFF �ST LIGHTINSOIS BYC�UIGENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE LIGHT— ING I `O LANDSCAPED ISLAND OWNER/OPERATOR. ' 4. BASES FOR FLAGPOLES ARE BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ANCHOR Z BOLTS ARE BY THE FLAGPOLE SUPPLIER. O H H D_ \N 5. PROPOSED UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN SCFkTIATIC ONLY. EXACT H LOCATIONS SMALL BE TION.DETERMINED TO ALLOW FOR THE MOST U O' ECQVOMICRL INSTALLATION. w INN FQ NS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CoORUINfiTE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES / O Oy TO DETERMINE EXACT POINT OF SERVICE CONNECTION AT EXISTING + M m "McDONRLD'S ROAD SIGN DRAWINGS FOR UTILIER To THE TY SERVICE ENTRANCE LOCATIONS.sB1NG z , am yy CIRCUITING. ? "McDONALD'S" GROUND SIGN h 7. ALL ELEVATIONS SHOWN ARE IN REFERENCE TO THE BENCHMARK AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AT t1TGlviGtiP RAMP + OIROUHDBREAK. w ° 6'X18" CONCRETE F- ! \ CURB (TYP. ) PAINTED STRIPING (BLUE) S. FINISH WALK AND CURB ELEVATIONS SHALL BE 6' ABOVE FINISH �O HANDICAP STALLS ONLY PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL PavExrr. > w ff °" 70-50 "WELCOME" SIGN S" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. V. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS SMALL BE ROUGH GRADED TO 6' BELOW p• 21`� W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. TOP OF ALL NID WALKS RCURBS. FINISH NERIINE. LANDSCAPING, x AND SPRINKLER SYSTEMS ARE BY THE OWhfR/OPERATOR.TOR. .. /� 10. LOT LIGHITNG CONCRETE FOOTINGS TO CONFORM WITH THE SOILS REPORT RECOMENDATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. ci m+` p' 6 m PAVING SPECIFICATION (MINIMUM 3" TOTAL COMPACTED ASPHALT THICKNESS) " O u� O " 1 1/2" N.Y.S. TYPE I—A ASPHALT WEARING COURSE T °e "HsO 6 1 1/2" ASPHALT BINDER COURSE 6" CONCRETE FILLED 6" CRUSHED STONE BASE z GUARD POST (TAP. OF 8) 451, CONCRETE SIDEWALK , �f �0 � REE INF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. - ❑ � ON 1 1/2* MORTER BED - o 6° ? > w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) NONE: MvBRWAD'S ENGINEER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REGUES A CAPS DN O z v S'�I IORTTIION. TESTS LL BE Kr THE PACE cDONTLD'3, r k LL LL MENU BOARD Er�EnwxaE. e.a WILL IE cwwem. \ (��0 0 p LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION V `/ g w z .✓ '� //��TT oE CO w LL ul SIGN i'I' ,M9lW -7' 1991 - w o 2S'-0" LANDSCAPED BUFFER z o w PAINTED STRIPING (WHITE) N NOTE: ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR TO CIRCUIT LOT LIGHTING AS NOTED. z N S S" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. . PARKING INFORMATION LRNDBRNKED PARKING NO STEEL (MESH OF BAR) m TO BE PLACED WITHIN 2'0" OF VEHICLE DETECTOR TOTAL 52 SPACES 9' x 20' m 75 o 6"X18" CONCRETE " SPACES 2 HANDICAP SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 T4 CURB TYP. ) P SO '0" g'0 z ( 2 R 20 0„ VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR 6 5 11 LRNDBRNKED SPACES 9' X 20' m 90 4x BUS PARKING ZONE 2� ° — SPACES — x — m — z rn d UTILITY INFORMATION 4 w 6"X12" CONCRETE SIZE TYPE LOCATION O LANDSCAPE CURB (TYP. ) SANITARY SEWER — L WATER I I c 20'X20' TRASH CORRAL STORM SEWER _ A 25 25 R ELECTRIC H I H H Q, r• 8" CONCRETE SLAB REINF. - H H H H H O PRINTED DIRECTIONAL W/ 6X6 #10/10 W. W. M. GAS uH o� ARROW (WHITE) TYP. a o• \U' SURVEY INFORMATION H N ~ O PREPARED BY: TEAS, BARRETT. LRNIZISFJ2A. & FRANK C3 w PRINTED STRIPING (WHITE) �: ` Ou? 125 CHURCH STREET N Ld N MRLVERNE. NY 11565 I (SIB) S99-3663 O z G' DATE: OSAPR90 K c0 0 Zw e� a LEGEND cc N z 24'' 2D SANITARY SEWER GAS ¢ ¢ H 5 J Z 66 - -�. ej o_ � 6"X18' BPN�RETE WATER LOT LIGHT ■-� P0 CURB (TYP. ) �28$ �6EXISTING ELEVATION ELECTRIC PROPOSED ELEVATION 77. 17 g ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT (TAP. ) — S 84.2' 10' i5 PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' D MAIN ROAD STREET ADDRESS OLN. Y. S. RTE. 25 & OLD MAIN ROAD CITY STATE STATUS DATE BY MATTITUGK NEW YORK PRELIMINARY 19APR91 MRM COUNTY PLAN CHECKED --- NASSAU AS-BUILT --XXX-- --- REGIONAL DWG. NO CORPORATE DWG. NO. SP - I IICBGG6 (ORIRYN7 /r/ CUL"IONS GENERAL NOTES: ' 6 AMA u55 CAI_CULAT100 -/OLUFIE CATCH 8ASIu5 1. McDonald's Road Sign and Base are by the Sign Contractor. p _ Conduit and Wiring are by the General Contractor. PA=i DRI�\uY 4;IDOSf1i.IraG r< I 'I$O,2LaxF7 U5E(IJ iI"b`PIA X 121iDEBr PA-2 PARKIQJ G,9uPSY x,lo6%1' I1155.4CY.FT u5E(2 �_' IODIAK 9' DEEP 2, Bases, Anchor Bolts, Conduit, and Wiring for All Other DA- 3 - 3,220 SF x,lW x 1 534-CO-FT- USER-Y-10 PIA- %S' DEEP Signs an by the General Contractor. y PA-4 6 tacicxlGt: Kl 0l9 urFT u5E 3. %" Empty Conduit to Locations Shown at the Lot Pai- a C I l (2) - Io'PIARS' POP � meta for Lot Lighting is by the General Contractor. Lighting > 5 Q a -DA-5 -1 ,3507•FK,16&Kt g24coFT uSE(J) -lo DIAK4 PQiP Q Z tA\ T'1 Fixtures, Bass, Poles, Conduit, and Wiring are by the 0 ��p OF i6ew ' DA-=6 - - -1;8?7.5FR,1(4gj. _ 303 cu FT USE0) -lo'DIAxi DEEP Owner/Operator. � 5`.' m eptal DA--i 1125 S Ex.a166xt- I Sb co FT z _� ILIA _ I i 4. Dam for Flagpoles are by the General Contractor. Anchor Q 5 q� pA tea DA- 5 1 j(PTS S `Is•I66 KL -RTOCu.FT uSE(?) IC D(A X 9 DE$R_ Bolts are by the Flagpole Supplier. o X 914K��ORZlu/ fir'" AA-q WOF 4, 46as.EK.K.&x1 7¢Ocu.PT E u t S. Proposed Utilities are Shown in Schematic Only. Exact J�V R\5t_ OrOi �r - Locations shall be Field Determined to Allow for the Most 'I•S\ i \� Economical Installation. m ryg t 9,5 D O 36 C. e - - -- - _ S. The Contractor shall Coordinate with All Utility Compania - e `b - - - - ...... H...t FPAr1E_+_y W -- - � hg1 °s 4•q 517E •; _- -- - �_ - ', to Determine Exact Point of Service Connection at Existing Utility. Refer to the Budding Electrical and Plumbing ac tg O cT +; _ �( _ _ Drawings for Utility Service Entrance Locations, Sizes, and 4 aJ� h1- . Circuiting. riyb .I�` ?o• �' , •P-r' v,r,aN w ,^ . m +:' .E ' ',:' _-SPR&c�1ST REh.IF. 'fRA�F1c_- ® v seARtar� 1oP= 4 om est-- 4Ua A : L 7. All Elevations Shown are in Reference to the Benchmark a 7 h and must be Verified by the General Contractor At r3¢ 1 yP+Q ^ �� hU�� ryA• Iyo,g+ i to P-RECAST (REIt7P._DRAIt:HSfAE _ _ Groundbreak. Ytie Q� LON ti o \ 9 �qq •5`'c Y.C. . _ S. Finish Walk and Curb Elevations shall be 6" Above Finish E ryq•� ;A ( Pavement. g 9. All Landscape Areas shall W Rough Graded to 6" Below 7 0 P, tiq• e ' p gh O & •, Top of All Walks and Curbs. Finish Grading, Landscaping, .5 and Sprinkler Systems are by the Owner/Operator 2. o c "'D �� LA g5bA e� q ti of Ex y (SIPaDu>a .vATeR �ry\u l.• tE .'` �`pfQEp�� �0 \.6 �1�;��aG` 5e 4 EE T FLli4+E ' 1,MN vRPNt a.� ° 5 0 04 ..opV` .Q Cu \DATA\\' EWA1.K5 / R Rp,NK \NL, I _ PAVING SPECIFICATION: (Mm, SER t a n, F ro J\DA 5\o Fqy C8\� t'IP'� TY /! C �` ¢a��` rJ`, EQ\GK� `S •• :• L Or,(7 T 11' -VA"� �___I��S�_ - mum 3"Total Compacted Thickness.)t Thi°kn. .l �y��pa0 ,� 4.�G/�,e( y/E_asq -Ek. . . ,4 -'-•- ' :•• rLy(e ��\,.,I R 1JoTE: DA = DRAINAGE AREA - - ..,- --PAVIWCT- LISTED Fp 1•'1- Top TO BASE P�Q D � j�/Q � � \a'� V ;k r• i._ t 2t,tRE?• WNnY` �4M - - • .I'�2° 1tlP_ �QuR5E--TYPE--�-P �\ �' �`F 5Rr o R _ \ti 9] M 9w�PA 8 5 P hiciso w - - Co'�25TBAIE11�zED_ 9UP1' SuIIPYrSSE AS APPBaiED _ ,a r �, qa I Qat, - •ciP 1 ••QM 1 .: 1lJEM I. b 91.iR,�JEL+'�• 120 Ele'j"r cEascrfnca ° rr••;q- T, Pee u22,5 -- :.a,ay,.- ,;. :,:. t + CR GEIJr�rre,�� i nnxoteoArAeipzr - - - - t- - - - - - - • - 6t„29'fi D 5)USN@'SS N.i,n _ Er`� l 13011A1.DJ fBNS u•„r.r term ,r,. n �I•� J� `Q 'j e,.� v.n nye 9 'j. vtiJ 19.1 �1 pL `� _ .Y�jflr y e ' f 5 two, ..,u•„., - - --- -- - E �^ •O ,•Y "'caro p1W 922-7-3 Not., McDon.ld'r Engineer R .The Right To Request A Como S.? ' atRequestp ^• non Test Aid/Or A Con Semple, If Tuts Pro,@ Correct,Per 3g S)• h DDy 0.9 �(��- \t t3 _ - - era enr•n Above Speclhorom, Tests Will Be At The Experts Of McDoneld't V ii 29.1 s _ u.r• rr.,,, iW, Orhnwits, G C.Will Be Charged. Z 29,$ pew ,,,, LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: J RtOh Dp.ti �1pPED ----- ate ,• J o •r:`•.`••"`•• !km \,pa r n,.u.u•. c.,n. or • REFER TO 5HEE7 _SP-30._ FOR LICTH'nl4 LOOLIT ANDT-.tEC7EFCAL CEQUIREME147S, v JJh v.rr ret• r.,. ral,n ..,,. LAUD Natty o¢ FoeMEeL �\a ; PF AMAC IMC, FoLMELI`l Does T ,LSO y� .d't'f volt-•Ew , Note. Electrical Contractor To Circuit Lot Lighting As Noted. bF W. ICE AUD FUEL CORP } " C� /I � 29.a H cat` .TP & °o l.fi ti e v ,tat yW( O'x Qal'(N Pp./E PARKING INFORMATION: I� _ eA ,SPE LT E' E'L ` „ ' \ Armowzn • Total __ _-___--T-CP - Spaces - 91-- x 'LO • 90 PSP aro L 9' 1 W`�'' t,1 i�Z PpO� D \t' �• ry 1 i�, aG,F\ D rurx^n wn eKrn spaces Spaea-- x 0 Lcp(.P Nun: n,m•r c.nru e.,• n sCF I -- LAUD N f op STAJLE J, x99 ,� 1 ''r . n . s1Y LAND N/F OF eu •, 9clk_.. - - - $pixti - x • JAMES PENDULIK r•" `ter` - - - - AUD JANIc%E M. RISS R. �• POFD Dp 3t ' r' Dp- �1 mwn s. t.a,_t - _ - OLD+Mtl4 - oa �•I `Z.A\\1 EE � I � r �" � ./. 1\ - - GoR,A rM, r•� � w•ki - S7ACKI!!CT ._ - _ _Spaf�s - f'Ih'I''�'I{I,ILI �.'� P� � 1 4_ / • -- 5- -O x l- • i 'Yw �•� UTILITY INFORMATION: p\y "'AA911 _I '•\ t ------- t,.. Sae: Type: Location: G129A fg•5 s « \ - - - - -_ \ •r" ^•"•" '"•• Sanitary Sewn - 5£E- 5HERT -SP-1s A c.'LS, �\ - 1 E 2l. '-'--- set• - - a Z otK,� o ..•. Water WELL , SEE 9HEET- 5P-3 LINE Storm Sewer u,v.ry at .e ,m,• w..•..m Electric -SEE m n m m S a -SHEET.-SP,3¢ ' -- - - Q m fJo� $ s LINE of EXISTI J \vx�D$ 98ra G Gas , 29 3 �. ,6LL U• 1L1 IPS P'eE I f~jE \ j j 27.0 "'.r I^ ••n rat. ere.. ..awe Dere At\ SURVEY INFORMATION: K Lll�riEcGRoU �ID. v o -y.�r Prepared By: Q. O ��IS�INF -}It2B Lief? as O'r • '��- � - - Ep\ALE.A j - � �� �, - Dated: U4 US 0, D El'a l*5 PEr< 1'ol-r� op SoutHoL t '� 27•e - �L+hIfJI�IG reo �cyl�lA;EMEN 27,s 2i.5 2 ! LEGEND: 4. RE�Ee t° ShE61' SP'aA �° � u.4 r �\ �� " SITE- APE& - 12.94 AcQE� (13o1421s.O Sanitary $ewer -S Gas -G a q o elf LItiH films w -_ ,ASA4` Sf,___._._�.. Water -W Lot Light �'� LP:30 E e %=L0-� yER --.- ---- ------- - -- �-ff3�TTp - Storm Sewer -ST Existing Elevation (76.5) O Ecc / 2 .1 27.1 . �J - - - -- /- EYIST. cEss Pc°L 27_1 27,4 2G.7 0� 1•A'� --'pA�ED-AREA--- - - ------ -- ------- 1 . -- d _ �q7. �•tg, 15, - "-q(T0475.FOR:-rjj �e;_- Electric - E Proposed Elevation 77.0 584' 41'- IONV - n o • - L11I.1 P5'fJ1F'ED--. AREA PLAN SCALE: 1 a0' r,. ---- -- ----- - yGa42s-OC-Z4•1��-- Le.I 2y� Pf,zklNe'r R�Ulrceo. 112 5 = 4015 e5 2G S '143 25.9 25.4 25.Q 25,4 25,4 _?}lk) ______1 STREET ADDRESS: REGIONAL DWG. NO.: 25,9 1"Af> lPEp- - 4�.5fl4cE5 OLD MAIN ROAD CITY: STATE: O`Sj JRED ARoti,Jl MATTITUCK CORPORATE DWG. NO.: .- - - - SAY E4 �olsp F. Fp�Y fOr ,. +L COUNTY: - -- - - _MATTITUCK- '_ * SUFFOLK SIT�PJ.AN - -- 2owN 6F `x>L�7HOLD a----- -- - - -` - - SUFFo1.k_ cczutilT`( N.,"{; _ . ��ry "°• e3" + RAYMOND F. FELLMAN • ARCHITECT , °F THE sl N15 x90 BROADWAY • AMITYVILLE 10222 GLACYER COURT' ORLANW SP- 2, NEW YORK 11701 . 516989-3553 FLORIDA 321309 • 305-351-4596 , ', � t Ma@bNMM�M�1 bfln Md Ih by tNN'�MI CMmeemr '� �., � G, r�� CultAuitl{tMYllle�ne�FMbY ��!GrkiliMCoi➢trllelpw-, ° , a !►�r� �►nanergoi rw �e�'pr+lt, wla widdj ro. All od,w x eivow V.0 by �At Gtner�l t utmedtor y y 0, ii'°.Ari tlx I:YtnduR {YI L01Miketn Shtwb,et Me-'Lot Ptri• K r nwter*4etl.lgl'tt"htNtiltG"'oCon ender. LI♦/ m > k� �. FlktiiN PI.9PoIM ot11MOR, Mid Wir➢� we by' the CC y gIJ bwnee/Oi�raeal.,, ,tt 0 - 4. r NN wtio$I N eNi by4t 6wr"'Cortirde oI. Andhor molb,tre 6Y the'Fleepole Edpoliar. 4 pro ➢ �� - e Lu4etIddM Ihvf bsl Field Determined to Allow ffor 'the M EebnanNktl>t`tself"on e, Ttit CdMIHMtUb grNl Cootilhato with All Utlll" Companies , 3� V1 to lit . 