DOCSLIB.ORG

2014 Adopted Comprehensive Plan Update

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
2014 Adopted Comprehensive Plan Update TOWN OF SOUTHEAST Comprehensive Plan Update Prepared for: Town of Southeast Prepared by: AKRF, Inc. Adopted August 21, 2014 Town of Southeast Comprehensive Plan Update Adopted August 21, 2014 Town of Southeast Town Board: Tony Hay, Supervisor Robert Cullen, Councilman /Deputy Supervisor Elizabeth Hudak, Councilwoman Lynne Eckardt, Councilwoman Edwin Alvarez, Councilman Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Coordination With Other Planning Efforts ..................................................................... 1-2 1.2 the Comprehensive Plan.................................................................................................. 1-3 1.3 the Vision ........................................................................................................................ 1-3 Section 2: Geographic and Historic Context .......................................................................... 2-1 2.0 Local and Regional Context............................................................................................ 2-1 2.1 Southeast’s History ......................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 Historic Resource Protection........................................................................................... 2-5 2.3 Recently Implemented Actions ....................................................................................... 2-9 2.4 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations....................................................................... 2-10 Goal and Policy ................................................................................................................ 2-10 Implementation Actions ................................................................................................... 2-10 Section 3: Patterns of Development......................................................................................... 3-1 3.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Land Use Trends ............................................................................................................. 3-1 Cornell Surveys: 1968 and 1991 ........................................................................................ 3-2 Land Use Estimates: 1993, 2000, and 2013 ....................................................................... 3-3 3.2 Demographic and Employment Trends........................................................................... 3-5 Growth Trends.................................................................................................................... 3-5 Employment Trends ........................................................................................................... 3-6 Section 4: Natural Resources ................................................................................................... 4-1 4.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Background ..................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2 Inventory of Natural Resources ...................................................................................... 4-2 Topography ........................................................................................................................ 4-3 Soils.................................................................................................................................... 4-3 Wetlands............................................................................................................................. 4-5 Water Resources................................................................................................................. 4-7 Scenic Resources................................................................................................................ 4-9 4.3 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations....................................................................... 4-10 Goal and Policy ................................................................................................................ 4-10 Implementation Actions ................................................................................................... 4-10 Section 5: Land Use Community, Character, and Zoning.................................................... 5-1 5.0 Land Use, Community Character, and Zoning ............................................................... 5-1 5.1 Land Use ......................................................................................................................... 5-1 August 21, 2014 TOC-1 Town of Southeast Comprehensive Plan Existing Land Use Pattern ..................................................................................................5-1 Development Potential Studies...........................................................................................5-4 Future Land Use .................................................................................................................5-6 5.2 Community Character......................................................................................................5-9 General Design Principles ................................................................................................5-11 Commonality of Brewster and Southeast .........................................................................5-16 5.3 Zoning............................................................................................................................5-17 Existing Zoning ................................................................................................................5-17 Future Zoning ...................................................................................................................5-20 5.4 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations .......................................................................5-22 Land Use...........................................................................................................................5-22 Community Character.......................................................................................................5-22 Zoning...............................................................................................................................5-23 Section 6: Housing Development..............................................................................................6-1 6.