HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIS 2016-1-15 Planning BoardSummary
The Tuthill family has a long history in Orient starting with our first ancestor’s arrival in 1640. The Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company is a family company currently focused
on stewardship for 4 parcels of land. This involves maintaining and growing the current agriculture and aquaculture efforts, and ensuring we have a sufficient number of desirable building
lots to pass down to family members. The parcels are known as North Dyer (ND), South Dyer (SD), North Brown (NB) and South Brown (SB).
1. Overview of Proposed Action - The proposed
project is an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision Open Development Area located in Suffolk County, Town of Southold, and Hamlet of Orient. It involves 4 parcels comprising about 113 acres.
It would preserve 96 acres including 80% of the Buildable acres. There are 17 house lots proposed which represents a 27- lot reduction in Density versus the Yield calculation and a
25-lot (60%) reduction versus individual parcel Standard Subdivisions.
Parcel
# Acres In Proposed Action
Yield - # Lots
Total
Unbuildable
Buildable
Total
Prop.
Prop
Total
Presrv
d.
Total
Presrvd.
Avail.
80/60
Reduct.
ND
21.16
5.78
5.78
15.38
9.88
8.3
6
2.3
SD
35.34
15.91
15.91
19.43
14.38
10.6
5
5.6
NB
28.75
2.07
2.07
26.68
21.56
14.5
5
9.5
SB
27.59
1.29
1.29
26.29
25.05
10.8
1
9.8
Total
112.84
25.05
25.05
87.78
70.87
44.2
17
27
Activity/Structures
ND: 1 summer residence, 2 outbuildings and
a right-of-way to the Sound
SD: Active agriculture with/one Farm stand (Latham’s), Active aquaculture with 2 docks and a shed. NB: Active agriculture, one barn, a future stair/path needed
to access the Sound.
SB: Active agriculture, one Dock with an access path from Narrow River Road.
There are no specific plans to develop additional lots at this time, and we expect
little/no development in the foreseeable future.
Land Type
(in Acres)
Present
After Completion
Difference
Unbld
Bld
Total
Unbld
Bld
Total
Unbld
Bld
Total
Meadow/Non
Ag
2.07
7.47
9.54
2.07
13.49
15.56
0
6.0
6.0
Forest
28.33
28.33
24.24
24.24
-4.1
-4.1
Agriculture
1.26
51.54
52.80
1.26
45.51
46.77
0
-6.0
-6.0
Wetland
10.33
10.33
10.33
10.33
0
0
Water Surface
7.84
7.84
7.84
7.84
0
0
(aquaculture use)
(4.94)
(4.94)
(4.94)
(4.94)
0
0
Unvegetated
3.55
0.29
3.84
3.55
1.71
5.26
0
1.4
1.4
Buildings/Paved
0.14
0.14
2.81
2.81
2.7
2.7
Total
25
88
113
25
88
113
0
0
0
2. Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts
a. Beneficial Impacts –
Preservation of Land, Scenic Views, Farming - From a community standpoint, the biggest benefit from this project
would be permanently preserving 96 acres in Orient, including 86% of the SD property considered to be one of the most scenic parts of the North Fork. It would also leave undisturbed
52 of the 58 farmed acres (90%), which includes Agriculture and Aquaculture.
Minimizing Environmental Impact– The 80/60 Conservation Subdivision reduces density versus Standard Subdivisions
from 42 lots to 17, a 60% decrease. This significantly mitigates the environmental impact on all 9 areas assessed to have a potentially moderate to large impact: Surface Water, Groundwater,
Flooding, Plants/Animals, Agriculture, Aesthetic Resources, Historic and Archeological Resources, Critical Environmental areas, and Community Character.
Clustering and placement of
the house lots minimizes impact on scenic views, agriculture and prime soils. Ten houses would not be visible from Public roads: NB (5), SB (1), and ND (2). The remaining two North
Dyer houses are set back more than 300’ from the Main Road with a lawn in the Open Space, which was originally part of the House of Seven Gables destroyed in the 1938 hurricane. The
lawn provides a visually pleasing buffer between the houses and the Main Road. The 5 houses on South Dyer are tucked back on the east side of the property, which is the least visible
part of the property. They do not block or obstruct the scenic views from NYS Route 25 or Orient Harbor.