111 to ttM gi7➢Itiitia�Eleot lvilNatbn is liaiNinP LtiIHY R uµi M4mWne . or ihipir for'UI➢litt, eerwo"Antranda Looet➢dna° mass, and _ f dl I Ail'lMhtkaN;III own,he At!55llthrinta,to the' Mnehmak- �- elid mart ba.N!itiriNad bt tM oenerN Contractor At .,, „, � ' Is, F➢tiilll Wtlk,and Curb Elivetlona tbNl ba e" Abe" Finish C� pertinent. P' e.. All 'La"Ifft else Arta thmt' vw Routh Weikel to e^ Below o Top of All Walks end Cuft Flnnh Gredlne, Let thespIng, P`� 2 and e06010 Systems we by the Gw;ner/Opirstdr. , � f ra r i` V PA41NG 8P€Cti`tCA710N, r � - IkkANhum,9"TeW CnlnitfrbN AMihe➢t Taie►naw.l "';": W. ` 1 �5 A O ; .11 4. bm Now IMeD�Y Ard/b'ACW6 eamPi�It Tan hwr co~,M need•krwir(brdrinr !10 win ealUi.rin llitivnw W ttapenMrK orN+irr➢r.,a.c:wan se Ck}gjd., i .`� LOT�'d if#G NECOMMENOATI ;{^ NOWr"'+tjY�C nYc4r 1d drkuM'L'pt lifhllM At Newt. .0 'a ► 1a ` Jq �',y ' \ \ ® uralry INfbpMaTloN: - dJ. ' � ` \ Sanitary 9erwr ';!a O ' starmen+te � „ to ,; 3 r Ota A INFtrrov TI� ?' 'g' n ,I ; pend ^+'" Yr F.+►�F LA14?1�j-(t,!(P.I, .IMi.rRliflk � ,1 SNlterr9tlwer S' — Gb, 4sl,iiohr. ' M tin, a� 0 EhkMa s°c.�-,.,E ra: ' M,�'I�'ENY►lligd' l F/.v l ,' a r r 4 uE7 ADpR REGIONAL DW6 Nb, OLD MAIN ROAD - - - ., taco CITY ' STATE a� CORPORATE OWG NO SITIES PLAN * � f �sEPza f "F t Ll:MAN ARC ITE a �i t'sikt4'N aid aaoAowtr r FMirrJicr_e r -lpdas oLkS r Cbu,erd . 8�iao , New �YONe 117Q1 '. 'btt)Yea•3!!! ►�.CalOA .Ueilt • i e1163514!!e r. MUM Is aft" - n NOTES : SHINGLE RETURN 8"X 16" ALUMINUM LOUVER I BRICCK TO BE LIGHT IN COLOR OF MANSARD (TYP J RAIN GUTTER WITH W/BIRD SCREEN ON TO BE CHOSEN BY MCDONALD' S 24 GA GALVANIZED 5 , 0„ BACK OF PARAPET CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER 5' 0" GUTTER FLASHING (3 BACK ELEVATION) (SEE SHEET A9) 2 WHEN SPECIAL EXTERIORS ARE 1 TOP OF PARAPET LIGHT BEAM S ARE C V + I ' -4 / 16" TOL BE TAKEN ED LFROMC THE BUILDING SHINGLES AS PER EXTERIOR DESIGN AND COLOR GUIDE - EXTERIOR DECOR SEE SPECS 3 FINISH TO BE LIGHT IN COLOR AND, COORDINATED WITH TRIM ' 4 ALL WOOD IN CONTACT W/ CONC SLAB OR FOUNDATION WALLS AND ALL WOOD TOP OF MASONRY WALL ON ROOF DECK TO BE PRESSURE TREATED , Ips - TO RESIST WATER 6 INSECT DAMAGE 5 6" FIBERGLASS INSULATION MECHANICALLY 4 ' 5" CLEARANCE WARNING SIGN •SEC:URED TO NAILERS FASTENED TO THE ` [TYP ) STUCCO SYSTEM GU TRIGGERS SEE DETAILS A6 A17 IX4 FRIEZE BOARD (SEE SPECS 1 6 SOFFIT SHOULD BE PAINTED WHITE OR STAINED AS PER GUARD POST REQUIRED LIGHT COORDINATED COLOR EXTERIOR DECOR WITH OPTIONAL7 INSTALL METAL ROOD DECK AND ALL BUMPOUT WINDOW STRNCTURAL STEEL PRIOR TO INSTALLING TOP OF •ROW- OCK COURSE MANJSARDS °0 � � �� • 8 ALL, STEEL FRAMING TO BE BRACED DURING CONSTRUCTION PER ASCI RECOMMENDATIONS � � T(�P F FI��OR SLAB 9 CONSALL TRUCTIONPERPER'SMASONRyBE BRACED DURING r EV INSTITUTE RECOMMENDATIONS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ S�III L = - - - I- �� GUARD POST BUMPOUT DRIVE - T - - r - - - � frh T P OF DR VE-THRU PAD " A2 LJ 12 A9 L J � REQUIRED WITH THRU WINDOW J BUMPOUT WINDOW TOP OF FREE ER SLAB rI - - tl - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - T - - - - - - - '- 1 - _ - _ - _ - _ - 1T - - - - - - - _ - - -- - - - - - - - - i - 1 - - - - - - J \` • 1 L - - - 1- - -�\-/- - - - - - - - - - - - LIGHT BRONZE TINTED REAR ELEVATION I " INSULATED GLASS , 8" x 16" ALUMINUM LOUVER I SCALE 1 /4" = I ' -O" W/ BIRD SCREEN ON BACK OF PARAPET (3 FRONT ELEVATION) 5 ' pEOU L QUAL EQUAL FASCIA SIGN TOP OF Pry _7E PARA _T _ _ 9/ 1 I n 24 GA GALV RAIN DIVERTER PAINTED TO �f�(V �I MATCH SHINGLES �-• -� TOP OF+MASONRY WALL p IpO 8�No a 1 1LYY`�_ rcry F SH D FF T •------a,m�_,___, ' L + I _ 1 �• P[ll�rIJl0 Iri 81 a O 6 COLUMN WRAPPED INKK6 COLUMN WRAPPED IN AZ - ANODIZED ALUMINUM O ANODIZED ALUMINUM GUARD POST REQUIRED H H WITH OPTIONAL —T O n BUMPOUT WINDOW 0f n ( O I < 00a PEDESTRIAN SAFETY aH Z W N RAIL TPPmOF.RrOWLQCK COURSE t7 < J N " PERMA PL.Y R SIDE PARAPET FLASHING CEMENT N < ¢ EMBED IN! ASPHALT w + T P OF FLOOR SLAB • i 1 ry METAL COPING w i : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PERMA PLY R y Z ~ - - - - I " INSULATED NAILED P1 PARAPET WALL PERMA CAP EMBED IN ASPHALT z o r LL I I LOGO WINDOW 18 GLASS ( TYP 1 - ONLY SEIE SPECS NAIL P 6" 0 C 0 < F (SEE SPECS ) AT A7 I " FROM TOP EDGE ONLY . N < -T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ L_ - J D BY REAR PARAPET z ¢ F- I - r � � BOTTOM OF FOOTING Z a i FRONT ELEVATION CODE OR TO ACHIEVE / J " v ADEQUATE SOIL BEARING '\ (w]//' ❑ N = I ' -0" 3' MIN NAILER N o I /4" / LAP TYP w STEEL JOISTS FABRICATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 1 22" L4P SCALE = - SJI SPECIFICATIONS 2 3 • I l / \ \ r ~ 1 3 WIDE RIB 1 1/2" STEEL DECK SEE DETAIL / \I A854 S4 A6 2 LAYER RIGID INSULATION I LAYER 2 1 /4" / • / PARAPET POLYISOCYANURATE FOAM INSULATION IS I TOP LAYER 3/4" • j.,, / FLASHING OWENS CORNING RIGID FIBERGLASS INSULATION - - - - - - '" -• ` - /• (SEE SPECS ) WOOD CANT BUILT-UP BITUMINOUS ROOFING•OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS CORP 33- IC ROOF SPECIFICATION-UL �\ Ix, (�( TYPICAL) CLASS A ROOFING SYSTEM WITH MINERAL CAP SHEET YP c^" TYP B" TYP NXa� X �i LIGHT BEAM 11 O SE NOTE A5 pJ S $ � H L 1 " X I " X 1 /8" ZO o E m > HORIZONTAL BRIDGING < _ II _ O 10 U) J H WOOD CANT GIT Hz > TINTED GLAZING 1 - 1r- -T -11- � 7- -T -y1- Ir- �r -11 (LIGHT BRONZE) SUSPENDED ACOUST H II MI CE;LI e ' I 1 " II II II II MI o❑J b I1— 1 1 ° 5 EMBED IN PERMA ASPHALPLY R REAR OUTRIGGER ��+ < N o < f�c MENU BOARD A7 SEE SPECIFICATIONS PLYWOOD CRICKET pyo Z bf VALANCE _ iv J c < 16 O 17 - METAL DECKING 3/4" OWENS CORNING FIBERGLASS < m F- Z ' n _ RIGID INSULATION Z ,1 (n m 0) cv 36 PIERMA CAP 2 3" POLYISOCYANURATE 0 ❑ W 1 'D VALLEY STRIP-- FOAM INSULATION DRIVE-THRU PAD TOP F F R A 36" PERMA PLV R W f L + VALLEY STRIP ELEV -0- 1 " of iX Q i� �x DRYWALL TAPED LANMOTE__' LANDSCAPED AREA w ' SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR F 5" FLOOR SLAB AND SANDED TOPSOIL BY OPERATOR DUML sTmmw moFm syxm COMPLETE DESCRIPTIONS OF QUARRY TILE BOTTOM OF FOOTING NOT TO SCALE PRODUCTS AND PROCEDURES VAPOR BARRIER _ FLOOR 6 BASEAS g 6" COMPACTED SAND TO ACHIEVEYADEQUATTE w A 0 4• CROSS SECTION /� FRP PANELING SOIL BEARING � STUCCO/BRICK SCALE 1 /4"= [ ' -O" t A�3 F» fid;, rt 111 . t' .. I_ Old o LITE . .........II IIIII I ---------- - -- -- -- -----------_---_=--__-_-_-_____==— - -�-_---____-_-_==- --- __-- _ _ -- �-- ____ rr=- = -------------------- -------------- ------- ---= -_= � • ` F IF/ BIN ...... __--_ 527" II'! 107'! rV 1046'! DIST. 1000 SEC. 122 BLK. 6 01 LOT 2B 40_,. 2T DIST, /000 , 2B2 SEC, 122 BLK 6 3,p1 e 107356 Nti o DIST. 1000 2854- SEC. 122 D/ST. /000 n DIST. /ODO DIST. /000 0/5T 1000 01ST /000 LLT 26 SEC, /22 1 e SEC. /22 SEG /22 SEC. 122 SEC. 122 BLK. 6 M �; SLK. 6 BGC 6 BLK. 6 f BLK 6 245„ LOT 3/ of°v L07-29.1 ,I LOT 29.2 ,I LOT 29.3 LOT 29.4 y b p J \ /4BL 974 QPO\ 0/sT 1000 DIST. 6 / • / SEC, 122 N DIST. 100 / SEC. /22 X00 BLK. 6 ry' SEG DIST. /000 SLK 6 LOT 27 m/ SLK. 6 I SEG 122 LOT 30.1 ^ LOT 33122 0 b° y BLK. 6 / LOT 32 ° 200 ' RADIUS LIST SUBJECT PARCEL IS 1000-122-7-3. 1 97'2 60'_a /B4'4 1201 /274 127! 127! 1 127' 501 1000-122-6'26 Ernest & Ano Wilsberg, Mattituck, NY 11952 MAIN ROAD CS. R. 25) (66' R. O. W.) 1000- 122-6-27 NY State , Albany, NY 19200 1000-122-6-28 NFB Developement, 9025 Main Road, Mattituck, N52'02%O"E37!37' NY 11952 1000-122-6-29. 1 Troy & Joan Gustayson, Box 247 King Street, 2701 DIST /000 3461 - 1:St57' 1501 365P Orient, NY 11957 SEC. /22 o DIST. /000 1000- 122-6-29. 2 Sunbow Associates , 1065 Hyatt Road, Southold, BLK. 7 s,a N 4r 1w SEC. /22 NY 11971 �0T/@D/ST /000 ^ m 0 ;e; BLK. 7 16% 1000- 122-6-29. 3 Sunbow Associates , 1065 Hyatt Road, Southold, SEC. 122 „ "� ,y o 01ST. /000 DIST. /000 LOT 6.4 Z NY 11971 BLK. 7 114-2 77,17' a o SEC. 122 0° SEC. 122 LOT3.2 552%3'40W N BLK. 7 ro/ BLK. 7 10 0 1000- 122-6-29. 4 Abagail Wickham & Eric S. Bressler, Sox 718 , LOT 6B LOT 66 ` Cutchogue, NY 11935 0 1000-122-6-30. 1 William Goodale, 15 Fourth Street, New Suffolk, NY 11956 D/ST /000 DIST. 1000 ' �0' O1000-122-6-31 Parvia , Zad, PO Box E09 Lotowana La. , r O SEC. 122 ti SEC. /22 157' 15%!_ Stony Brook, 11790 t 8LK. 7 BLK. 7 1000- 122-6-32 William & W. F. Konkel, Main Road, Oettltuck, LOT2 „ LOT 3./ o' NY 11952 yV 1000- 122-6-33 Robert Goodale, 665 Stillwater Avenue, / DISK. /000 Cutchob'ue, MY . 11935 LIC 72 cka 1q% 1000-122-6-35. 6 Harvey Bagshaw, New Suffolk Avenue , Mattitu •,q`' A LOT 6.7 O NY 11952 1000-122-7-1 Amac Inc. , 7400 Main Road, Laurel , NY 11948 Pei O 1000-122-7-2 Stanley & Janice Fliss , 565 Old Main Road, Mattituck, NY 11952 DIST. /000 e•� Qa 1000-122-7-3. 2 Suffolk Etched Products , 1556 W. ►1NSn 'Street, `'B'• '� SEC. /22 ` Riverhead, NY 11901 BLK, 7 1000-122-7-6. 4 William Gremler, Kraus Road, Mattituck, NY LOT 7.l 11952 t r 1000-122-7-6. 6 Stype Brothers Real Estate, Main Road, >z Mattituck, NY 11952 05 1000-122-7-6. 7 Frank Murphy Garden Center, Mattituck, NY Pp( 34f' 11952 \> 500 ss 215c• ) 1000-122-7-6. 6 Brisotti & Silkworth, Main Road, Mattituck, NY 0, O•�• 11952 DIST /000 lege• AP6• R• 1000-122-7-7. 1 11981 BLK .2 Pendulik, 7 Long Pond Road, Ridge, NY SEC. 126 6 LOT 4.2 1000- 122-7-6. 3 Martha HusinB, Old Main Road, Mattituck, NY - 11952 2o7s1 sow DIST. 1000 \\ SEC. 122 BLK. 7 LOT B.3 / \ / OCT 3 0 1990 REVISIONS MAP SHOWING ���DBOCamann, LAND USES ANO CaalbmllonslndicatedhereonsignaythatthislarK/w,sprepared Barrett Lail isera e B man IMPROVEMENTS atdbytNewYtionofherL� Sur,,s s, Sole New Yr*Stab Assoonlyt me peesst forwh re 5/TGATEO /N survrmrs. Is preeared.add on his only the usin om Consulting Engineers and LmdSwveynrs MATT/TUCK TOWN OF SOUTNOLD go survey Is prepared,antl an his behalf to the hee on and to governmental agenry and lending institution lead hereon,and to SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW YORK the assignees of the nursing restltuuon Certifications are not transferable to additional Institutions or subsequent owners El 125 Church Street El 1001 Middle Country Road Mai NY 11565 Ridge,NV 11961 Tax Map Designation: sNeEr unamhodzedalleohonoratltldmmwsurvrymapbeanngabcens edlandsurve rssmllsamolaionofsodion 72N sub-divlsmn TEL:(516)599-3663 TEL (516)9243230 2,of the New mrk slate Education taw FAX (516)593-8160 FAX:(516)924-3557 Otis TRIC T 1000 copies Imm the ong.ml of this sure,map net minket an SECT/ON /22 OF otlglnaloltDelantl suruapfsembosutlsmisdellnhtbeconsmered to beevadd caps BLOCK y PtDREO BY DRAWN BY CHECKED BY SURVEY NO SCALE GATE LOT 3.1 JEZ JEZ KHB l" _ !00aaaaaa ' NASSAU SUFFOLK BLURMNTINb Do i Ace"ee To SeanE DOUBLE' vy F— CAST IRON FRAME_ AtJD r<r•� ARRANGE 1: - COVER TO GRADE. - C , CO r � . • .�F/-? n- S �24'MAX Qom,- a. i FINISHED GRADE ° ' E 0 _ �• 1.0 - � �� . 24•�A/JC T _ . > u N PEA SEPTC TANK J T ] O Bo® ® ® oma ® m m$° GRAVEL Ia6 %7y °oB ® ® oso e, ® m ° ,1- DETAIL 4 c °o1, Di a m 60 alien O - 00® ® 03 ® ® ® ®GO A'- .9 06 ® I8 cm ® fa ma° p . '28223 Q) moo ®® ® o a i e9°Om2 nam ®. t® ® e1 ®a p rHM' ca py Comm In m ® ® Isf ® / I° , o °a, I} a m0 im ® ® m lee N® , to z 9 =0 0 IMIM110 13 P ` 4P 5. �O "MIN. AEOVE GPpUND i rgST IRON FRAME AND m2 IN arLn J Q w o 0 \\v WATER LAVER TO GRADE N J z CL w IL o ♦ LEACHING-POIOL C.) U) ` j § . SpR-351 - FINISHEDGFSACE = LIC0 P crrnlu�,7 r Le DETAIL _! c o a p 1 u It0 0 l p r i rte- ' oo °° 10 IW- L f LP o ° o GT z O V QQ % w , ,SITE INFORMATION _TO SEPTI(. a h c o aJI'� 14� 2.�9 .�G�i5 �13U,�C21Sp� t � Z TAIJV, / 11 PROPOSED'. �111I.bINfa ��' 1+-�'<i' ��• -o � I -�-CARLSON MONOLITHIC McDonald'S I j GREASE TRAP os y�fN iso .J \ VSO Z42" 52,3 0 0� 40Yo ° �� � � ��`•I�G TZ6A�rj (' I -3 5G�'S) — 28. to pLI1jG t%W70GREASE TRAP—DETAIL ' � �_C,�': M_ I o©a 122 -� • 3• i s a NEW +wE LL - - - _ 1 ------ - -11 -- - 2 42 ct_PpEtz IJr'L WATER RV. � I � '- -- - •_ -_ _ � rove - o � 13 2 � rt m � .Z 20D GAL, 3l4"NoN-FREEZe POST �� 1501 -- - - . T oP-A4,E 14 }IYgI?a.NT W/ K-EY � ' � NEW U1pTE�- - wiz SMITH FIG sq 10) - / n MTAIL THI fSANITARY DESIGN CALCULATIONS: � o I, IGIS r-how - !