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................6-1 6.1 Background......................................................................................................................6-1 6.2 Impact of Residential Development ................................................................................6-3 6.3 Future Residential Development .....................................................................................6-4 2002 Comprehensive Plan Build-Out Analysis..................................................................6-4 6.4 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations .........................................................................6-6 Goal and Policy ..................................................................................................................6-6 Implementation Actions......................................................................................................6-7 Section 7: Economic Development...........................................................................................7-1 7.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Background......................................................................................................................7-1 7.2 Commercial Development in the Watershed...................................................................7-3 7.3 Comprehensive Plan Recommendations .........................................................................7-4 Goal and Policy ..................................................................................................................7-4 Implementation Actions......................................................................................................7-4 Section 8: Traffic and Transportation.....................................................................................8-1 8.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................8-1 8.1 Current Functional Classification....................................................................................8-1 8.2 Problems in the Existing Roadway System.....................................................................8-2 8.3 Route 22 Corridor Improvement .....................................................................................8-3 8.4 Fields Lane Improvement................................................................................................8-4 8.5 Transportation Improvement District
Load more

Recommended publications
  • City of Hamilton Truck Route Master Plan Study
    City of Hamilton CITY OF HAMILTON TRUCK ROUTE MASTER PLAN STUDY FINAL REPORT APRIL 2010 IBI G ROU P FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS DOCUMENT CONTROL Client: City of Hamilton Project Name: City of Hamilton Truck Route Master Plan Study Report Title: City of Hamilton Truck Route Master Plan Study IBI Reference: 20492 Version: V 1.0 - Final Digital Master: J:\20492_Truck_Route\10.0 Reports\TTR_Truck_Route_Master_Plan_Study_FINAL_2010-04-23.docx\2010-04-23\J Originator: Ron Stewart, Matt Colwill, Ted Gill, Scott Fraser Reviewer: Ron Stewart Authorization: Ron Stewart Circulation List: History: V0.1 - Draft April 2010 IBI G ROU P FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Truck Route Master Plan ............................................................................................ 1 1.2 Background ........................................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Master Plan Scope ................................................................................................................................ 2 1.4 Master Plan Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Consultation and Communication ....................................................................................................... 4 1.6 Implementation and Interpretation
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Reference Marker (TRM) System User’S Manual
    Texas Reference Marker (TRM) System User’s Manual Revised January 2005 © 2005 by Texas Department of Transportation (512) 302-2453 all rights reserved Manual Notice 2005-1 From: James L. Randall, P.E. Manual: Texas Reference Marker System User’s Manual Effective Date: January 01, 2005 Contents The manual provides Texas Reference Marker (trm) System Highway Data File users with the nec- essary information to input data to, or extract data from TRM. This manual is contained in the Planning, Programming, Environmental collection of the TxDOT Online Manual System. Changes Chapters 1 and 2 - Changed references from Design Division to Construction Division. Chapter 3 - Changed references from Design Division to Construction Division and added infor- mation about the new User Information screen and the Board. Chapter 4 - Added subsection for TRM Export instructions. Chapter 6 - Updated TPP Highway Values to include all District Highway Status Values. Chapter 7 - Updated instruction tables to reflect changes for inputting Reference updates. Chapter 8 - Clarified constraints. Chapter 10 - Updated of Travel responsibilities and Highway Values; Left/Right is now Shoulder Inside/Outside; Changed references from Design Division to Construction Division. Chapter 12 - Updated Design and Route values. Chapter 14 - Clarified references to the TPP website and updated graphics to reflect the look of the current. Contact Refer questions or suggestions to the Special Projects and Audit Branch of the Administration Sec- tion of the Transportation Planning and Programming Division. Archives Past manual notices are available in a PDF archive. Table of Contents Chapter 1 — Texas Reference Marker System Section 1 — Introduction to TRM . 1-2 What is TRM? .
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Public Comment on Draft Trout Stream Management Plan