b. Adverse Impacts – SEQRA Assessment – The Town of Southold’s review concluded
that our project potentially has a moderate to large impact on 9 of the 18 areas measured:
Impact on Surface Water – Water quality in or downstream of action
Impact on Groundwater
– New wells and septic systems, water demand, wastewater discharge, contaminated water, commercial pesticide proximity
Impact on Flooding – Modification of existing drainage patterns
Impact
on plants/animals – Reduction in habitats of endangered species
Impact on Agriculture –Prime soil impact, limiting access, loss of farm land >2.5 acres, development pressure, not consistent
with Farmland Protection Plan
Impact on Aesthetic Resources – Scenic Byway/ scenic view impact
Impact on Historic/Archeological Resources – Character versus Historic District, destruction/alterati
on of designated archeological site
Impact on Critical Environmental Area (Peconic Bay) – Reduce Quality of resource
Consistency with Community Character – Creates demand for additional
services, inconsistent with architectural scale/character
3. Proposed Mitigation
a. Measures already taken (Details are covered in the full report that follows)
Overall - Proposing an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision versus a Standard Subdivision
significantly reduces the impact on all 18 environmental areas covered in SEQR by preserving all 25 acres of wetlands, bluffs and beaches, and 80% of the Buildable area (71 acres) and
by reducing density by 60% bringing potential house lots from 42 to 17.
Agriculture (Prime Soil Groups)
We preserved 6.3 acres of active farmland: 2.5 acres by transferring development
rights for three SB (Soil Group 1) lots to unfarmed ND (Soil Group 5); 3.8 acres by placing five NB lots in a currently wooded (Soil Group 5) area.
We proposed widening/improving current
unpaved farm roads to form the new roads, which will continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
Clustering the lots mitigates interruption of farm management practices.
Aesthetic
Resources, Community Character – Scenic View impact has been significantly minimized by reducing density and by house siting. The Conservation Subdivision reduces scale of the houses
by limiting lot sizes (proposed average lot is ~ 36,000 s.f.) versus the required 80,000 s.f. zoning. The SD visual impact was significantly reduced by proposing 5 lots versus the yield
of 10, and clustering them on the least visible east border of the property. Only two other houses, both on ND, would be visible from NYS Route 25 and they are set back 300+ feet from
the road.
The proposed 25’ private right of ways on ND, SD and NB are more in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding areas than a 50’ curbed road. We meet the requirement
for 25’ roads since our 17-lot density is less than R-200 density (19 lots). Planning Board and NY Superintendent of Highways approvals are needed.
Surface/Ground Water and protection
of a Critical Environmental Area - Our 60% density reduction would significantly lower Ground and Surface water impacts versus the Suffolk County Health Department standards. We are
in the process of confirming potable water and acceptable septic system designs/locations on each of our 4 parcels and would confirm feasibility on all lots before completing the final
phase of the application process.
Our Aquaculture operation is improving the quality of the Peconic Bays by removing ~ 23 pounds of Nitrogen from the water for every 10,000 oysters
we ship -- the equivalent of the average annual output from a single waterfront home. In 2015, we shipped ~300,000 oysters, equivalent to the annual nitrogen output of 30 homes, 75%
more than the 17 proposed houses. We currently have about 2 million oysters growing on our farm, representing a 200-home offset.
Wetland/Bluff Protection – We have built-in a 100’
lot setback from all wetlands and coastal erosion Hazard Area lines to further protect these fragile areas.
b. Additional Potential Mitigation
Overall - When we develop lots we will
use the best practices and technologies available at that time, that are proven effective in comparable situations, and that are not cost prohibitive.
4. Alternatives
a. Move one lot from South Dyer to North Dyer or North Brown in area that is not currently farmed –We would adjust the remaining 4 SD lots so boundaries would be to
the east of the existing farm road. See attached SD 4-lot alternate layout.
Mitigation on Environmental Impact - Fewer houses in the far eastern border of South Dyer, which is contiguous
with the Orient Historic District, would lessen the potential impact on:
The view from the Route 25 Scenic By-Way (Aesthetic Resources, Historic Resources, and Consistency with Community
Character)
Agricultural land and Prime Soils irreversibly converted to residential use - an additional 1.2 acres of actively farmed, Soil Group 1 land would remain in agriculture.
The
Peconic Bay and Orient Tidal Creek (Critical Environmental Areas) - Surface Water, Ground Water and Flooding Impact would be reduced by 20% (4 lot impact versus 5 lots)
b. No Action
Likely
Circumstances At The Project Site If The Project Does Not Proceed - If the proposed project does not proceed, one house could be built on each of the 3 parcels that currently have no
houses (South Dyer, North Brown, and South Brown). This would not preclude applying for Subdivisions at a future date. The 3 potential new houses would be built in line with all building,
zoning and Health Department codes and regulations, but would not be governed by further Subdivision standards and requirements.