�o 6,A, pPAY /v; A � �vNI a Y I©G j < g9 4�5 &OGQb SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFHEALTHRENO SERVICES APPND'9ED FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY H.S. REF. NO. eio -90 -on FLow �_ ', �`B�/ — — '1,50'10 GPC 5 17 18 19 a .;PE _�� This ,IJl al Is eant<n fer III crlstlunnnn of the sanitary �yATEK-1EVEL- 7 w ir, t u-- i' : qu n •.: r r• i • „int to Articles VR and - 8q0 GPbY 2 q°II ' 297, b GPf1 jDG1 -- 7mu a r:: r^ ^ n•esshe L C f1}�/9g28 'I 1. WELL CAP.- 18' AESV. ,nr ne .r��jj�20 �i5�p4y 15 IN (••IY POL.0610 2, CONDUIT CONNECTOR ', /. FdUlk I}m aTt r ,.. J: �,. n a • pE ]� 3. CONDUIT - 5EP i J 1991 ' " ��� / DATE . ffll 4. PITLESSADAPTERf $ �J. ./VY11G ldfry _ LUP'I1s1z- IIJ�( 1,�hlD IrL�lb1 I/ 5, SAFETY ROPE 28 2G7D Gpl�x 2 �D� J = �'? p (aQV-C S�GI �ICATI VI �Z� IVl �ll �f/^I�'P'I �II 14P / C N S �{ 6. ELECTRICALCABLEE-123�v1��. -1— /�,", 7. TORQUEARRESTOR --" LYw CSN©�� • CAST IWIJ PIPE _ 8. ELECTRICAL PUSH-IN CONNECTOR ' $ MATTITUC NEW YORK / tN MIIJ 4o' oP ¢^_gLA K_STEEL SUFFOLK c - •VaTee 9. PIPE ,. a $ 10. PUMP20 GIFH P. i%a N. g.U011EP5lBL£ FIINf -- I 118 Ur v I�� IQI On �' �/lutvl (J e 11. LIGHTNING ARRESTOR 12. DISCONNECT SWITCH - h i 13. TANK 200 •(,ALLOnuS Si:zrpq I, I MAIN ROAD t ,fjC I 15. PRESSUREGAUGE 1 Dw OLD J ���� � Vc�/ I ��� ��' = I1g0 lr* I';� 15. PRESSURE GAUGE I`tix/ -- PuHP -HIJ 20I I Ol�' n II Iq kvATEL 16. UNIONS AND P IPE FITTINGS (5) 17. RELIEFVALVE 18. GATE VALVE 19. TANK VALVE (FAUCET) DRAIN THERE-ARE-NO- APPARm rr POTENTI'AL - SOURCED OF ' SANITARY ` -C AMINATION WITHIN 150 FT. OF WELL. ALL DRAINAGE RINGS _ STAWLE55 STEEL SHA L BE 50 FT. MIN FROM WELL. 'WELL Sc RfiEIJ 5'-17" 1oP OF 664zac u 4°' NIIN SELo W WATER TA'b LE. S P 3' T T, WATER AND SEWER PLAN WELL DETAIL C-0140.1C 1090-01 Ir T la AIUTGS = MANUAL VALVE + 1 • PfU IPE AUP FITT! (a5 dHo_WN NO•R MALLy 01-061E;'50LIPI TG Eft; pt712N!5HF_P by Lil-ENEF=AL eo A1T2A,S'TOR, m C 2. AN I=LL' n.'S24CAL OUTLET a 61-100L> 6E PR-oVIPEq SOFT HNF- P WA-TL--2. - WIT✓IN FIVE' PLIET OF r- -T-r-- , r-_`-}--^ F=ROM /.�TO�AL-1C TANK THE L"L�UIPNtENT LOG ATIO(U, YY 1 MAAAUAL 1111�LT A m 3. ALLOW z<k - INCHEs AT3oVE Fi -t-t VALVE � ' T 60FY(�LEF- FOR FILLUAILa MANUAL. OUTLET ,) - L v ¢. NIAIPUTAIN P-Lo" VALVE, n P�L'TW�G-IU TANKS �' 1,V ELL, = = p X4Ld Dl J - m d c V U J q y � w o Q1 r � ayPAga t-Im/a' 70 i LIME SvFT�IUE� m OUTLET FIXTU'�L=S TAt\tK, o '� N o STDI2ALnE � T iv K � o , m TANK FiRIME TANjjc,EN E1Z r'TA!'uK Z O Q 2.'7" Z,�,. j LL n PFOM UMP zO LPr� CUL LIGAN HA -200 o c° w W CL CL 0 4'-Cn" U. D a C :5 U `v = LL u m WATER CONDITIONER SCHEMATIC WATER CONDITIONER ELEVATION C L) Z W " 0 N.T.5. --- ro 1 0 F- r U LSI 3Vm U / Y O V (,+( O 9 n G1 4y�* i o G m i t] W i 2 FIRE WELL SPECIFICATIONS WATER WELL NOTES WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM 1 . THE WELL IS TO BE OF THE GRAVEL FILTER TYPE BY 11 . THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A POTABLE WATER SUPPLY 1 . WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM SHALL BE AK FLOW HI-FLOW DEVELOPING THE NATURAL FORMATION SURROUNDING THE WELL - SYSTEM CONSISTING OF WELL, HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK , AIR MODEL HA-200 SINGLE SYSTEM, 75 GPM PEAK FLOW AT 25 PSI COMPRESSOR AND CONTROLS ALL AS SPECIFIED HEREIN AND DROP, 50 GPM CONTINUOUS FLOW AT 11 PSI DROP. SUPPLY SCREEN, THE WELL SHALL HAVE A CASING OF NOT LESS THAN B" INSTALLED IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL HEALTH DEPT. WITH 24 X 54 SOFTENER TANK AND 24 X 96 BRINE TANK. - - INSIDE DIAMTER FULL WEIGHT WROUGHT IRON STEEL DRIVE PIPE. REGULATIONS PERTAINING, TO INSTALLATION OF THIS TYPE. - 2 . PROVIDE WITH AQUA-SENSOR CONTROL SYSTEM. 2 . THE WELL SCREEN SHALL BE OF STAINLESS STEEL AND SHALL 2 . THE WELL SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM CASING DIAMETER OF 4" AND - HAVE AN OPEN SLOT LENGTH OF NOT LESS THAN 20 FEET, SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH: STAINLESS STEEL WELL SCREEN 3 . COMPLETE INSTALLATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH Q (COOK OR JOHNSON) SUITABLE FOR THE CAPACITY AND MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS . CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE 5 YEAR WARRANTY AND SERVICE CONTRACT INCLUDING ALL PARTS a 3 . THE TOP OF THIS WELL IS TO BE FINISHED WITH A 4" T, A FORMATIONS ENCOUNTERED; SANITARY WELL SEAL; WELL HEAD a PIT; SUBMERSIBLE PUMP. WELL SHALL HAVE A CAPACITY OF AND LABOR FOR NORMAL MAINTENANCE, SERVICE AND REPAIR. 4 X 4 1 /2" BRASS INCREASED AND A 4 1 /2" ADAPTOR CAP WITH - CONNECTING CHAIN. THE HOSE THREADS AND HYDRANT WRENCH 20 . 0 GPM. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT ALTERNATE PRICES v NUT SHALL CONFORM TO THE STANDARDS OF THE MATTITUCK FIRE TO REFLECT VARIOUS CONDITIONS THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED AS DISTRICT• FOLLOWS ; 4 . THE WELL IS TO BE DEVELOPED UNTIL FREE OF SAND AND THE 3 . 1 ) 100'- 0" DEEP WELL - BASE PRICE. GRAVEL FILTER WALL SURROUNDING SCREEN IS STABILIZED AT 3 . 2) PRICE PER FOOT OF WELL ADDED OR DELETED. � THE ULTIMATE PUMPING CAPACITY OF THE WELL. THE WELL IS TO BE PUMPED WITH THE CONTRACTOR' S OWN PUMP FOR AT LEAST 3 . PUMP SHALL DELIVER 20 GPM AT 60 PSI AT THE 8 HOURS. AFTER A MINIMUM OF 8 HOURS PUMPING THE HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK AND SHALL HAVE SUFFICIENT HORSEPOWER CONTRACTOR IS TO TAKE A SAMPLE OF WATER AND HAVE IT SO AS TO NON-OVERLOADING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CAPACITY TESTED FOR CHLORIDES AND REPORT THE TEST TO THE BOARD OF OF THE IMPELLER. PUMP SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ACROSS- FIRE COMMISSIONERS. THE-LINE MAGNETIC STARTER. PUMP SHALL BE DEMING OR APPROVED EQUAL, INCLUDING ALL PIPING . S . THE WELL WILL HAVE TO BE SURGED BY MEANS OF STOPPING THE PUMP AND LETTING THE WATER DROP BACK INTO THE WELL AND 4 . THE HYDROPNEUMATIC TANK SHALL BE A 200 GALLON GLASS ^ THE CHECKED FOR SAND. IF SAND IS BEING PUMPED, WELL LINED VERTICAL TANK CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING 125 PSI . n WILL HAVE TO BE SURGED BY PUMPING AND FLUSHING UNTIL TANK SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH PRESSURE SWITCHES, PRESSURE -, FREE OF SAND. ,GAUGE SIGHT GLASS, AUTOMATIC AIR CHARGER AND AUTOCON DUOTROL WELL AND AIR CONTROLLER. TANK SHALL BE ADAMSON, 6. .,THE BIDDER SHALL STATE IN HIS BID, IF THE WELL LOCATION BUFFALO OR APPROVED EQUAL. IS REQUIRED TO BE MOVED DUE TO POOR GROUND OR WATER DEPTH, THE COST PER HOUR FOR THE RECOVERY OF THE S . AIR COMPRESSOR SHALL BE PACKAGED TYPE COMPLETE WITH O ,_ ORIGINAL CASING AND INSTALLING SAME IN A NEW LOCATION VERTICAL 10-GALLON RECEIVER, CONTROLS , RELIEF VALVE. TO BE APPROVED THE BOARD OF FIRE COMMISSIONERS. IF COMPRESSOR SHALL BE SINGLE STAGE TYPE DIRECT DRIVE ; ADDITIONAL SCREEN IS REQUIRED - STATE THE COST OF THE SIMILAR TO 177-BELL AND GOSSETT MODEL NO. SYCT-01 . WELL DEPTH PER FOOT AFTER THE MINIMUM DEPTH REQUIRED FOR THE WELL. 6 . WELL PUMP SHALL BE CONTROLLED BY AN AUTOCON DUOTROL .CONTROLLER SET TO START THE PUMP WHEN TANK PRESSURE 7 . AT COMPLETION OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE A DROPS TO 40 PSIG AND STOP THE PUMP WHEN PRESSURE RISES WELL LOG WITH SIZE AND DEPTH STATED, AND A WRITTEN TO 60 PSIG. ` AN INTERGRAL FRONT CONTROL SHALL ADD OR QUARANTEE THAT IF ANY EQUIPMENT SHALL FAIL, OR NOT VENT AIR AS NEEDED TO PREVENT TANK FROM BECOMING AIR - - FUNCTION PROPERLY WITHIN ONE ( 1) YEAR THAN HE SHALL BOUND OR WATER LOGGED. AIR VENT SHALL BE EXTENDED , REPAIR OR REPLACE SAME AT CONTRACTOR'S OWN EXPENSE. OUTDOORS . 8. FIRE WELL IS REQUIRED TO PUMP 350 GPM FOR ONE HOUR AND 7 . WELL SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO A DEPTH AS REQUIRED TO o 303 GPM THFi,RBiAP"1'F,R. INSURE THAT WATER QUALITY MEETS NEW YORK STATE DRINKING p WATER STANDARDS. ACTUAL DEPTH DETERMINED IN FIELD. IN F=N LK COUNTY DEPARI PENT OF HEALTH SERVICES O 9 . SUBMERSIBLE WELLS ARE TO BE EQUIPPED WITH A 15 HP. 3 NO EVENT SHALL DEPTH OF WELL BE LESS THAN S .C.H.D. APPRO'•IED FOR CONST RUCTION ONLY PHASE, 3500 RPM ELECTRIC MOTOR WITH AN ELECTRIC STARTER, DIRECTIVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STANDARD FOR INDIVIDUAL FLOW "I TYPE NEMA 4M CAPABLE OF DELIVERING 385 GPM AT 10 PSI WATER SUPPLY. . NO. _ DISCHARGE AT THE CENTER OF THE TEE AT THE TOP OF THE _ WELL. 8 . WELL SHALL BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.H.D.STANDARDS USED IN APPROVED LAB. PROVIDE WATER SAMPLES roval is grznted for llra ¢nnstruction d Ole Sanitary10 . THE SUBMERSIBLE PUMP WIRE SHALL BE g8 RUBBER COVERED AND WELL DRILLERS CERTIFICATE, and 'Wer a!Ii%p"'I•'=!'!I'"s Pursuant in Articles VB and TERMINATED IN AN ABOVE GROUND TERMINAL BOX WITH DURA- Sufk'•I: i:auaw ..;n>•v :o:e lad is not en expr¢sSed LINE 4MR60 PLUG - W/CAP AND LANYARD KA231801 . 9. CHLORINATE WELL. ped 7 ! ' .Ir?,- ' c.n ¢r ocOupY the {,I n Lh�'IHE$TWO hl YEARS 11 . THE DROP PIPE SHALL BE 4" BLACK STANDARD WEIGHT. f"/ .•,I. 10 . ALL INTERIOR WATER PIPING WILL BE COPPER TYPE "L•' WITH E DA1i 6£LOYJ. WROUGHT COPPER FITTINGS . 12 . THE PUMP SHALL BE A TWO STAGE SUBMERSIBLE TURBINE TYPE DATE SIGNATURE EQUIPPED WITH A 4" CHECK VALVE WITH GREASE PACKED MATTITUCFC' BEARINGS IN BOWL ASSEMBLIES. THE BOWL SHALL BE OF A SMOOTH FINISH DESIGN TO GUIDE THE WATER FROM ONE STAGE TO THE NEXT WITH A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TURBULENCE. CRPRNI) & FRRAR ENGINEERS Design and Co.Isultir,g Services SP-3A 568 Broadway,Amityville, New York 11701 . (516) r 91080 - - C.ONO.0 1090-011 w' �9 s� ya �0 f �0 0 4 Ab I OGo� 01, r � ` n to 0 o M 1 m = XS �� G ? J ic Ln op It j 11Z A It 'v� � \ �\ \ 0\1 S e obi M r <o _V 4op on Ilk a d vv v i 3 oQ. 0 to V3 o too Q)� \ ` \ \N` T C �- J PIN • I o �1� \ 9 i . o mr > P X a o� V . Its, CC 1 `► 01 L \ y y \ \ \ �C aa � m, r 9 pyo T4 - 0 { \ X ? LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF JAMES PENOULIK n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a daaananaaaaaana z a 0 0 0 W V O A (IL A W 'c //� 1 Z d Z V/ Z _ L71i i G /4 �/�i '! �^ rs a a n rl a < F 7C m �S i s»w — -- w an a w a on a a < n n w < U � � Z f _� -- ------- >a .,�.v �n� r ov,ox, �c � � J J� � v �\, [� �[ n�n.c»�..Yx• 1+ C ��tl 1 (D N (D fD fD fD � 5 c Y ,l ,` .� ' C O _ u - . „„ Vv —' —'- I N N CT CD -P . W O CIOA -' 0 0`Cn N t� •I x'. , . 0� oo0oOw0o0oo00 ��, a opogoio cn r� 0000cnoo r 1� V //� u � �o.s ' off~ � � y/ :� � Pady '; a j �� 9 : N xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx �n �` m F OlX V� - cowwmmc0000000000 M II It II It II II II It It II It It II II II sanV` � ..fl II f!{ _ I W O (O -E @ y I B5F { — � e � W tn � OUiN W W �O ip ip OCCOJ V O t- 1 .. �• �S1 iDNAtn NCn W Q� iO �O AiD C (O a I , .S, .4. .'v. ,�,' .v. .G. ,�, .F, .G, y C j , �R� , ,4. , .'v.. .r. . ��� � ,7.. ,4„ ,F. . .v., vO— — — — — _ O 00000 O SAY �- �- '- �- �_ �_ �- ,- �- ,_ �_ I_ �- I- 0000000 0000000 W_ 7 a -3 Y a _ - _ O OlJ` 4 O –I � j q j� .o.x _ ll 4 � ..o.: _ f � V/ rkm, b m00 o. _aa _aa _a _a o_. a _a _a _n. n _a in O t d d d d d d d d d d d d d d rxxxxxndx x x x x x x x Z NOcaONwm R'tYy �O/•J CIJ Q 0 MMITM T 0 M 0M M 0 M om ro m ro m m � m a a m n a ro ro § _ -oaoa x � m ma m mea 0 00 lax Ij W on to a. Nvo NZ, 14 qb� N O m y x-Umtor�$m•F_;1 N f 1 Orrn_- Y/ C `3Q,` yN a G_ H•I rIy I A D oKL d 4 y 1 R(�►. hcri rO - -. m_ 7OC u-0r�yn�g,s,ciap nN� 972 O ` po •W� "•4 03 0 m + p n $b V3 STntD0 ao rn , ? o .t`=Tn•» To mArr—mo m ^i•; wpN}>,y ,V O ' D T sS° A»>pDl ooc^�'mnWl•, .f n M a{ D c 0 o o xm p ('0-4 w oo n yor Or o. o - I • Z 3 < CA ° ra . 