    Assessment of public comments on draft New York State Trout Stream Management Plan OCTOBER 27, 2020 Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor | Basil Seggos, Commissioner A draft of the Fisheries Management Plan for Inland Trout Streams in New York State (Plan) was released for public review on May 26, 2020 with the comment period extending through June 25, 2020. Public comment was solicited through a variety of avenues including: • a posting of the statewide public comment period in the Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB), • a DEC news release distributed statewide, • an announcement distributed to all e-mail addresses provided by participants at the 2017 and 2019 public meetings on trout stream management described on page 11 of the Plan [353 recipients, 181 unique opens (58%)], and • an announcement distributed to all subscribers to the DEC Delivers Freshwater Fishing and Boating Group [138,122 recipients, 34,944 unique opens (26%)]. A total of 489 public comments were received through e-mail or letters (Appendix A, numbered 1-277 and 300-511). 471 of these comments conveyed specific concerns, recommendations or endorsements; the other 18 comments were general statements or pertained to issues outside the scope of the plan. General themes to recurring comments were identified (22 total themes), and responses to these are included below. These themes only embrace recommendations or comments of concern. Comments that represent favorable and supportive views are not included in this assessment. Duplicate comment source numbers associated with a numbered theme reflect comments on subtopics within the general theme. Theme #1 The statewide catch and release (artificial lures only) season proposed to run from October 16 through March 31 poses a risk to the sustainability of wild trout populations and the quality of the fisheries they support that is either wholly unacceptable or of great concern, particularly in some areas of the state; notably Delaware/Catskill waters.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Aquatic Invasive Species Surveys of New York City Water Supply Reservoirs Within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds
    2014 aquatic invasive species surveys of New York City water supply reservoirs within the Catskill/Delaware and Croton Watersheds Megan Wilckens1, Holly Waterfield2 and Willard N. Harman3 INTRODUCTION The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) oversees the management and protection of the New York City water supply reservoirs, which are split between two major watershed systems, referred to as East of Hudson Watersheds (Figure 1) and Catskill/Delaware Watershed (Figure 2). The DEP is concerned about the presence of aquatic invasive species (AIS) in reservoirs because they can threaten water quality and water supply operations (intake pipes and filtration systems), degrade the aquatic ecosystem found there as well as reduce recreational opportunities for the community. Across the United States, AIS cause around $120 billion per year in environmental damages and other losses (Pimentel et al. 2005). The SUNY Oneonta Biological Field Station was contracted by DEP to conduct AIS surveys on five reservoirs; the Ashokan, Rondout, West Branch, New Croton and Kensico reservoirs. Three of these reservoirs, as well as major tributary streams to all five reservoirs, were surveyed for AIS in 2014. This report details the survey results for the Ashokan, Rondout, and West Branch reservoirs, and Esopus Creek, Rondout Creek, West Branch Croton River, East Branch Croton River and Bear Gutter Creek. The intent of each survey was to determine the presence or absence of the twenty- three AIS on the NYC DEP’s AIS priority list (Table 1). This list was created by a subcommittee of the Invasive Species Working Group based on a water supply risk assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • Vtrans Road Centerline Spatial Data User Guide December 2019
    VTrans Road Centerline Spatial Data User Guide December 2019 Mapping Section Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development Division 219 North Main Street, Barre, VT 05641 Tel: 802‐828‐2600 https://vtrans.vermont.gov/planning/maps Read the metadata. V:\Projects\Shared\Mapping\_MappingSection_DataDictionary\RDSMALL_UserGuide\VTrans_Road_Centerline_User_Guide_20191231.docx VTRANS ROAD CENTERLINE SPATIAL DATA USER GUIDE TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 4 User Guide Background ............................................................................................................................ 4 Background of the Road Centerline Data Set ........................................................................................... 4 Release Notes – 2019‐12‐31 ..................................................................................................................... 5 Terminology .............................................................................................................................................. 5 DATA DESIGN AND MODEL ........................................................................................................................... 6 Model Features ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Units and Coordinate System ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notes PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY
    Meeting Notes PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE (PTAC) TUESDAY, APRIL 4, 2017 @ 7:00 PM BROOKLINE TOWN HALL, ROOM 408 333 WASHINGTON STREET, BROOKLINE MA 02446 7:00 CALL MEETING TO ORDER AND APPROVE MINUTES FROM MARCH 7, 2017 MEETING. CONGRATULATE NEW MEMBER DAVID SALTMAN AND WELCOME CANDIDATE JONATHAN ZELIG. PTAC members present: Abby Swaine, Linda Jason, Jane Gould, David Saltman PTAC liaison to Transportation Board present: Scott Englander PTAC candidate present: Jonathan Zelig March 7 minutes approved unanimously. 7:05 TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. No guests present. 7:15 BROOKLINE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT TRANSIT: FEEDBACK FROM MARCH 16 TRANSPORTATION BOARD MEETING AND NEXT STEPS. Abby recounted main points from summary presented to the Transportation Board (appended). The TB directed PTAC to approach the School Dept and School Committee to consider providing school bus service to BHS students, after school as well as potentially before school. (Currently no town school bus service is provided to BHS students after school, but some service is provided in the morning, appended to elementary school busing.) The TB feels it is reasonable to expect that the Town should pay, in moderation, for school bus transportation for BHS students not well-served by MBTA transit. The TB recommends that PTAC seek support from Town Meeting Members whose constituents may benefit, and from School Committee candidates. Now is an appropriate time to broach the issue, as the Town anticipates and plans for large increases in school enrolment, which will result in more traffic congestion at BHS and other schools. Students residing in parts of Brookline other than South Brookline may also face lengthy commutes to BHS.