Likely Future Conditions If Developed To Maximum Allowed
Under Existing Zoning
Standard Subdivisions represent the maximum development allowed under existing zoning. The Standard Subdivision Yield calculations would total 42 houses, versus
17 proposed; 52.7 Buildable acres would be kept as Open Space (60%) versus 70.9 acres (80%) proposed.
Standard Versus Proposed Conservation Subdivision Implications
R-80 Zone
R-200
Zone
Total
ND
SD
NB
SB
SB
Buildable Acres
15.38
19.43
26.68
15.57
10.72
87.8
Yield - # Lots Std. Sub.
8
10
14
8
2
42
Yield - # Lots Prop. Cons.
6
5
5
1
0
17
Yield Std. Vs Prop. Cons.
+2
+5
+9
+7
+2
+25
Preserved Ac. – Std. Sub.
9.2
11.7
16.0
9.3
6.4
52.7
Preserved Ac.- Prop. Cons.
9.9
14.4
21.6
14.3
10.7
70.9
Prsvd.
Std. Vs Prop. Cons.
-0.7
-2.7
-5.6
-5.0
-4.3
-18.2
Environmental Impact of Standard Subdivisions Versus the Proposed Project - Standard Subdivisions would create a sizeable
increase in the impact on all environmental areas versus our Conservation Subdivision proposal, due mainly to 25 additional houses and 18 fewer preserved Buildable acres. Depending on
placement of the house lots, total active agriculture would be reduced between 18 to 29 acres, a 32% to 50% loss, compared to a 6 acre (10%) loss of agricultural land proposed. See
attached farm impact details. Also, it is highly likely more houses would be visible from NYS Route 25.
5. Issues of Controversy
a. SD Parcel – We proposed 5 lots on SD: 4 that SD would have as a stand-alone parcel and 1 from the aggregation of the 4 parcels. The yield for our combined
4-parcel project is 17 lots. If we had done separate subdivisions on each parcel, the combined yield would be 16 lots, due to by-parcel rounding. We clustered the 5 SD lots on the eastern
property boundary, which is adjacent to the Orient Historic District. This minimizes the Route 25 visual impact of the lots for motorists, bicyclers and pedestrians.
There is also concern
that the size and type of SD houses would not be in keeping with the character of the village. The size/design of these houses is very speculative since we are not planning any development
in the foreseeable future. Future houses will fully comply with zoning and building code requirements, including any house design standards in place at the time. The Conservation Subdivision
reduces scale of the houses by limiting lot sizes (proposed average SD lot is ~ 39,000 s.f.) versus the required 80,000 s.f. zoning. We intend for the type of house to be compatible
with the 9 styles of architecture in the village as reported by the Historical Society.
b. Transfer of Development Rights – Concern has been raised that we are transferring Development
Rights across non-contiguous parcels. We are proposing moving 3 SB lots in active farmland with Soil Group 1 to ND, which is currently not farmed, has glacial boulders and Soil Group
5. This will preserve 2.5 acres active Soil Group 1 farmland. The placement of a 5th lot on SD represents a lot that is allowed based on the combined 4-parcel acreage and not transfer
of development rights.
6. Matters To Be Decided
Determine if our DEIS is sufficient for a Negative SEQR Declaration, or conditional Negative Declaration pending Health Department
approval of test wells for potable water and septic system locations. If so, we expect to receive Sketch Plan, or Conditional Sketch Plan approval of our proposal.
7. Required Permits
and Approvals
Agency/Department
Permit Required
Approval Required
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
1. Wetlands
2.Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
SEQRA Review
Superintendent
of Highways
25’ Roads with 5+ houses
NYS Dept. of Transportation
1. Highway Work Permits
2. NY 25 access permits ea. site
SD Farm Stand access to NY25
Sidewalk decision.
Orient
Fire District
Water tanks, wells, road specs
NYS Parks, Recreation, Historic Preservation
1. 50+ Year old adjacent property review
2. 1B Archeological Study
Suffolk County
Health Services
Realty Subdivision Application for each parcel
1. Final location sewage, water
2. SEQRA Review
Land Preservation
Purchase Development Rights
NYS Natural Heritage
Program
Presence of protected species
Town Board
Overall Project Approval
Description of Proposed Action
1. Purpose of Proposed Subdivision
The proposed 80/60 Conservation Subdivision Open Development Area will enable the Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
to maintain/grow its current agriculture and aquaculture efforts, and ensure sufficient desirable building lots can be passed down to future generations of the family. It will also preserve
important view sheds and the agricultural and rural character of the area for the benefit of the North Fork community and its visitors.