7n o o a o 3 D 03 t� a C Ov m7t mrn m mCL 2 — 0 'O Dro r< Y C Itsa -4 °n N n � o Ir `00 o- 0. o r _ ' n NN , OC CEn Q : . O2.mT Z A < d M. } mx c 33Odwoyy'Oy� ; am cn O•^ m 10 c . ZZ o3 mcc y < D p F T Z m CC – CCr m m � Op a <om ° V m 0 O 00 » art3rC / 3 3mC o m m ct I mo noMolassal, „ O In 1�7 5 06 CD a � Z ,nZ7 ' p O� _-2E n > ra l I ^ mOm G ` X. _o D 2 - a oD m 13 -4 co � _a ;0 K3 ^0o2D Drr ^ y " . oafo�Z m » 0o r4 Dojn m O 7 z Os n > 7N . . D ■ D 3 o N m Z 0 -4 CIts O 3: 2� 0 O C% j M TO Oo so ; � 7 _ o . n 5 0 x xx ° rg ? 0 O gOvcZ n o YVo r o C Z .0 < , .uzn-� m " cm3 7 0S M o 3 mmm rn � O + mi x 0 - r 0 m 3 c o .^ $O c vi Pr 40 Lit ;a ? o 0 5 IT r L Q m to Z v to018 ° -i PLAN APPROVALS: A PLAN STATUS: m Signature: (2 required) Date: M p Description Date: By: 5co 0 Regional Mgr. N t D � Preliminary Drawn 6 Const. Mgr. / � m `� V s Revisions 7 IV ' w O a Operations V, � IS �? ')-qI �L 0 Z 1 AOQLI 8 �v LA rJSEGpE P)A ,� �! � �! Z O 't"vI C,/ ,�i i .., 1 ,, 1.�;�� These plans and specifications we the property of McDonald's Corporation and shall not be CO-SIGN SIGNATURES: O 2 (� C�u,l{yl `i '1- "' S1 reproduced without their written permission. Contractor TIP 3 Plan Checked coo MCD 9205 O 1987 McDonald's CorporNgn Owner 4 As-Built Drawn DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS GENERAL NOTES: AMA U5E CALCOLAT100 qOLUM E CATCH BASIM5 1, McDonald's Road Sign and Base are by the Sign Contractor. p Conduit and Wiring are by the General Contractor. r PA-1 D2wEtw( OcoSFTl.I4CxI 190,7 CL).FTUSEO ) -IODIAx12'DEer PA -2 PAR WCr1 6,9405 F x.Ite&XI 11155.4 cu FT U%121)- IODIA)C9 DEEP 2. Bases, Anchor Bolts, Conduit, and Wiring for All Other f- q D Signs are by the General Contractor. GqD• A- 3 3,220 S F x, Karo x I 534 cu•FT USE(( ) -10 PIA x 8' PEEP w N ¢ PA-4 G11405 Fri,146 KI I o o cu FT U5E(2) - IO'DIA XS' PEEP 3 °G" Empty Conduit to Locations Shown at the Lot Parr 4 DA -S I 3$O 5F X,IGLK1 cU FT USE meter for Lot Lighting Is by the General Contractor. Lighting j l� ^124 O) -Ii Dux4' Pe¢P O c a l➢ EC1t�N Fixtures, Bases, Poles, Conduit, and Wiring are by the ¢ o cZ7 / ,�o OF 0 DA-CP I1 827 5-F x.146 K I boa COU USE (I) - IO�DIA x G DEEP Owner/Operator. a ry Qota�` DA-,T 111 25 s F x J44Xt I gC° co FT a z s r1.1 4. Bases for Flagpoles are by the General Contractor. Anchor Z O DA- 8 1142$5 f X.I&(, K I '2T0 Cu FT uSE(2) -lo DIA X 9 DEEP Bolts are by the Flagpole Supplier. o O DA-1 WOF 4, 4405.F X.I44K 1 -740 GU PT 5. Proposed Utilities are Shown In Schematic Only. Exact y O ♦� �� Locations shall be Field Determined to Allow for the Most V �5- I✓� -P Economical Installation. a, G• � ry°•d' D .r {36 e ce 64 ti5' O• '1� 6 The Contractor shall Coordinate with All Utility Companies c ZZ J 7 m `b •'O" E.H,c-, 1. FPAME +yP.An on P � ` • � 'u� 'p 517E � �. "- -- to Determine Exact Pant of Service Connection at Existing � c `e �• tib' KA pE _ R' o a o i G Utility. Refer to the Building Electrical and Plumbing ¢ U O U O 5 `• `:� Drawings for Utility Service Entrance Locations, Sizes, and np, oS �`� �o" �5\ ry1 l t °�;s " • +�" ! �. cD P PRECAST REIMF TRA FFIc Circuiting. to°�`pwY ." ',� BEARINCI TOP- 4,000 Pc I $ l !� d > f 7, All Elevations Shown are in Reference to the Benchmark 1 V 9 U t➢ yU� \ 9.W ryq,P 3 / �i` :. �` wY\''- and mdrt ea Verified by the General Contractor At S g qE \q 9,�. qo, - " W Groundbreak. PPECAST PEIIJ F. DPAINAyE ti� y o`�e� / tigq "`��:a �� Ndln,.ur.c 21NcyS • 4000- R5.1, a Y Q• Y .�: ti o \ 9 N 6. FinishWalk end Curb Elevations shall be 6" Above Finish Pavement. 8 Pavement.ou c }' O ,Zyr% �e\.°t 'y°'\ u 9 All Landscape Areas shall be Roygh Graded to 6" Below 5 st PP / p w Top of All Walks and Curbs. Finish Grading, Landscaping, S �O q,t.tis. l N and Sprinkler Systems are by the Owner/Operator c er,91.4 S ( ii T E%\S�lar'V O - g9OLUD tvATEP ' i!; Ili e ci FIJI y 6 'v ti�te hS;9 �LPP hA�Ptie,q � � i A' � i 1990 Eg �. QE rC �U co�u tit, N of RpEL\� 1 JI \� � $ E C P. OEZpIL \g 0 ory ti� ti gl'A -i'� 5 P"4 0 FJAy '1. 0 Q Z•tP FE Ry �` F���N 6R 1N PAVING SPECIFICATION 1* m a �\ Lam s QtL a TYP CATCH (BASIN IMmlmum 3"Total C°mpacted Asphalt Thl.kraw) l\o AA� y21' ;.::;:. •:.• OA-8 \ 21I �No oaD„ lJOTE '• DA = DRAIJAC E AREA PAyIkG LISTED FROM7oP TO BASE O 3 s 0 h (�) •(ED '`�aLVE' Q : A ;.;. 1 • PpVEE t° ,JAJ,N.F ,TON • I /2" TOP C009-61E - TYPE Co F q II 2a" ti°' n\ 'mac eP1 tPIH{�� ? •0 - y 1 ilio. ; :. by ®l ,I a tEe hc'tu • T/,2rr 61f,IPEK coUCSE - T-fPE 3 E v' ti • L011V �1{P - „11. ,Y .c7} � a gZPaI .rENE emuoewn o P ��r �q6 H� 5 ` L21uv - P_ ��l(y" e*•.'' .o Q ',;+,�,':•: t �� pP ,•,.�.�eEoscMvrFn.., • Ce" STAB(LIZEG SOIL 5UB '&FSE A$ APPRa/ED �_ I CouS-G REP. 5',1 9,6 L D .:. 0 . N... . r + nrtro°u oan win IJALD N L p�En t-��A•.q::::::•:: :::. \o a B'( McDOes ti ,J � 19.1 �. 'r'•Y:r:,j.:j:;'. -r>:. Ipim ,.,.,,"". a Note McDonald I En Co p0 , u.°wmeu n°c-Iry-+ N Tell And/Or A Con SamPla 1/Tub Prove Correct, Po Co 0 ee'st'SOf 9meo Reserves The Test T r R.C.N A Oom Pae Above Spec,fluuons, Tens Will 0. At The Eapenre Of McDonald', 3 or owue c C will ae Charged t 19.8 K ... r.,. LOT RECOMMENDATION: ATION, 40 a. ."".... ...a • REFER To 5HEEF SP-30- FOP Li(9HTIAICI 04� E l -------- " LA'IouT AMD ELELTEIC4L MQLAREMENTS ° Y �- -- --- of OE FORME-12 AHIACJ IWC, OeMECLY oa® � DA.5 tido � �,�>"✓• ,I .FW , ^ ZLP IED Nate Electrical Contactor To Circuit Lot Lighting As Noted. of L.I. ICE AUD FUEL CORP 21,5 '} \ �/ $ e '' y�A ENT ' 29.8 Lj eAJtt ��4e W ,l ?° 2oE oaI'(N Pp,TE PARKING INFORMATION h5PN1 P LOV4� Fs 11P 6,t. ti8 owAr.,,oMGE ,. R , IisDER pU. qL. O D 1 ccsrucsrAtr •, Srace. 4� Spaces 91 x ZO @ 90 lI Total 2255 6lt,ttED of9� r x..,. r. r.r c.nnnne6teo"a win �� Spaces x @ U i A- �, •c ?r. 51 Et' LAM NIF °F ,s LAUD lJ /f of STAWLE`( J. 2�'1 " � 1 4D7 iy/ JAMES PENDuuK - , `��� Fws 9 CAR Swces x @ Auv SAWIcE M. Fuss JR• � . �1 Et��LED pA,''' pA uMWN n I°°°.rlt-,_, STAcKWy Spaces is @ Nw.. �° rn 6 UTILITY INFORMATION: R 1Q o.l. pESAtI' 29.4 e' - 14 .21'3 Size. Type, Location $ Sanitary Sewer SEE SHEET SP- 3 O 270 Water WELL _ 5EE SHEET 5P-3 y t I u7f'DQE 1 FWP?- '( LIME �c Tb. `qg,5 O } d �VREOoUS D oStorm Sewer - 5EE THIS WCT' 4oN SITE - N m n m m a Q 293 40.4 pa8 ��, °It° Electric SEE SHEET SP- Sq- Z .. LL ° �J E.° cpt�' Q m' ,1g.S_ gU-1T-ED ------ : Gas -SEE SHEET' 5P-3q. LIME of ExKTIMCjt tVmDS T. �� g 2 .u. 1.2 21.0 S SURVEY INFORMATION: 29.2 28.0 27.1 w % 28'3 Prepared Byr�A LAMDSCAPED A?-EA TEST -HOLE TEST -HOLE - DATA -rLA5r BAM-17, LAWZI5EKA + F21WK Dated APRIL Ca 1910 29.0 22l•S 21.5 27'2 27.0 27.5 _-StTEJNE4SMAT10111_ LEGEND: ; a 21,a SITE ARER- 294 AcQEg (13014215.( c E Sanitary Sewer -S Gas G 4 6 c 28.4 bUILD1J/T-AREA _ a4,4465,E Water -W LLht 30 W C9? 2412 2L,7 27.1 p�J A612 _- - - - - - - - - . 3 / - --- - g (76.5) .� u ExiST. CESS PmL o. 27.0 °/�-LO"F"- COVE2 ° o Storm Sewer ST Existing Elevation ¢ 27_I 27,4 _ , 1 ' PA" EP- ACEA -- - - - - - - - - 30 o479.F oR 2 ,( Electric rL�• .,cj 15. ; 3 /� - _ E Proposed Elevation 750 a 8.26' SS4°- 42' - lo"w y[0�a LA7.IC5CAPED AREA �� 128 oe 74% -- -. � N m tg'I q5� i'!1BKh.Yt)-RE-QUIRER-- '---- Ii3 SEATS 28,6 SPACES PLANSCALE: 1"= 30'A REGIONAL DWG. NO.: 2i, 2G w•3 25,9 255.4 25.q 2s.4 2s.q �'4Cc-SPAEES - STREET ADDRESS: S,c,T,N, - IOCQ -122- -7 - 3,1 mLD MAIN ROAD CITY: STATE: ('/IAP OF PRpPr::MSERER ARC"/rMATTITUCK CORPORATE DWG. NO.: otS f AT � OND F. Fire pl b COUNTY: - M 771Tuc , f � o SUFFOLK cxvN of 5ou7HOLD �SiTE _ PLAN S 7 ( :� "°. e3a6 ARCHITECT F. OF THE S1,1t qF 570 Sdone a NEW YORK AOI 170+ Slfil'IB93555 LORI GLACIER COORr OnL4NW FLORIDA 32809 3pS35 Ld59fi t• , ,. x.° z^.r , LANDSCAIPING LEGEND GEP�eRAINOTES: NO. ESOTANICAL NAME! . COMMON NAMES 8134CINQ 1. gReCbrvePd� Relanlndtl!luwwbyAwlNEnCallu!!!or• 1 4CEtf2 PALMATUM GR,M5ca.1 K1r.1G -GG'L%tASC .-L rc11•.1G MAPL.0 A5 3HOWW Conduit Bond Wiring M by the ovemod COn"Amfor. 2, PYRUS CALA.ff.RYA*4A elQADFORO 59AOFoczD cALLta4Y PE.ars A5 5Hovv61 2. taaw, Anehlbr telt!, Conduit, ed Wiring for All Other 5 TSUGA C'.AaACap-.Ast5 Cq�IAC+Iq,-•6 HeML-oGK Co jL-cn ' o. G. SiEmMDy tomer Germinal ContrrCfir. YI G 1 4 TAXI-15 K MEDIA HLr_W-511 1.1tG4:5 --dew ASA HEC)G 3. Y" Empty Conduit to Leatione Shown rt the Lot Pori. < mrtw for lot Lighting of by tin GMIN'!l COMHftot. L*tbrg C 1 Z 1 rj U AIPE21M CHI"64515 SARG. GLAUCA 'fSLUb SA;Zr-e.1T J""tPE0. 31-0 O.0 • Fiktum, Ban, Police, Conduit, and Wiring are by the o: N D ownCo JUUIPe,RUS cH,NEi-1515 CxxC WST *i i-G C wt Cz ogsT JUIurPE2 21.0` o-C, 0 1t. Ertrt for Figg eg wa by the GwIwM rle Conttor. Anchor vi "T THU-1A OCe1DE"TAL.LS AUREA 40L,01!" CBLcEir- AG:Do RvtTAE 15 C "O.C . Eola lin try me FlegpeM Supplier. A� 8 THLLJA O . C.AuICADLA}l -GQ(Si55.L-1 OLA" GRP_E�1GL•c a ARe,o12. a%- O, o.C . r g. PMPNN U"m" w! ylroNn M Eenwnn+e Only, Emmert 9 Aa•11J L14L. FL.ow EGLS A5 1515L.ec-TED 15.1' C;' rU +1EQ AS am4sa'o Loectlonc 1"M1 be Field Deme to Allow for the Most EeonemieM InrtMhtion. O to Pious THUF1'BERGIJ JAFA0E5E 5LAI:IK rluE At, 9,14oW4 - �O 6. The CMlMetbr Ing"Co"hub with All Utility CO MWib 'ga -- - � �� tb Ortermkre EAert Point of Eervke COMngCthM rt Ekiating � a Utility. Romr, to the Building EMMWM end Flumbing et +� L.LOTES : Dnninge for Utility Seniee EntrImm 1.60010nt, Biel,end i,.• , 1. AL.I. PL.A"T11..1(2, PE05 To t;.&GE EVE PI. IE EhAQK. Foil MUL'CH Cheuhing. 6 AC E.AS 1.doT QI,.gJT ED TO RECEIVE SOD LA w...l . p 7 Ah ew#vr RN Ib'Rh egg M RrlgrgrkM A the CNlohmwk 6 "j. ALL l.A�lO '$CAPaUO AREAS To BE PRCWIDe.O wtTH II-L - GL2ou.�,D end must be Vwif W by tin OtltnrM Contrretor At ddd O AUTO NIATIC SPR, -LKL-LF.c2 1RGtLGgTLoa =-rsTEM '1 4 tii.1. L-4`-lOSCAP�.-�G 5PcG1M�l-L5 SI-1�L t.L- 135 �F r=,D - SiZCi A=• PER 0���' ' STA"o/ aCD S XCPQ THE S FinMi WQh Mid Curb EMvrtMMa #41 be S" AbM Pinilh �' 8 of 5. LAUD SGA PII-LG .n HL=wI..1 15 5U5,1cCT 'TC �1�?2U��'+'-/ uO�+.��LDC = Pin, g >� ,� e� ow�1f:R,�oPERATOR., p f All LenAblFrt AMM then M Rolrgh Oredgd 13 S" gMbW � ovp Too of An *Me win Cwb►. Finifi Grwtirw, LMdlelle 1, y and Sprinkler Syannl3 we by the 0—1— toperrtOr. Y 4 yU ; I y '[ PIEGE �NNFOR[ED (.'u0E3ER P&L. STRAND 2+12 WIRE (fN.IsI M /.pPROX 'Z BALL DIA, DRwL m rt. cLOwzLSTQlt _yt/4' ��' .,,; ArcES AT ANbL.E 4 CRAW VBRIIGA•L. g [," Sa�eea BURLAP if KRAFT FA(ER vi § �E PAVING SPECIFICATION: � QjJh i I �� � MALI Pe R MEA6u RL J G" (MIMMwn 3"Tail CeIM1MM ArPkMt TnNRINw.I 3" wooD /Lrs ve C�RAvt 44 GUI 5 So AS REQ. 4 ••:;r,.,'••, hI9RTId1LNRAl ON G' HoRTIcu LTucv.L So,L. , •� x`"• Stitt 6KILF,LL' - ') z Nen lec0ovamT Two ingewarAseem""Sommo The RIw 1A RMnM A.Pat c I, - •_� , �-- Iran Tm AM/Or A Cew garrralo. If Two Prada Carnal.hr •• Abora Sawdeaoant, fen WIII M M The E ApMe OI MaOenatd'L l 1 {'{ ,••.•,�•, a t _ ..•�-p` GALL DIA. 1',� ' On/nwre. G.0 Will M Ckaraad - 1�� 10 u Ep LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: MAJOR- TREE- DETAIL . � ,2 i Ca " Now li a *M C"tfmor Ta ChLvu Lm LltMme A.Neth. • PARKING INFORMATION: I 4 °1 " t a • I . 'i / z r , TaM Spt ■ 1 s I • L �• E -�--.- �.......�..� .... it .y'i 1 SPlliga A • �JOPv� I ; :• '�!'�\ t a UTILITY INFORMATION: • Sona: Type: Loolhon: •�s a LWE of Ex15Til1c1 woof ` ` M I•°'�- f wow `Fl _ sle"itsory Sewer r Storm Sgrwr � n e N1 41 °' 1 {'-dr. l GALL f I, o• ENetrk �'' DIA. Ga SURVEY INFORMATION: o MINOR SHRUB " DETAIL Proper" By: `9 ' �6 v " + -I 9 8 HYD?nSFFA -�4 Doted: 9 `� LEGEND: 9. � 7 t 'Sw itary 9119M --B Del D wow —W — Lot Light 0:70 ' Sterm Suaw ---ST--- eitmot love"" (76.5) E EMetrk —v ------ Frlrtaegll EMetion PLAN SCALE: 1"" M'• STREET ADDRESS: REGIONA9c DWO. NO.: Ri/Elib MAIN ftBD CITY: STATE: ,'tEl1LD ARCRrr CORPORATE DWGr ND.:. . CEO !p F RF CoA Ago <f C�"TY��: y�yI►g LANDSCAPING PLANmimmismammem • RAYMOND F. FELLMAN " ARCf17EC7 ' �� FrRf tiLiLlfi t� 910 BROADWAY . AMITYYILLE 1=22 a"=" COURF • OIILANDO \ ; NEW YORK IMI . SIe.7ea3eeS FLORIDA 32" SO33S GENERAL NOTES: CAST PON FRAME ANDcA�ST IGou FRAMC DOUBLE TANK -- " -- - �- -••.