    [Show full text]
  • Watershed Agricultural Program 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Workload
    Watershed Agricultural Program 2019 Annual Report and 2020 Workload TABLE OF CONTENTS Planning For Increased BMP Implementation Page WAP Managers Report 2 The Watershed Agricultural Program (WAP) commenced a 6 year contract with 2019 Planning Goals 3 the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), on April 1, 2019 Accomplishments-Funding 3 2019 to accelerate the implementation of BMPs with over $4 million in annual 2019 Accomplishments-BMPs 4 funding. The increase in BMP implementation funds are targeted for the 2019 Planning Goals 22 implementation of BMPs that have been on our backlog list prior to 2017. To 22020 Projected Workload 22 accomplish the increase in workload the WAP has added two assistant Whole 2020 Projected Workload-BMPs 23 Farm Planner positions and has also increased the number of engineering Staff Listing 24 department staff. Program summaries: Conservation Reserve The conservation planners focused on 92 revisions that placed identified Enhancement Program (CREP) 5 resource concerns in the prioritization process, and Whole Farm Plans were Nutrient Management 6 revised accordingly. Precision Feed Management 7-8 Farmer Education 9 In 2019 the WAP implemented 487 BMPs on all active farms at a total cost $4.6 Economic Viability 10 million. These figures include 453 BMPs on West of Hudson farms ($4.2m) and 34 2019 WAP Farm Tour 11 BMPs on East of Hudson farms ($400,000). Projects 12-17 WIRC Team 18 The Precision Feed Management (PFM) Program is a science based program that East of Hudson 19-21 develops feed management plans to deal with the large quantity of feed nutrients managed annually on participant farms.
    [Show full text]
  • Brewster Wellfield, Putnam County
    FINAL RESTORATION PLAN BREWSTER WELL FIELD SUPERFUND SITE BREWSTER, PUTNAM COUNTY, NEW YORK November 2008 Prepared by: United States Fish and Wildlife Service on behalf of the Department of the Interior and New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Contact: Anne Secord U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 3817 Luker Road Cortland, NY 13045 [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. A. INTRODUCTION 1 B. BACKGROUND 1 C. NATURAL RESOURCES AND IMPACTS TO THOSE RESOURCES 3 D. NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE SETTLEMENT 4 E. PROPOSED RESTORATION 4 1. GOALS OF THE RESTORATION PROJECT(S) 4 2. SPECIFIC PROJECTS CONSIDERED 5 a. Bog Brook Unique Area Restoration 5 b. Bog Turtle Early Successional Wetland Habitat Restoration 7 3. EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF FEASIBLE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES 8 4. PREFERRED PROJECT FOR IMPLEMENTATION 10 F. COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA) 11 G. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED 11 LITERATURE CITED 13 A. INTRODUCTION In August 1996, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), on behalf of the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), on behalf of the State of New York, collectively referred to as the “Trustees,” settled a natural resource damage claim with the Responsible Parties (RPs) for the Brewster Well Field Superfund Site (the Site) located in the Village of Brewster (Village), Town of Southeast, Putnam County, New York. The Trustees sought this settlement as compensation for injuries to natural resources due to release of environmental contaminants from the Site. We are required to use settlement funds to compensate for those injuries by restoring natural resources, supporting habitat, and/or services provided by the injured resources.