The Town of Southold and Hamlet of Orient have
declared the need to protect and preserve the overall environment in our communities including our natural resources, agriculture and aquaculture operations, endangered species, historically
and archeologically important areas and the aesthetic character of the community. Our proposed subdivision will permanently preserve 96 acres of land and support continuation of 90%
of the acreage currently being farmed (agriculture and aquaculture). It will reduce the number of allowable house lots by 60%, which will minimize the potential impact on the environment.
We have located our lots so they have minimal impact on important scenic views and sensitive archeological areas and habitats of endangered species.
2. Location and Physical Dimensions
of the Action
a. Location and Access – All parcels are located in Orient
ND is located at 21505 NYS Route 25 on the north side of the road. It is approximately 366 feet west of Oysterponds
Lane.
SD is located at 21920 NYS Route 25 on the south side of the road. It is approximately 460 feet west of Oysterponds Lane.
NB is located at 26975 NYS Route 25 on the north side
of the road. It is approximately 2,223 feet east of Platt Road.
SB is comprised of two tax parcels: SCTM# 18-6-17.3 is located at 7685 Narrow River Road on the north side of the road.
The parcel is most easily accessed from NYS 25 on the south side of the road about 1,960 feet east of Platt Road. SCTM# 18-6-18.1 is located at 8070 Narrow River Road on the south side
of the road just east of the public landing.
b. Physical Dimensions - This proposal is for an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision of four parcels containing 17 residential lots. It has
a total area of about 113 acres of which 96 will be preserved and. This project proposes the transfer of yield in line with Chapter 240-42 G of the Southold Town Code.
Parcel
SCTM#
Total
Preserve
d Land - Acres
Development
#
Name
1000-
Acres
Unbuildable
Buildable
Total
Area
Lots
North Dyer (ND)
17-4-16
21.16
5.78
9.88
15.65
5.51
6
South Dyer (SD)
17-6-14.2
35.34
1
5.91
14.38
30.29
5.05
5
North Brown (NB)
18-3-30.3
28.75
2.07
21.56
23.63
5.12
5
South Brown (SB)
18-6-17.3 18-6-18.1
26.92 0.67
1.29
25.05
26.34
1.25
1
Total
112.84
25.05
70.87
95.91
16.93
17
3. Background and History of the Action
John Tuthill, the father of two of the Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company Directors, was very concerned with preserving his 4 parcels of Orient
land to provide a place for future generations to visit and to live full time, and generating income from the land so it would not be a burden on the family.
In the mid 1980’s the
State of NY began a process, via Eminent Domain, to acquire Tidal Wetlands in Orient. Despite the family’s excellent stewardship of this land for 200+ years and John pursuing every avenue
of the legal process, ~28 acres of SB were acquired in 1989. This became a catalyst to form the John Tuthill Limited Partnership to help keep the remaining property in the family and
ensuring it could produce sufficient income to cover costs of maintaining the property. In 2006, the Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company replaced the John Tuthill Limited Partnership.
For almost 20 years, we focused on creating Standard Subdivisions to generate the largest number of house lots to pass down to future generations. During this period, we completed
land surveys, and sketch and yield plans on all 4 parcels. While the large number of lots was appealing, we were concerned that up to 45% of the active farm acres could be eliminated
and this might jeopardize the entire agricultural effort. We also learned we would need to complete roads/infrastructure for all 4 parcels before the subdivisions would be finalized,
even though we had no immediate development plans. This led us to explore Conservation Subdivision options. While this significantly decreased the number of house lots we could have,
from 42 to 17, there would be only minimal impact on the acres currently being farmed. We also learned the new Open Development Area program would allow us to finalize the Subdivisions
without installing the roads/infrastructure until we wanted to build houses.
In 2010, we decided to combine all 4 parcels in an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision Open Development Area
(ODA) application. This gave us an acceptable number of lots to pass down to future generations, protected our ability to continue the current agriculture and aquaculture operations
and preserved the scenic and rural character of the community. Recently we learned the ODA would not result in approved lots, so we would now like to go forward with the full 80/60 Conservation
Subdivision.