�` it /�--_,r\ u�1P E LL COVER 7D GRADE. ARRANGEMENT . 1 �l Z4'M>K t. 12•M1'- `� ` .. Y - - _ - 12 ^- 1. MoDeneld't Rood Sip end Owwe by IRI SpCOMtfIltbr. C 10'•0" , 6 a+ / I. ._' . . -. .,•r x ., .._ .: CerrJuit Ind Wiring pMk by the G■rrel Con rwhor. FINISHED GRADE ._ -'[ ,... . - a. - • I O ?.- ',v ..2 - `- ` ,GRAPE. ° O .- 13 . / .-o . / - - - 2. Beer, Anchor IMM, Conduit, WA wlNrlg for All Defier 0 611 �\o \\ ___ Siff"en by the GWWW CpnlnEtor, __ _ •��� 1O •. %-�� \\"-�/ � j `.- - - - - �-�- - � S• %" Empty CO~ to Leeetlel2 IRItlWh w tl■ Let hit• 12'MIN, - -__.___. , . .. . . _ . .. . . . . .. _ 314 mtleer for Lm LightNlg N by tate t#nulo CdnrilettK. Li/-..- - - Fixtures, BIw Conduit, end Wiring by tit° O :.,._. �...--- ... _ - (J., Owner/Ol never. Poly, i . N III N y � N FRAME AND .-_.»..,. f GRAVE PEA SEPTIC TANK C�T IRO GRADE 4. SAW for Flop** IM by the GWO" C°ntr.emr. Anchor covER TO - aD2 a w ® 0 Oil i -- Soitl In tel R y Sam s Ie N ® i 3� � ' DETAIL q. __._ by .,�,. spm. 6 y °= I 1 E IN an Ira `� FINISHED GRADE 4 S. 010001M UtnRIN ft Shown in SENE�mMk Only. EwrM °i ■ 0 w w ato ,`_` Economical Intl n do a a E i i ioo OY - Leatlons hall w FWd Determined to Allew for me Mort ansa0cm a ° T� „ - 16 17 18 19 u13°°maw ® � w �aa • • ,1?s q g -4 S '+ F ` 5 S. The Contreetnr Ilan Cc'erdine■M.I1h An UNrifry CamperrM ■ e �• _ to Dolnmim ficat Point of Shia Con infien K ExNtlng be J 10l g c Utllity. Refer to tel Building EMetrinal and Plumbing a132lo ® � lo ■ 0132 to °� 213 re a loco _ - - STATIC- \vATfi9-tWEL Drwri"O for Utility Smite Entrt 01 Locations, Sites,end 9 y- CNE fZ TO SEPTIC Circuiting. 1. WELL CAP _ 2. CONDUIT 7. An Elevations Shaon m in Avis a to the NerwhmMc % I I - - •NI I I - GREASE 1,AP .� -- " -" - - Gr mutt M VM1Nd by the Cenral COntreetdr At -O�MIN, A�VE GPWND `( A0� , 1 CARLSON MONOLITHIC 3. CONDUIT' ._._ -.T,y-�yJ „ -,-_ Grimy WATER o I 7 ' 4. PITLESS ADAPTER B. Finita Walk pal Curb Portions shelf be S" Above FMIM B J S. SAFETYROPE hrement. a # LEACHING POOL i 8 6. ELECTRIICALCA6LE "= 'te3 S , \. 0uhh Graded ding, to d Below , �O y 7. TORQUE ARRESTOR g. An Landicov Atwi Shan bI R DETAIL O � � �� CAST IRofJ PIPE" _ Top of All welkt rate Curbs. finish GrWlrlg, Ltndseaping, IN KIN 40' of 8'. ELECTRICAL PUSH-IN CONNECTOR and Sprinkler Syfrms we by the Owner/Ope r. 9 \vATEQ 9. PIPE 10. PUMP- GREASE 'TRAP .DETAIL X11 11. LIGHTNING ARRESTOR O / 10 12. DISCONNIECTSWCTGHr 13. TANK w 1 0 0%u'1 14. PRESSURESWITCH 10j - � /0 y1 s 0 it PUMP HIJ 20l 15. PRESSUREGAUGE f o Q IN tVATE2 FITTINGS 16. UNIONS AND PIPE FIT /// ��' OOH PAVING SPECIFICATION: { - 17. RELIEF VALVE (Min rmem t'Tmel Comoom AWigt TMrmr.) fiY 18. GATE VALVE 19. TANK VALVE(FAUCET)DRAIN W s / JX STAINLESS STEEL Oho �,•.;c WELL ScRfiE14 .4•tr: 1 ! r WELL _DETAIL_ - ,r�71 N°n lion TNI r VOY A nrYlvw TM RYNt Te Rq,lwt A Celnlre Above Trp Ar"in, A Car h Win 1/trTh Prone Cr 01 M i. � 1 _ -- -� ':::::::;'•:• , - _ _ Aberr 1pelllrllem, Trfi WID ee At TM Egwlw ei MCDen°d'4 - Rd OMrwlw, D.C. Nin M Ckargre , //�� l tri r r'•'. t \ SANITARY"A,M1' N_CALCUIJLMOK, LOT LIGHTING RECOMMENDATION: I '�,"tFEBCO MODES 825Y �Y/ KEY sKDem J \ I30 1AL PER GlY /SEAT To1TAL09• FREE7E FLo�/.- ED PRESSURE LONE �D4ST HYDRANT SAWI,TA9-r! toCTPD /SPAT AoSEATS= ffigo qp(ASHITH : e 5b/SEAT x o9 SEATS 17 SPDkITcNE{JBALL VALVE BACAFLOW PREVENTER ORIE FI459 10) (TYPICAL ) EST COCKAWAY FROM WALL / 4 TOTAL 2„Cn70 1C1PG. "/SUPPORT STAID K 2-Et9uh!ILG1L f�EL15{7�( Nlne: EWce1M eaftni nn To Cinia"Ln LMnkN As NOW. 1 /ATER SERVICE Vit 5�t� 890 CI•RP 5AN1•TAI!j /2.49 AcRE!Lc '277.CPC FD/ACRE <GccgrPM Nd PARKING INFORMATION: UP FROM SLAB 70 FACILITY © I NOTGt PP IR90Tf lS 14 HYDRoIogIcAL Zol11E IV - 'o 4 3.5EPTI(_ TA)Jk, tow Specw x - I" ATER: TG i 21CP70 q•PR A2DAYS = 51340pa spl.ow x 4,i. ry b.o.V. I- 1F1z.Uort Po_ t - - -- - DS'SA1US _ ' PKDkiiDE (2) Io:D XxCdW14H SEPTIC. TAM 11S - $peri x FF L'7c..,x rJ �S , ' �J+rJJ.'SEE CAPAeiT`( = cv,000 O1ALLo1J5, SHUT OFF - fLovx-.1i pvrcf' \ r Splew x O VALVE PIPE 0t �,\ - - - �� 4 •C�RfiASE TRAP UTILITY INFORMATION: pp STAND O 1 / 11780 CTPD PRovfPE IDI•p' DIA 95iI•o`1 LIQ AEF 1N yRE49E TRAP Slat: Type: Looll' n: o .,,., Sanitary Slur V •5 \h pwr✓ / YYItn Sy � 5• LEAGHIIJCT 1 rLS 3 ,) 4- DRAIN TO WTSIDE BUILDING / 2,67D CTPAf I.S SPD PEAS-Fx PEAS-F1,71S5•F kECt1JlRFC Sterni Sewer t r lo' ABOVE 6RADE / PROVIDE (5) sol DIA X 14'-d' EFF MPTH POOLS -- 11884• .5• Eluetrie � er m � r m Gr SECTION A-AMEMO SURVEY INFORMATION: j REDUCED ZONE Praperlddy: BACKFLOW PREVENTER DETAIL c 1 / TEAS / BARRETT LAW-LISERA � FILIK # I. THEIN57ALLATIOM OF THE REDUCED LONE BACKFLOW PREVENTER p 9IT�,9NF11J.RMATION bwae: - AP>aL. t. =1910.: SHALL MEET AI-L LOCAL COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE HEALTH - / LEGEND: ° DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL NOT COMMENCE UNTIL / SITE APGA 2.99 Ac¢E5 (13o1421s•f� j DRAWING RECEIVE5 SUCH APPROVAL v bUILDUIGI ARBA 4,44(o S,f. BenMry Sewer -S -- Ga =G - THIS.3 Z. THE DEVICE SHALL NOT BE SUB.IECT TO FREEZING OR FLOODIMG AND -- I o •^ % LoT taVB2At1E -_-_�3% Weser -w - Lot Light �y LP:�O 6 MUST BE SCREENEDcc 5. THE DEVICE MUST BE 7ESTE6 AT LEAST ANNUALLY BY A N.Y5 H.D. --y,..-- _ PAWED AREA 30ro¢75.F oR 23% Storm Server ^--ST--- Primate Eley iic (77-0 [S LANDSCAPED AREA 9Co1I28 of 7Q'/o �leehic --•- E --� Proposed Efev°tion 77.0 6 GER7IFIED TESTER. 4, PIPING SHALL BE uNBRANCHED AND uNRESTRIGTED F PARId11r7 REOIUIREP 1;3 SEATS _Zg,Co OPACEs FLAN SCALE: 1"• Se'' µ too MAIN 70 DEVICE EXCEPT FOR THE WATER METER„ ly� I a� STREET ADDRESS: REGIONA% DWG. NO.:S MAINTAIN 30 INCHES CLEARANCE (MINIMUM) IN FRONT OF THE OLD MAINZ AD ROPARKIAICj PRoVIABD 4(v 5PACES ROAD - `a bEVICE. o. ALL WOR14 SHALL CONFORM TO THE NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CODE AACh T. ALL MATERIALS SHALL 5E NEW AND OF CURRENT MANUFACTURE .• CITY: __ unimmAmommm STATE: `'4EeED i o � CORPORATE DWG. NO.: t� DNo F. r4 D� COUNTY: WATER AND SEWER PLAN "t• �� , RAYMOND F., FELLMA14ARCHITECT rrRE cascod' e70 11R , OADMAY • AMWOVILLL loses 'm.ACER COURT . 01s"Not, � *) NEW, VORx I'f01 'ell:rae4919 rLORIbA 390120 . 105]S1Jbte - f,7� V I n w i N r .ri h+WIX FINISH PER 573.ECTICN� 6"x18" CCNC?, 07 �QPB (n.YP, 1 , �'0FCD1G 5'I'FfZ P ky ' BU=Dr, SIAB PLAN m T N9 CLS i BD= F 10P a71ZT`M .'-O• TO 6'-D` i (3lE SH7. EP - +'-0" •3 c� / . .p, • ' 6• A47LIST THIS DIMENSION FOR g• l4EE SHT. sp-Q v -y ADJUST THIS DIItENSION IOR 6• Q ° 1y" STYRIFCNM 3i ` / la L OVEN TIME OR PAVER COURSE 6. 7 I' ply �� ,C14 FINISH GRADE 1/2" EYPItySIgN JOINTCT`!P� ° /' BY LVA)SCAPER BIE EVEN TILE OR PAVER COURSE -✓41t•KP, dofaT wtTt1 ° - } • • • . . OVFA EIS. JOINT FINISH GRADE 1•L1K105.E CAU%A& 2• t. �`(ER A ROUGH GRADE • ••: ��•---_• •.,. • •—�• •• 70P OFA G1 B( LANtYCAPER .Yy� T11..E GT2oaLT) j . se BY G.C. • . • . uPAVEMENT •'i • a • -T-YP1CAl. ---- it Of Z b . • O B e a ROUGH / h '�. c�O• -% L o . • •on •d • np••P•� � •, • • . , • • H GRADE —� ■—_r_r •a •• vii '! Y " .or°O° C. �- '� • a � �0�``''n OaG'•G• P ••. •.� • • • • B7 G.C. oq • • • • . r- a ow < j \� % t • • • : •. .• P • •t o / Y o •o nota wO 9 ••Oo: •;o o: is .oma •' �,. / • �" 4"aro POURED C01JC / / \\ 5 a- • • �Y • •J ,AC UQ • • � •�'• 0 i � /�� • -mss°x iOl Qoa,ll2EC to.1C, f ' / culz0 - T`IP. AT CDT'►+, CCPkCS'� W+C.fC> AND CRi}i5: Poky Vl[11 ]500 psi alrintraytgj tonCiT t! lidVing ep Ca•`tPACTED GRAVEL 'NOTE. DIMENSION VARIES WITH WALK FINISH. /�j, // 6" r Is- CURB - i" aux. max-.,e aggrega te. ,yeximm allowable 111LIMP will be 4% CURB c GUTTER An Ad=Xturs shall be used at the mlxr to provide an air tEE o!TA'I- content of 5y% with a mlerancem of plus or rOlmla yl. THim v AegT •Note, DIMENSION VARIES WITH WAIT[ FINISH. ea " a�°tPY�CT6C -aIZ.AvEI, o w � � Clvaige 30is ce Of prenolded terial shall be provided bet✓eelh rue. 9 mnQPte and other mn=rEm PsveSrent Or structures, and also not rare than 20' apart in walks. Crack control score linin $Hall be provided w at 5' centrs'3 on oo a to walks and curbs. Edges of walks, store lint's, and ;crow shall be rounded 4". Walks shall be lightly broorred and shall be mcl3t-cured as specified. 09uniformly graded mixturs of crushed stdna, w ,shed oorAun-whsdd grawuwith 100% parsing a IV shave and not tore than 55% / `� • •"im a No. d sieve. Plans material in equal lifts rot rmre than 6" TO V SIDEWALK [LANDSCAPE/WALK/PAVEMENT E / + j 4 TO 16 SIDEWALK [LANDSCAPE/WALK/LANDSCAPE, "ky nth 11033 than 3• eedr in m¢rched thidvY•sa. U y c SCALE: 1• - ! '-U` 1.087 C.Y. Cunc. ♦ 7 S.1 . YInLh + xelnf . /or 4' Welk SCALE: 1' 1'-O' .071 C.Y. Cone. ♦ 7 S.F. Flnlah + Nelnf, for 4' wlx < aW + Y= © BAQG•'II.L Atm FTIS. l911F3CLAL: Satisfactory soil wtrrx.al for bx7cfill and 1 ' fill 371111 1]10 f'e• of LOC7C Or gel than 2• In .094 C.W . Cunc. + 4 S. F. Ylnlah + xe1,J . /or 5' w.1� per L. l'. .0107 C.Y. Conc. + 4 S.F. Finish + Relef. for 5' w•I111 L.F, m ` W gravel r airy deleterious . IU7 C,Y. Cu11L . + 5 5. 1 . Flnlvh + Nnluf . tut 6' walJJJ .096 C.Y. conc. + 5 S.P. Flnlah + telnf, for 6' w•Ix debris, 1•aste, toaln material, vegetable, and any other Tie leanous natter. Place hedcfill and fill ®axial in layer not sore than e' in s� oiy e ' loose depth for rte renal oovpected by heavy .aY..1a^t, and not aoxe turn ' 4" lose depth for material meted by hand operated equipment. :rnpwt each layer of backfill and fill astarial tom lase thin dy 95% naximm dry density. STBGRA= PR P.4FATICN; Corpsct this top 6' of subgrade soils to not less than 951 m5a"Leun dry den3ity for sox.Ls which exdYibit a well-defined noxsture anvirf relation Lnip as der&=m and in accordance with ASN 01557, CONCRETE SLAB TO BE BRUSHED a•d to not in•s than 90Y relAtive dry density for soils which do not BROOM FINISH WITH SONO-GLAZE OCS- 17 A aJcord a 1.10L'-dafx_'hed aovtvre density relAtu.o a+ tennind CONCRETE SEALER AS MANUFACTURED BY : w accordance in SONNEBORN-CONTECH,BLDG PRODUCT DIVISION LL accordance with AS-.M D20C9. 771 COMPUTER AVE . ,MINNEAPOLIS . MN . 55A36 p Q o (6 ) 27 835-3a31 BRIC1( I PA�tR 6®-1' ON SILIOOt'L' SJIIANI' 'may�-•N t' W W WALK - DETAIL U w Z a w O x ' � oN r, M I 1 MAX " , Ww — OL A• CONC . SLAB Y/ ZCONTROL JOINTS ' a o I' r I 1/2' CARY FELT EXPANSION 5' -0" O.C. ( TYP . ! e - a a • a - LJ ¢ J r- 7 JOINT • 20' O.C. ITYP, ) _ •„ JI m = a m Of 3 a a 7 si e a t 4. Omti•w,•IE 1/2• CAl1E1f PELT f:I TON MINT � ¢ s am m m a m m a SDEINAL!( TREATMENT_ � W 0a 0 m a as aa � • �•�°� � � 1020'-0. O.C. f/IX. w � � � � aa1 � �E � Tet � i VGIALS r' o � — _ -a > MIs m � � � � gJ LalaJ � Z , fo E .� a � M � M � � � � � i - ¢ moo t � E J1LK FINISH: BRICK PAVERS nf2N 0f a — 0 m a s a to m = 0 a SCALE, 3"• I ' -0' ,Nz., a = Ir .0 D /I I� o N � a mea J � 7 M +l � ai \lam/`•_,J\/f\ Nc >i 6. ,L J S Z w /A (CONTINUOUS) RlVld Paving over Rigid Base 1' O FINISH GRADE 1" R• - ^Nu a NON-SLIP SURFACE By IAC1CSCAPFR � •a . r - ROUGH GAADC • TOP OF PAVFMNT -RpglBrck Pawn, b' N� BY G.C. '♦' . l-W.Mroee ! \ 1 mttl BJ 1 . • � a • :Ie -0 - tB , / • ,° I. o i`� in nNml orcr Cele Slab W 1 •• � 3dk �i i ' • •� , c —Mn A'Cnx,rad Slone u •, - I /2' EXPANSION DINT WHICmpialaSno-Gr•ee Z g o =11111 IIIA- 111= _ O } It �i Q w w n NOTL: . 