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Department Policy
    TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT POLICY Contents POLICY STATEMENT ...................................................................................................................................................... 4 JOB DESCRIPTIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 BUS DRIVER ................................................................................................................................... 5 GENERAL SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 5 MAJOR JOB DUTIES ................................................................................................................................... 5 GENERAL INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................................. 5 TWO‐WAY RADIO PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................. 5 AM/FM RADIO OPERATION ....................................................................................................................... 6 DEALING WITH THE NEWS MEDIA ............................................................................................................. 6 STUDENT INJURY ......................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Preferential Facilities for Carpools and Buses
    'w~ - ?J.. · '1'/- ooS' Preferential Facilities for Carpools and Buses Seven Reports ( I ' a Portland Los Angeles 4:b-~ HE '.'.'it.'.>)() .C3 F' 73 S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION deral Highway Administration (HHP-26) 1shington D.C., 20590 May 1976 PREFACE These seven reports on preferential facilities for carpools and buses have been assembled and reprinted by the Federal Highway Administration. The reports provide information on several recent projects to increase the person-moving capacity of the highway system by designating facilities for preferential use by high-occupancy vehicles. The reduced traveltime and more favorable travel conditions on priority facilities provide an effective incentive to entice commuters into these more efficient modes. The reports presented here cover many different types of priority treatment. Some of the reports analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of particular projects. Other reports emphasize the project design and operational features; others simply describe the current operation of unique or unusual projects. Further information on the planning, design, implementation, and evaluation of priority projects for carpools and buses is available from the Federal Highway Administration. More detailed information on the specific projects described here is available in many cases from the responsible operating agencies. In general, any transportation corridor with recurrent traffic congestion could be a candidate for a priority treatment project regardless of metropolitan area size. Priority vehicles can often utilize marginal increments of highway capacity made available by operational changes or minor construction. The projects described in these reports demonstrate considerable ingenuity in designating preferential facilities through operational changes or incremental construction within existing rights- of-way.
    [Show full text]
  • A Framework for Traffic Assignment with Explicit Route Generation
    Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Lehrstuhl für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrsleittechnik Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. M. Friedrich A Framework for Traffic Assignment with Explicit Route Generation Yaohua Xiong Veröffentlichungen aus dem ISSN 0932 - 402X Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen ISBN 978 - 3 - 9816754 - 2 - 9 D 93 (Dissertation der Universität Stuttgart) Heft 52 (September 2014) 52 Veröffentlichungen aus dem Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Universität Stuttgart Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Lehrstuhl für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrsleitttechnik Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. M. Friedrich A Framework for Traffic Assignmeent with Explicit Route Geeneration Yaohua Xiong Veröffentlichungen aus dem Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Heft 52 (September 2014) Herausgeber : Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Universität Stuttgart Copyright : Das Copyright liegt beim Verfasser. Eigenverlag und Vertrieb : Institut für Straßen- und Verkehrswesen Universität Stuttgart Lehrstuhl für Verkehrsplanung und Verkehrsleittechnik Pfaffenwaldring 7 70569 Stuttgart Hinweis / Note: Diese Veröffentlichung ist auch als "Elektronische Dissertation" online unter http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de verfügbar und kann dort im PDF-Format heruntergeladen werden. This paper is also published online as "Electronic Dissertation" at http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de and can be downloaded there as PDF file. A Framework for Traffic Assignment with Explicit Route Generation Von der Fakultät Bau- und Umweltingenieurwissenschaften der Universität Stuttgart zur
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Gear, Multi-Site Fish Survey in New
    SUBMERSED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN A HUDSON RIVER WATERSHED: THE GREAT SWAMP OF NEW YORK A Final Report of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program Chris Cotroneo Polgar Fellow Biology Department Queens College 65-30 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11367 Project Advisor: John Waldman, Ph.D. Biology Department Queens College 65-30 Kissena Boulevard Flushing, NY 11367 Cotroneo, C., and J. Waldman. 2019. Submersed Aquatic Vegetation in a Hudson River Watershed: The Great Swamp of New York. Section III: 1-44 pp. In S.H. Fernald, D.J. Yozzo and H. Andreyko (eds.), Final Reports of the Tibor T. Polgar Fellowship Program, 2016. Hudson River Foundation. III-1 ABSTRACT Baseline information about submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) communities and their associated fish assemblages represents a valuable information resource for use by the scientific community for comparison to other studies, documenting changes over time, and to assist with actions such as fish passage. In order to collect data throughout the entire growing season, a comprehensive six-month, submersed aquatic vegetation (SAV) study was conducted in New York’s Great Swamp. Sampling sites were selected based upon the presence of SAV representative of the surrounding area and were sampled bi- weekly. Aerial percent cover was estimated for each SAV species identified within the sampling site. A total of 12 SAV stands were sampled throughout the course of the study. A total of 58 SAV samples were taken, revealing five dominant SAV species: Potamogeton crispus, P. pusillus, P. illinoensis, Ceratophyllum demersum, and Elodea canadensis. Every fourth week the same sites were sampled for nekton to determine if habitat use changed with any changes in dominant SAV species.
    [Show full text]