0 i - - - P10VIDL MANSION JOINTS e 20'-0" Dere (NL7 . D-EIsAIL-- 7 -6WECIAL AVERS �o IV AT ' O __ VE�TNRDI'11-1 t. iVE O 6" x 18" CONCRETE CURB PAvF- TO se *xAvIc.TL5 A MFab r L�� carz�( a Z snaI•E: l" - l'.o" APPRov/EO-E�uAL. .028 C.Y. Conc. per L.F. + Reinf. P E25 TO -LE 21, "1.1. "T+iIC�-' O "ZUM 5"Am • /.1w7Cp � 0 aTTER3 = 51E12@u�60o JBI9c• �otbR,�tBa tl END RAMP WNOi 1 MN W F (Y , SCALE 3/8"= 1 ' -0' � ffi r . `.JRAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT N ,n516.78%.3555 .� nS31W YORK 11701 • ritRMA 30 � 3S59e in '�1 JT I w WTL: m 4A4LIS NOT FACING THE PUBLIC D11R-o-WWREINF 4•' OONL LE BIDCK w/ - BE B• CONCRETE Bt=. Ai8y1, lo t44'1C11 BUILDING. . ' TO BID(7C OOURSFS w BRICK fYriiD(7( F 4" CONC. aLu== __ _ V •1 4" FACE BRICK 3/4"M45gY CONDUIT CAP ED p a M LOCATE U. O u� 36" A.F. F. 6. OLID ' h 0 �•• " o o FILLED. STEEL I 7 .4• 8 (TYP.) m o o t POST 3/4' INSULATED ^' �i MIXED WATER LINE, _ a ' STUB-UP TO HOSE B BB I11 a {I (FREEZE PROOF IN COLD `', 5{ N AREAS-JO5AM 1717 0 or c EQUIVALENT) 3� - �' _ 4 x x ORD! 3 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — ——i ( '� •,. c,• -- — — 1 T am 60 - :•i:a '�•- cc JO GRAVEL DOUBLE G fo h AEFi OD6- 0 GATEfir I ( lA • H" C.C. OR T• ' ,f «- IM' (SEE DETAIL) L' - - - - - -- --I Ic BLOCK Ok ± z m m r ---"- - -- - - - - - (2) IS CONT. L 16" j-- w 6" 6'x6'x116/10 E.W.W.M > I p POURED =43111ME . .4 I ry 1 C5. � PAD TYPICAL /-7-11 TYPICAL i 4 � FRONT ELEVATION WALL SECTION Q I m � SCALE: ]/B., = 1 ,_0,. I 1'-6- a °to rr -ft, 4' fi 4'-0• 12'-0• M.O. I . 2, -6 15 '-0• 2 • -6- 20 ' -0• GUARD POST SH ENCLOSURE w TRA � �: 1- . 1•-0- � A �/ 1 LLJ 73Q , 5 ys,111 .3a "C. Y. 1 Sllh .nA Anrnn + O I } ! L W REFUSE ELCG4.0802E GATE To bel GN4l11 1.i"V_ d O p , W// tilx 1 wN\?E M11.LE0 CEDAR 5'ToC4R DE (zea" A`fTAC1,4FCG, 12•-0" M.O. S'- ,4• FRan. ad C.0b, /• 4',O• A+ ~ o VNi 6.-o - -- --------` r (wrnNc x ts.e t`lo.) �. _ I 2L\7= -IMEAL CC0 - l:.' FIT J O Z LU --I -- - - -- -- -- -- - - �� I —I� OVENS ' a xsT 'FIT rata BEr it POST A A _ cl we Bore AL&tlITE . S LL N s •� ` 1610 BL \ \ Fr N HYDRAULIC I _ - <•, . , Nr� , GREASE \ \ /I / I r I METAL COLLAR TYP. 1 WELD TO FAA:4: :+•., I "' in z \ ; I WELD BOTTOM COLLAR TO —y m az O � : FITTING I \ / :' . .`. ..: o z \ � / I � C � I POST BOLT \P COLIdA HYDRAULIC GREASE FITTING ¢ ¢ O= �. (TyP . 4 PLCS . \ I I II 11 I DRILL AND TAP HOLE. L and M or Baan U a *h+ . i / I DIN BFM /I (TYPICAL 4 PLACES) 6 I ( RIy W! L /y I CennaCTlon May HP,Vori.d b 3 � s PA 7yE r( to I PLAN VIEW Solt Field Condltf�n.. PLAN VIEW sTo UM) / \ (Vlth CcMinq) ( thout Casting) FILLEDNCSTEEL f Eltitlirnp Surfoce • o. Duect.d � zo G7 POST 31 Britk 4 -068or3 i I CANE BOLTS I • sSy •, I .c I Hood, v SII 3 n Sid. Hooka• •: w w w'. 1cj Z 15'- 0 dg POST PIP£ tTyg'iT< S4O _ -4. ' ► -A4 B+ 4,-a. E I-� 7 e" 3'- 6• (SEE C 8• OH m m0") . � ► I'I . • � . - O 1/2" STEEL PLATE I" U ' NIPPLE WELDED TO PLATE Kato df Connrucrion .leF<a Re4C. - I p SECTION A - A e.waen Amy S"ceaas IFbora SECTION B - B + - -R C.oncrefe CSO.. 35 _ p j�� 'i • T� 4 (V -IAll, COLLARS ➢'OC9fm1/2" BOLTS TO 3/4" CANE BOLT Z wN FRAME W/ 4" HOOK O I - D %STA ;' L A � CA T C N ,, A .S Oa7- u j 1.4. r � p TRASH ENCLOSURE GATE TRASH F.TIGLQSLiRE GATE Pis? RAYMOND ,F. FELLMAN ARE06351 ITECT 570 BRO.OWA; •' "MITYVILLf iOg33 GLACIER COUORLAN00 ' •" 1 �.� y-� NF YORK 11701 . SIfi 7Ep:A333 ctcRIR6 'S.eop 45Gfi mVY.YI�Y� W DETECTOR LOOP N N PREFORMED PREWIRED VEHICLE DETECTOF LOOP r. ` - TEMPLATE AND ANCHOR ROLTS Y ' \ D19TRISUTOR INDICATOR CONTROLS CORPORATION 3000 EAST LAS HERMANAS STREET � RANCHO DOMINGUEI , CALtFORNIA 90221 1/2•0 115 VAC WIRING MR JIM OOULD 12131 60!' 0824 I 1 /2" CONDUCT TO MESH/ BOARD 0 FOR AUDIO \S, MATERIAL POLYETHYLENE TVVIN0 I/2 I D 100 PSI LOOP \ \` 1/2-B 116 VAC WIRING MADE FROM ONE LERGNT Of THIN t• OA — — — — — — — FROM BOOTH STRANDED WIRE. LEAD- IN If pRE - TWISTED AT FACTORY Z 0 f V2• 1 1/t•B AUDIO CONSTRUCTION FORMED WITH ONE CONTINUOUS LENBMT OF PVC WITH Iq d r 1 CABLE FROM BOETTN \ SNOOP CORNERS AS DRAWING BELOW WI 0 of WIRE LOOPED FORMED A PI PIGTAILED A9 IN DRAWING BELOW. 1LE[YE FOR MOTE Do Mor uR[ AE IerOecr rE Nr coot tx LOW .00► I<ErR ALL e[eAln AND el w Z m� c SPEAKER POST 7' �T I \ J+'' DETECTOR LOOP sceEENIN. AT LLArT ; FFET AWAY FROM L00► q UD. � sC Ip SPEAKER POST NOTES �� y W U, THIS TEMPLATE 97 TV BE USED WITH SEPARATE I 11 SPEAKER 01 SPEAKER POST . IN CONdVCT10N WITH THE S' ■ 7 CONCRETE \ MENU BOARD n' roW t,T Keu; PAD — I = cru^re toARD � I w Cy MWNTING BOLTS SHOULD EXTEND t- ABOVE PAD r. Bae t►CAIU:R �'\ -�� --� I­ 43 E� rOET 1 q per' of I E" ALL CONDUIT$ SNCC OVI.D EXTEND .• TOB ABOVE 3/4•' C . O CONCRETE PAD. I, _ 1, L FOR AUDIO b 'T -"—�-- - n' rn - — ^D --- J W MATERIAL '. SOBA, BALV 1/41 TO 1/h LAMINATES 1 y '�--- - > 1 /2" C . MASTIC ALL 1101TATION$ ARE TO DIE !MOWN ON 2x12 - TEMPLATE O TEMPLATE B 0 I\ >d-o' ? c�y�'N m y0+ 1 DETECTOR LOOP NO ICAL[ _ —._. . d SPEC ER POST O of H 0 1 1 /2- C. — — E ° AUDIO FROM 1''O" e 2''8 fWNOATtON PLAN I" CONCAFTE as AtINYDRCED 6 BOOTH 1 — — — — � . Irn .' , IME W sono [ W W M .rN - - — , NO RCALC NC TED IMM^N On 0' O rO eE � PL ACED .I!MIN x 0' Of SPEAKER POST PLAN ; I IN I r D rEtTDe LM. I /2' C. REFERENCE MENU p4.�ARD 1 2x 12'S BOARD I - -�'- '- � I —'�4'A IE� CONC CURL SCALE: 3/8" • I • -p.• ( I O'IrT• I .�I TANDEMLAYOUTS � ., 1000 0 ._ �.'cyR. o Q SCALE : 1 /5' 1 • -0' —I�— � o CONNew I/1' CONDUIT 0 W I TIIVC TIONo , . �Dl I - - - - - - - - - - - - BE WED ONLY. IB Ut• I 1 1 — — — 1 — n_ w o I I oe —D' CONC .LAD E — — WLO'D U U DRIVE TNI1U t/EAKEN MERU GOA" ON rOET FOUNDATION ¢ W W M d D' T M�Tfp {BARD TEM_ PLATE D o W E : IE sV'9- . • SECTION �° a No S�' 0 r. N U � N D.T. 6PEAK R eOSf OR I / / ILL 4 RANO OLRLL[T BOX Z o on 9��•� �_0�� \ AT B'1� A.F.R I '11S•t 4• PUIIL BDoc 3' -D" H . x '1' -0" LeJ6 D Alf If.I . HANDRAIL t0 0 �+ nQ Z CONC. ?AD S�t1�4' 111 00 A.F F s . $IIIL.L GOO 1�1 ¢ 0 �. U ° . W N i N q IJ Q _ Z C u q Y) E a .+ t• 1SID CONOR TO MENU BOARD OUTSIDEICVNTRACTOR I � J TO PIGTAIL 012 (FULL WIRE AT EACH END FOR INSTALLER TO PULL AUDIO CABLE VE3TtBUE.E w w b — I INTERCOM SECTIONS PLAN I O o d I L 4=ME p -[LEE WIN ALL u"ME OUIED CONDUIT LIN" TO Of METAL. ►vt IE 001 ALLOWED CCAJ. PIVOT= AES _ A, F- I i1/ 6ASE PIA1L• 6 A93M �a � rJ � 2'-6"r2'-0" Inc. BA F, 2' vn-;5 8Y Slfai `VPukiL f O WIN eIeL.0v/ GPADE IY �' � O I • � u i� > U7 D.T. VEHICLE HEIGHT DETECTOR . ¢ 1fW� b 7- SCALE: SCALE: 1/4"el'-0" O :m- W V N� g V STIBULE HANDRAILIvai -x . . ,. GALE: 1/!- - 1' -0• U -i DRIVE-THRU LANE STRIPING RAYMOND F. FELLMAN • ARCHITECT 4A1111, PAID I Sam 4ROAOWAY 11701 • AMITYVILLE Ib;;3 GUCIER COURT • ORLANDO 1 1 SGeIW: I/(,•• . I'-�•• NEW YORK IITOI • 516Je93555 ELORIOA S;e09 • DOS331139E m J_ W bl"I"' " E (4 REQUIRED) u F' t uj BALE PLAT[ I 1' -6" t ■ BASE T?LATE m y 2" DIA. HOLE mD 111 O BOLtA.X S FURNISHED LEG N 5 5/8• 3/4" 5 5/E" ANCHOR BOLTSSUPPLIER ; BY LIG"+ ING SUPPLIER ; s z - > o � INSTALLED BY G .C. . III • Z m .,, !, R — � ANCHOR BOLT (TYP . 1 3000 DSI CONCRETE g I o oPOURED iN GLACE._ TO BE FINISHED SMOOTHto 10 ' 0 WITH ROUNDED CORNERS II IIFaogtoe(0!tt 3� •OPTIONAL METAL BASE COVERitT( PAINT TO MATCH POLE) IIII !C, p DD�EE tRftICE }NN 6"x1 " CONC . CURB II cu 1 d0 t r I I FINISHED GRADE �I II I_ II 3/4• CONDUIT DATVIETHRV I • �I II II II �� � � "' Q DT SIGN BASE PLATE SPRAY PAINT (W/ RUST III II Y Q PROOFING PAINT) EXPOSED NQ BCALE II II --T`- ANCHOR ASE TO F { �y 1U T{7 I 4E ItTA L ' IDp oe GRAS ry I .nI MATCH BASE III IIS h (t�Y F 7A + c i• ll ' W II I:I IIII JAM NUTID C} 2'-0. _ I� Il igljll •• _ NUT C _I_ _fit- II 90 c i e'-2" II FLAT WASHERS __ Q W - � II II • IIII BASE PLATE f rl w > c - o FLA4sPOL.E BAeE AJct-IoR.A1GE -- I� t`'I � izEo l••tT� A5 PER t'nFR •. - --III IZII___ O LEVELING NUT - --o �' o mPEOtFtaATto"s- (4) 1/2• 0 x 12• 4 J • Lo 1 1 BOLT PATTERN BY I_C 0 0 ANCHOR BOLTS W/ to I 1 LIGHTING SUPPL:EP 2" HR. F'UANISHED j 12." n ® POLE AND INSTALLED I QTY_. CO[JIIi. 1D BY G.C. � J' s `w ANCHOR BOLT --T .FOR METAL BASES �zNISH L2" CND. POURED �RIy ORDER NO. 5230. AS c s i TER1.W1E 2 112 ® AM NU' c o .=e ., TOP OF GRADE ry I �� � G.C.GCMANUFACTURED FA I ;o . �� F 5 FOR 52� G�t7IR. _ I MORGAN METAL FABRICATORS Y o ro Z NUT P . O . BOX 2AV O s sR \ u it • Ir .^ R FLAT WASHER NOSE: G.C. TO USE ANCHOR DOLT/CONDUIT STUB 1101 )OFA AVENUE . °.vy \—-? - II Il II , •>'� `� O BEAVER FALLS . PA IS010 BASE FLAIL LAYOUT TEN ' FURNISHED BY (11121 543-74-85.II.I II C, � I LEVELING NUT -,INDICATOR-,INDICATORCONTMONTW LS CORP."O II C C 11 �� • I1 - NON-SHRINK II tl II ` GROUT 1.1dfE : aaeA E14.1 Fe+uriOATto.1 (4) L2"0 x 24' II I II 1 OE6tfe L1 O`( oTM1EQ 5. CONCRETE AIR SRN STS HE II4 `_==- -jll- O O r cOuLDATIG': I I 11 �i L ° J -7— AND I* 5TALi - GRADE LGHT POLE CA SE BY G. C. oU - w o I I c SPEAK ER POST BASE d W PC= 0 D I o"W BY G.C. Or� C C.T. Conc. per L.F. Depth 4 L.F. A. . 3.021 v ° o n _ A. ROAD SIGN \ (`)�t� J -- BASE V �J w O N W U ~ Q 2Et�1Fo2CS W/(4) ats OAms ¢ m d OtAw/ #x eS 71ES AT '- O Z W- 300o P.s.\. co.ICRETE - �2'�o.G.,_ _ _ - - - - r- PoJR.EO W OLAcE 'HANDICAPPED PARKING ONLY- !SIGN - � I (¢i -j . CURBING (CHECK WITH LOCAL COCES ' _ Ix 1 (WHEEL STOP ) FOR SPECS) - O rn .l c) ra � N ¢ z Z ENTRANCE EXIT SIGN BASE ~ Zss SCALE: 1' 1'-0" 3"otA. e:4l,v. an. . PIPE/PasT� no z a = .062 C.Y. CODc. per L.F. Depth ab L.F. A.E. - AT 8'-0" o1.C. w/Tb P, cio TToM 9L - A1..1(] II-1TEQMECt qTE i7•.4t1.6 /I ^ OR N N O W 'J Q HAtl.l - LIIJK FE.�GE MATT- rs- Z Y PER Tow,•.) 7PCCS . n_LI 1[.. " U PAINT D _ S ---- t Y - HANDICAPPED - • - 'O SYMBw�x60'•H. 1 I vu•ooD STo CKAOE FCI-1tE P.•.JEI-5 OLUE u ]r r Ec ) ac) To STL. PIPE FRAME STRIPING m "1 PER Tow.) SPECS . 0. u T r A ONLY EXIT 4 Z o [ , g¢n,OE2 STALLS M.•. F- ow w .•..�.'�,,. .m wra. [u, �U` ��/y,���� " ,3 ����� PER LOT Q• (NWJ� [nee. u:mrr.[•1 r—� -->— ,yVAV�4',/ \�' � ml PcuCiED COL.1C. O — 'k. , I P'o257 PTE. - 7`(PtC4LAD . RV1 I tr t THRUM I I— OTE : A eKlaTlam FE cta6 AT Z [ '"+o 6 �27`f L.II-•tE% 7o DE REPAIP-E.o O AS FIE Rt11RE0. A r DRIVES g E N C I P M •DETAIL b/4't a PAVEMENT MARKING HANDICAPPED STALL MARKING F , SCALE : 3/ 16'= I ' -o• RAYMOND F. FELT N • ARCHITECT g -� P ''� ' 570 BROADWAY . AMITYVILLE 0222 GLACIER COURT . ORIAROO �+ NEW YORK 11701 . 516-7893555 � 40RIOA ]2809 • f03351J595 � L 131990 LL D E . Asphalt mix material shall be, dellveretl t0 the site at a N UO SECTION 03514 D. Performance Guarantee temperature not lover than 275OF or higher than 3200F and ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVING shall not be p1aCltl when the outside air temper (For 15 below ASPHALT PA DXaIGr AHD I1s5PECTION PROCEDc7Pa The Contractor shall guarantee ve writing the period of oneduring PART 1 - GENERAL performance of the comp Ltad pavement for • period of one (1) year . season or paving, inclement Or the. weather . (For late rM season paving, see Appendix B, p'. 02518-6) . In order to Snpure ty proper functionlM of our uphalt parklnq PART 2 - PRODUCTS The mix shall be compacted immediately after D1aC inq a5 soon m' lots , chars era tour oejor era+■ of conaidacatS.o° vh1cD c.ha 1. 01 Genital Conditions i! the 101% ■ill support the roller vithOUt Untlu! tlelDliCe- lots , t-b' a con■trncUon LpgInear wt +ttend to prior, dari°q ' 2.01 Matecisis ment . Initial eampaction rolling with a steel-wheeled tandem , y and of tar eonatruet ion of the lot. They are u fo� l°wn The General Conditions of the Contract, and the Supplemental 3 General Condltlons bound in the -specifications for the nt Series A. Asphalt Prime Coat shall be MC-30, MC-70, or !tC-350, eomplyLng steel three-whealed, vibratory, or pneumatic-tired roller ' F 1. Pavement t>o•Lqn 7�.co.■.•M+cion• Standard Restaurant Buildings' are part of this specification. with the requi[ementa of AAS HTO specification Sea tion !182 or ABT9 shall foliar the paver a! closely e3 tossibla . In areas too Q specification D2037. small for the roller, a vibrating plate compaeteI or nand The Contractor shall consult them in detail for instructions tamper shall be used to achieve thorough compaction . Each I'ha sap■c important factor influaacir•g tr"' stability and pertaining to work under this trade. All bids must be based on fl z W ;at of ab asphalt Pavement structure 1■ that ma retial specified as stand oleo. The term Owner as used herein is g, Asphalt Tack Coat, when enquired, shall be SS-1, SS-1h,- SS-1 , course shall be COmpeCted to not ,less than -9 S% of maximum F p �• long Y for both the specific b.ar l.aq or CSS-lh olio tad one part eater to one part emulsified ed laboratory density and uniform specified thickness as re11 as it De properly deaigned McDonald 's Corporation and/Ole its appointed representative . 1 ~ it be pe ctse cob-gr.de soil and the e■ticipatsd traffic asphalt. Before dilution tri• enulsitied asphalt shall Comply t0 required grade and cress-section . Compaction shall be a 1 . � with the requirements of ASSNTO Specifications :1140 or '1209 or completed before the Course hu cooled to below 2SOaF , p U loadinq at each lot locatio�n. when the wOLIS investigation 1 .02 Scope of Work O `n 1� Ls rf oaaad tb• enginwr fret i ASTM Specifications D977 or D2397. w severe s!u oM bow bqa or auger• F . After Compaction roiling has been Completed and before the strut a to ar Furnish all labor, materials, equipment, and services to complete you vement areas to • all asphalt parking area and drive work as shown and specif Led on C. Granular Insulation Course material shall be tine aggregate , course has cooled t0 no. lower than 140aF, finish tolling a a Q w arae■ recoaaan • the drawings and herein. coarse sand or stone screening, graded so that 90-100\ passes shall be performed with • tantleA !teal roller and shall Ic ca c t o a r a ° continue until all roller marks and imperfections are pavwsrnt o ■ on r �ygs rher. an • o r 3/4• U.S. Sieve and not more than 30\ peaces No. 100 U.S . - - c�o snp-gr.ae bearing Sieve. eliminatad . - N • o sYeCru •os tests ZOK 0a .03 cork Not Included capacity, rya sett d' wtw recognized of which is exPressedrn-California�•• caarinq suttee Method' ognre the capacity A. Earth removal, filling, compaction, or any rough grading of p, Granular Sub-base Course material shall be hard crushed stone , G . In instances rheic the asphalt base course is to remain numerical .ale or •CIA• . parking area and drives. slag, crushed gravel, or uncrushed gravel having cough t:zcuce exposed for a designated period of time before the aspnalt N w arau. u op- ant, subangular to angular partigla shape and shall be as surface course is applied, as instructed by the Owner , toe lie aver. of t.ba fact that ori^• �csi only, will re- B. Barricades and tra[fie control will be furnished by the specified by the Ovnec on the Site plan. asphalt base course shall be repaired of any (allures, trete Do•ed to parklnq areae for paa■an9 General Contractor. cleaned, and primed with an ■sphalt tack coat a001ietl at c^e 2 ga-ced an �• pa„+•.nc du iqqpp thiekn.■a dw to ib`reased E. Asphalt Concrete Plant Mix Base and Surface Course material rate Of .05 to .15 gallons per square yard before the aspnal• ,a traffic loading from trucks. Aleb, special conaldaratlm should shall be as follows! surface course 1! lnatilled . a subject to fret bea+a, 1 . 04 General Requirements be given to dulgna for northern areas w "tel this is aap+cl&,IT important schen a high rater table 1e Pre■ont APPENDIX A - Sub-Grade Classification 1. Asphalt cement roc the asphalt concrete plant mix shall er W th syI po•aibility exist• wba" surfe0e water Can iatlltrat• the A. Pavement Thickness Design (20 year design period) comply with the applicable requirements of AASBTO or hue at the Pavoccent p•rlphary, at IandaeaP• •e"s ' Specification M226 or ASTM Specification 03301. "Good to Excellent' - 'Good, sub red* soils include clean sands, end at locations o[ any objcl which panetrata the Pav".nt Pavement shall he a plant-mixed asphalt ant-mix course over a land-gravels, end soils from Of detrimental amounts Of plastic 4u•rd Poets etc A leaaral rule-of- plant-mlxnd asphalt beau source, or a plane-mixed asphalt sure u ocations of a• , (asphalt sad e-Of single deep-lift course, over a Bound and well-drained 2, Mineral aggregate for the asphalt concrete plant mix shall mater Sala . Generally , any sell that retains a substantial R amount of It tbursb i■ that the tool pavement etz�acturebal granular sub-base courso, where requited, Over the prepared consist of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate• and, lE loatl-bearing cap city then rat . CBR (California Bearing Ratio) values U a,atereals for at least coarse■) consist of poo-frost suso•pt-iD �y�y a sup-grade. Thickness °If each course Shall be as specified b7 needed, mine tai tiller. The costae aggregate shall be of 10 to 20. "Excellent" !tabegrad• soils include rill-graded, clean an 504 of flea fret peateretion depth. TO additionally _ _ sharp sands and gravels . Generally, any sail that is unafreet:ea by of * 'yap+ r ib la frost heaverpt. bots �• asphalt suzfw e■+] gran the Owner on the Site p'.1an. In all Cases, the minimum sound, angular crushed atone; ecuaMd gravel, Oc Crushed p°a d.ded b u >ao,t to elle frw wtar to thiekneu of the structiu re shall b• as described below for tt^ slag , Uncrushed coarse ag9[e9ate may be used in base moisture or front action. CBR values greater than 20 . talar Dew Ghoul be 9T specific sub-grade type , or types, existing at the location C : course mixtures If' th• mixture meets ell design criteria. collect. the Pavement- The fine aggregate shall be well graded, moderately arise? "Medium" - Soils include 108103, clay looms, silty sands, and sand-grave lOed ao�iroe for lnfoa.don about tp,a design of asphalt to sharp sands. containing moderate amounts of Clay and fine silt . Generally , any soil a =c A belt In■[lasph lulldibl. 1, Minimum Strut turn !'qc Asphalt Parking Areas! that retains a moderate degree Of finesse under adverse moisture A good i• •The Asphalt Lnstituta• Asphalt 3 . Asphalt concrete plant mix snail melt the requirements of i5- ' CC ditiOns , CBR Values Of 5 t0 10 . Collele Fart, Maryland, 20740. Minimum Compacted Thickness in Inches Standard Specification D1663 and anal! meet the follow ng dy • f sed p..ema■t finish a1..•clon. 3 Granules; Asphalt gradation range requirements for each. course mix . ( Simila. "poor" - soils include Clays, silts, sandy seams . Generally , any sail * u 3• _p• Dela propo Sub-grade Type �- mixes specified by local agencies may be used if they have that become$ quite soft and plastic when ret . CBR values less than S . -m0'rE, minimum Insulation Sub-bass Baa• Surface Dee Lift performance) . ' Inapectlm Course Course Course Course Course history of satisfactory P 2• s�'"•�r'••' ° s`�a l-L/2 APPENDIX B - Late Season Paving and tt of ■ oda oil and u or be", Good to ExeelUnt 0 0 2-1/2 1 Base Course Single Deep-Lift Course* Surface Cour ss In wpe4 ti - i-- yyO ` b- oaou..petsd tg��i�ic ( 3/4" Max . Agg J (1/2• vex • Aqp J ( 3/4" wax . Ay' " In cases rhare tM ■sphalt Dasa course must be installed in cool or or to P acemrac of upha c must 0 4 2 1 3 Sieve Size: Total Percent Pasaing(Dy ■t • ) reathei, in order to amble the store to open by the end of the year , v ,; PC � Coal 66ali ��y�b ry spec or rein wloc -- _- o rtes ou • oons0l••^t, tboor be allocI *tedium 1 3 the minimum temperature Of the mix shall be 2850F . Then the ground U ; P• tion of the C. I.F. If the r•"Its Lpdicate Poor 3 6 2 1• ( 2S .Omm) 100 temperature 1S 408 - S32F . , and a minimum of 2950F . when the for is the •ata Par or or 'typo' __ ground temperature Sa 328 - 40aF . clod to bel rolling small be o o _ 3/4" (19 .Omm) 90-100 100 completed before the course has cooled to Dilor 2SOa . r that COsq,4ccLon fails to wt specif ioationp, the ie shall be the -- -- - Q ~ w Of the __ 90-100 100 w inspettion/testing and for correction halt Specification• . reapontlD illty of the contractor• (sae •Rap 2. 11inlnum Structure for Asphalt Ocives3 1/22 (12.Smm) -- a_ 90-1001 0 Chaptar IV. . Section C. ) 3/B" (9 .50101) 60-s0 C� Minimum Compacted Thickness in Inches 3. vavea•ent pan pity and Thicknnso Tu Sub-grade Type 3 Granular Asphalt 4S-7o 60-BD i w H cted awpbalt - No .4 (4 .75mm) 35-65 d yarns of the finished, ocespa Insula tripe Sub-base Hass Surface Deep- 25-53 35-65 w Coro drilled spec taat� for purpose of dater- Cour3se Course Course Course .,aursa • 25-55 No .B (2.361010) 20-SD PAVEMENT PAINTING INTING SPECIFICATION O w u PavemuOt RusOf t be •+cured and elninq density and thieknas•. cTbaca ones for this vert, Par- 6-25 Q ni O_ mood to Excellent 0 0 4-1/Z L S-1/2 No .SO (D .SOmm) 3-20 5-20 Lesaed by • quell(led uvulae oonsuleanc, ■1>ou ld W allocated directional arrows - is rn for 1.n rya site Portion of y" C. I.F. If the results ladle.u 0 5 4 L 5 2-9 _ 2-10 All pavement painting - striping, letteri)g, to tamloa■e tail' to ret ■writ ic&tims, the :tedium No .200 (0 .0751010) Z-B to be white 1) color. �„ z w that density for correction of the work spall be ~ coat for mora tato and halt / Poor Z 9 4 1 5 ASPhalt Cement rye i-asponaiblllCy of eve. emtreetor . (sae 'Asphalt Pae- Lirted below are recommended paint manufacturers and products: ¢ � ser 30. , Section C• 1 or 'rypae Content (weight Carbit - yore Marking p+1+ �1� G 6Ofg s Silcatlon+• , Chap Glidden - 'Tcalfle cone Faint (2ie) 474-3121 " N •LL contractor Cannot guarantee compaction on a single life , percent of 4 .0-9 .0 4 .5-9 .5 5 .0_: 'Trai!!e i cent Marking Paint' (412) 434-3131 O w a 4, Pavurnt Construction InsPKu4a total mlxJ Pittsburgh - , two lifts of equal thickness may be substituted for a single Sheerin Williams - 'Pro-Ma[ TTalLle Marking Paint' (800) 321-9194 O N ¢ _ cion Engineer' ■ r•sPonsibility to monitor deep-lift. Maximum ALlooable Maintenance, Ing. (Premise Industrial Corp. ) - 216)2-Stripe• Z IC la the C.on+tsve p pavement, The (216) 264-6262 and anapest the Lastallatim of the asphalt w Percent of Re- ¢ . = and Inspect ep a partial checklist of tame of the items that 3. Minimum Structure Cot Asphalt Truck Perking Areasnc) should b• Is alpartd than condoctlnq ■^ Ln•pectlon� and Drives (Subjecct to more than 20 a less than cycle 0/Reclaimed pavement areas to be striped suet be Bound, and Lee of dust, dirt, 'N a: 1- 400 trucks/day) . Materials freight oil, reAa veil .rid grannlsr be" �� ccwspa�ed percent of total NONE NONE 9[eue and any ocher ioni9n utter. Remove loose dice re o .~. A. Is GY+ nts-9inDoes Minimusm ComDaeted Thickness (in inches) mix) NONE brusning and/or blowing cleat with ale oe rater pressure. Care should (E s a to r.quiz.d d•n■itT. cr°ss-section, and grade?idea elops7 Glra nUla[ be taken not to spread sudaee deposits 0! oil or quota owe ///��� a o tatareel appear to wt spec Sub-grade Iyypa3 additional areaS Ln she eleanihq ,prodeslls. thee• should be removed with A U granular base Insulattion Sub-bass Deep-Lift •Note: In truck parking areas Only, 3ya" mix may be substituted N city being applied Coucue Course Asphalt Course• for 1/2• mix in deeD-lift construction provided that solvents or cosmecelal now paints. d, striping should be w o s I■ • un-1 pri"a coat of correct Wan asphalt content falls within the range of 4 .5-9 .5% by wire-brasbed to Issues rive paint bond, ee removed eneinro ec badly on the granular bass aid • 7surtsas �'t will came aero g 7_1/2 weight (5 .5% optimum) . cracked, flaked, or peeled. Where application is Coat pro CeeCive w Z coeurs with the ass Goad to Excellent 0 sealers or coatings, such materials should be allowed to cure for at zo trance of the upb•lc ai.x uniform in 0 � 6 7 PART 3 - EXECUTION least 49 hours before painting. A cheek should be ode by applying \ o 0 C Is Cha general apps Medium test strip to determine the readiness fog painting. J >= a toxtnre7 Is the temperature of the mDOLtored and from 2, 11 7 3 .D3 COnet rUCtlOnSur - retinq requiremeats7 (foul p■iulon of hive O�arMat•d Poor wrothe mix often is an i„dioption of overb•ateisq . or 'Ty)par' The pavement that Mae ing will be laid out with chalk marks for require J a slam I-nd aid •+Y h•^ • nm distri- A . Initial Preparation - If specified by the Owner, a commercial striping so that urking will be accurate and in keeping with Plan- Mix s+y D9"r positioning and dimensioning shown on the Site plan. One uniform roe _ w button of uphalC. ) *If coneractoeeannot gunifantse compaction on a single lift , two so0lumaehlorate,dperate, orkiller shallbeapplietlstdutneas of paint should be 'applied by brush, roller, oe spray, at a rate of ° .. depth of aap7ylt •�• spread chocked fragwantly7 lifts of equal thickness, may be substituted foe a single Prepared sub-grade follorinq recommendations of the product not less than one gallon per 200 square feet. One gallon will yield u D. Ia the dap deep-lift- manufacturer . from 300 to 500 lineal last Of 4W ride strips. w F F all c. Ip proper roller Procedure be Lal followed?Arejoints and NOTES? irre4itLritiaa D,ainq properly aorrocted B .. Placement of Granular Courses - The granular insulation and paint should not be applied voce weather 1■ rainy, foggy, or Z a o $ edges Delp9 properly rollaa7 rade and earn excessively humid (over 859 talatioa� hwldityl , and not when ambient 1, Pa[kingares■ seek defined as those arta subject to sub-base courses shall be placed over the sub-9 1av1 and terwch per pauengic car seekdtxa�ffef (Max. 4,000 lar axle load) . course compacted at 95% of the maximum laboratory density : as or pavement tesperatuca is below SOaP. , and not when above > determined coon on the same material by ASTM 01557, Mechdtl 0) and cpndltlone ate entleipated Loc tight beucs efts[ application. FF_ p\ m o f Ia [lr surface of the finished Pavement 2, Drives re defineld AS those areas subject to passenger car 9+ W •petit Scation7 and true traffic; (Max. 10,000 lb. axle load) OC up to 20 uniform specified thickness as well as to required grade and C7 f ealah.d taphole atu:uctore cross-section . pavement should not be opened to It ssne until all paint is alloyed to La taken of trio trucks/4y. cure for at .least 1 Dour. (consult unutaeturet !Cc specific drying G. ua the cord.aa•o and location of) . 3. See Appe,dix A, P . 02514-6 , for tub-grade classification. o- repraaenu vel (As far u saber C . Placement of Asphalt Prime Coat - The prepared granular times) . Q B. Pavement 9mothnese sub-base course or prepared sub-grade, mese granular sub-base 0 course is not specified, shall De primad with an asphalt prime Vcost The surface f the eolmpleted pavement structure when tested 5u rf aceelof deoncietat a e Curbse of , gutters, vertical gallons P faces er u Ofe yard (f) IY with a ten (3) Loot straightedge, shall not contain existing pavements, and all structures to be in actual contact Lrregulariti4 in exc:BSS of one quarter (1/4) inch. with the asphalt-aggregate mixture shall be given a thin , ever A C. Pavement Te stng and Inspection coating of asphalt prima . Care shall be taken to prevent t <1 - spattering any surface that will not be in Contact with tris Z asphalt aggregate mixture . p aMs The Contractor shall furnish for teat and analysis A IMI represents tivrcore samples of the compacted asphalt oavemea _ p, Placement of Asphalt Concrete Plant Mix Base and Surface , or 11 structure. Sapling and testing shall be in accordance Lith Single Deep-Lift Courses - The mixture shall be placed in one $ the course lift thickness shall b■ at least two times the ma latest raixions -4f the AASBTO. or more lit is as specified on the drawings . The minimum ximum C911.and teatin particle sire; the maximum lift thickness shall De that which oc tale ASTM 9tfused procedures Eor sampling q t can be demonstrated to be laid in a single lift and compactedmaterials beinused in the work. All phases of the tock + i1: wbe periodicall;inspacted by the Owner. IE the [•sults 7E t t° required uniform denairy and emoothnesa . Asphalt courses tests of speed inspection meet the standards required by the shall be spread with an approved, conventional self-propelled asphalt paving machine . Placing }no SPreatlinq tris mixture plans or speC11c&tions, the Owner shell baa[ the cost of sac:. tests or LnspaCon. if the results d° not meet the plans sucn or shall be a continuous operation . Any corrected directly in the °i _ s pecifications,tne Contractor shall bear the cost of sure surface of the pavement shall De eorreeteo directly heeled tris RAYMOND M O N D F. F E LLM A N ARCHITECT work is found to paver . Small, confined areas may be spread and finished by p► testa and Lnspelons. Additionally, if any nand ,azvx cuaca couar oauaoo uu{{ )age be detective imatar ial or workmanship, of cont[a[y to e>o eaoaowar , ar,rtry u.i[ na,o� steep aos3a,+ase u�i \�VVV � a defective I thu drawings or herein, that work snall be www coax nm, me.>e►3sss - removed and repeed by the Contractor at his own expense . W W 0 SECTION 02515 3, 07 JOINTS to POR'I'UAND C�EMENT CONCRETE PAVING e. A. General: a m � PART I - C;ENERAL L. Concrete work shall be jointed AS shown on the project drawings. If not indicated on the drawings , o 1. 01 DESCRIPTION a jointing plan shall be prepared by the contractor and approved before paving begins. A. Related work Specified Elsewhere: 0 B. Control Joints : 1 , Cast-In -Place Concrete: Section 03300 1. Provide control joints of contraction joints which , 2 . Earth....rk: Section 02200 shall be formed by one of the following methods : sawlog, forming by hand, or using Cull-depth eon- inZ 3. Concrete walks and Curbs: Section 02515 struetion joints. Joint depth shall be a minimum of ons-fourth the slab thickness. Hand-Corned 8. DRcriptino of work: joints shall have a 6 Q 0- ll hmaximum edge radius of 4 inch. " - ea. Saving of joints shall begin as soon as the concrete � 1 1. The o,< mnt of the work is shown on the drawings and has hardened sufficiently to permit sawing without a specified herein. excessive reveling. All joints shall be completed 3 w e before uncontrolled shrinkage cracking occurs. Joints 1, 0: OUALITY ASSURANCE shall be continuous across the slab, unless inter- M rupted by full-depth premolded joint Ciller. Joints Q A. Reference Standard: shall extend completely through the curb. Joint openings wider than 1/4 inch shall be cleaned and 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 - sealed before opening parking area to traffic. INI) . - Cast-ln-Place Concrete- I 2. Joints should be laid out to aid construction and 1. 03 SUBMITTALS control cracking. A square panel pattern is preferable but a dimensional ratio of 1 1/2 x 1 is W Cwt permissible. Joint s aero shall not exceed LS feet. ~ rC h A. Reference Standard : G w ` Keyed joints are not require Tr ansven a 3o rocs shall a 1. Conto nn to the requirements of Section 0]]00 - be sawed. Spacing may be varied to accommodate catch . basins, man holes etc. when pavement areas have many drainage inlets or other structures , pie Cast-In-Place Concrete. ce joints to ., approximate the cracking that mould occur without PART 2 - PRODUCTS joints. Whenever practical curbs should be cast integrally. 2 . 01 CONCRETE MATEPTAIS C. Isolation Joints: A. Reference crandard: 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 07700 1. Provide isolation or expansion joints to Isolate 4 ys c - fixed objects abutting or within the paved area. Q� ria as Cast-In-Place Concrete, except as noted below: They shall contain oremolded joint tiller for tae or y _ c full depth of the slab. ,I � a. MAimum coarse aggregate size shall be 1 inch. ° o d I m F J l0 2LT 2, 02 PROPORTIONING AND DESIGN Or MIXES 02315-3 ?ORT•-Aaw CEMENT CONCRETE PACING rfd 1 0 3b A. Reference Standard: - 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 Cast-In-Placa Concrete, except as noted below: 3. FINISHING a. All concrete shall have a compressive strength of. 3500 psi minimum at 28 days , except in A. General: � � Northern Climates• where it shall be 6000 psi w minimum at 28 days. 1. After cmncrete has been struck off and consolidated, o a a bulli:lost may be used to remove any high or low > - b. All concrete shall be produced with a minimum spots. Bulltloat use shall be confined to a minimum. o w O� r P A final, skid-resistant finish shall be made with a w Cement content of 520 lb. per cubic yard burlap <drag or broom. ( 5 . 5 U. S . bags) except in Northern Climates- Where it shall be produced with a minimum cement 0 o LU 0 content of 560 lb. per cubic yard ( 6 . 0 U.S. bags) Z 3. 05 CURING AND PROTEICTION o cal d. 'A C. All concrete shall be produced with an entrained O air content of 48 by volume, except in Northern A. Reference Sltandard: w u E Climates- where it shall be produced with an ¢ m W 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 entrained air content of 61 by volume . - Cast-in-Place Concrete. • oy a. d. Ail concrete shall have a maximum water/cement EPZ w - znrio o[ 0. 53 (6 . 0 gal/bag) , except in Northern 3.06 CONCRETE SURFACE RAIRS ~ ClimatesA whe re it shall have a maximum water/ eemont ratio of 0. 49 (5. 5 gal./bag) A. Reference Standard: u- 65 oN V) e. Lump shall be 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 07]00 - O The maximum allowable concrete ■ ca e. Lu 4 . Cast-In-Place Concrete. rn (z If inches ' ."Northern Climates' shall be defined as those areas 3,07 FIELD QUALITY CONTROL o Z 00 expoee,l to freeze-thaw cycles or the use of deicing 1 1 salt A. Reference Sitandard: L� Z C) = , 00 1. Conform) to the requirements of Section 03300 ¢ o - 0 Cast-Inl-Place Concrete. 7, 07 CONCRETE MIXING U � A. Reference standard: a rn 3 . 08 OPENING ZD TRAFFIC vwi _J 1. Conform to the requirements of Section 03300 - J Cast-In-Place Concrete. A. Gane Ial3 w u PART 7 - EXECUTION 1. Tie pavmment shall be closed to all traffic for £ at least seven (7) full days or until such time �+ 3 . 01 PREPARATION tat th:e minimum compressive strength of the cmcretls is at least 751 of its design strength . -' A. General: Il all cases approval shall be obtained prior p ,$ tcoeniing of the pavement to traffic. & Q 1. Preparation shall conform to the requirements of ' Section 03300 - Cast-In-Placa Concrete. w � w 2. The oulq rade shall be in a moist conditionrior to ire- o with the concrete placement and shall comply Z O menta of ACI 302-69 . m 3. 02 CONCRETE PLACFrrRNT F- W W I .. A. General: 0 1. Placement shall conform to the requirements of 0- X Section 03300 - Cast-In-Place Concrete. W 2. Concrete shall be placed, struck off, consolidated ,canIcal I'1 and finished to plan grade o[ bame h and_finishingnishing methods (n Y machine , vibrating screed, y when approved. In lieu of fixed formsaver designed tour _ W may plats concrete with a slipform P spread , consolidate, screed, and float finish the z freshly placed tonere to in one eomPlete pass of the machine . Pavement 2U The be_Ditehed to area drains A w 3 . lnh thickness shall be 5" to all areas g ec� to passenger suo; venic les and up to 20 trccke per day . The slab thickness shall be 8" in all areas subject to more than 20 �A and I.- than 400 trucks per day. a ' -- w � RAYMOND F. FELLMAN ARCHITECT 3 ' 7 .� aTo BROADWAY • Aw1rYVILLE 101=2 GLACE" CODRT • 011UFID0 JUL 13- MEM YORK to", • ale-9 ieSss ILDaIDA ]2009 • aDaaat�a99 cat ' l