4. Timing and Schedule – Given our intention to keep the land in our family, it will likely be many years before all 17 lots are developed and most will be summer/vacation
homes. If a family member wanted to sell a lot, our Tuthill Holding Company or any direct descendant of John and Elsa Tuthill would have the first refusal right to buy the property,
which prevents/deters faster development.
5. Relationship of Action to Land use plans, Zoning Restrictions. Local/Regional/State Programs
a. Land Use / Zoning Restrictions - The proposed
action involves residential, agriculture and aquaculture uses, which are in use in Orient. It is compliant with R-80 and R-200 zoning.
b. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource
Management Plan – We have just begun the Subdivision Application Process with the County Health Department to confirm we have sufficient potable water and septic capability on each of
our proposed parcels. This will ensure we are in line with the new Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan.
c. NYS Natural Heritage Program There was one recently
documented rare plant species in the project vicinity, but it grows in a wetland and our action will not disturb anything within 100’ of the wetlands. There were 11 other rare/endangered
species documented in 1944 or earlier. There is low likelihood that these species are present, and their habitat is not in any of the areas that will be disturbed.
The Archeological IB Survey did Shovel Tests and walkovers covering our 17 proposed lots, roads and some additional areas. No historic artifacts were found. However, there were white
quartzite artifact fragments found on the proposed SB lot, which is evidence of a prehistoric site. If we want to proceed with this SB lot location, Phase II intensive testing is recommended.
d. Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) – Our 3 actively farmed parcels are on the Protection Strategy Inventory. Our proposed 80/60 Conservation Subdivision
and plans to preserve 90% of the active Farmland is in line with the community farmland preservation strategies.
e. Community Preservation Project Plan (2008) – Our 4 parcels are on
the Eligible Parcel List for preserving open-space resources and keeping the Town beautiful for future generations to enjoy. Our 80/60 Conservation Subdivision will protect existing
farming operations and scenic view sheds.
f. Orient National Historic District – We proposed 5 houses on SD, which borders the Historic District. Since SD lot sizes are on average
~39,000 s.f versus the 80,000 s.f. zoning requirement, this ensures future houses will have appropriate scale. There are no documented architectural standards for houses in/near the
Historic District. There are many styles of architecture in the District including: Cape Cod, Federal, Greek Revival, Italianate, Second Empire, rural vernacular, and ornate frame structures
of the late Victorian era. We intend our SD houses to be compatible with these styles.
g. NYS Historic Preservation Program - ND and SD are substantially contiguous to the Historic
District.
h. NYS DEC Critical Environment Area Program – We will comply with all permit requirements. Our Oysterponds Shellfish Aquaculture operation is improving the quality of the
water in the Peconic Bays by removing Nitrogen from the water. In 2015 we shipped ~300,000 oysters. For every 10,000 we ship we are removing about 23 pounds of nitrogen from the Peconic
Bay, equivalent to the average annual nitrogen output for one single waterfront home. In 2015 this would offset nitrogen output of 30 homes, 75% more than our proposed number of houses.
We currently have about 2 million oysters on our farm, which represents the annual nitrogen output of about 200 homes.
6. Authorizations, Permits, Approvals Required
Agency/Department
Permit
Required
Approval Required
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
1. Wetlands
2.Coastal Erosion Hazard Area
SEQRA Review
Superintendent of Highways
25’ Roads with 5+
houses
NYS Dept. of Transportation
1.Highway Work Permits
2. NY 25 access permits ea.site
SD Farm Stand access to NY25
Sidewalk Decision
Orient Fire District
Water tanks,
wells, road specs
NYS Parks, Recreation, Historic Preservation
1. Adjacent property review
2. 1B Archeological Study
Suffolk County Health Serv.
Realty Subdivision Applications
for each parcel
1. Final location sewage, water
2. SEQRA Review
Land Preservation
Purchase Development Rights
NYS Natural Heritage Program
Presence of protected species
Town
Board
Overall Project approval
Environmental Setting
1. Existing Environment – All 4 parcels in the proposed action are in the Hamlet of Orient.
a. Zoning Districts: of the 113 acres, 101 (89%) are in R-80 and
12 on SB (11%) are in R-200.
b. Historic District: Some of the east boundary of SD is adjacent to the Orient National Historic District. ND is considered to be substantially contiguous
to the Historic District.
c. Environmental Setting – Adjacencies to each parcel (Reference: SC Tax Map 8/19/1996)
Parcel
Parcel Boundaries
Tax Map 1000
North
East
South
West
ND:
17-4-16
Long Island Sound
7 Residential Lots
NYS Route 25
4 Residential Lots
SD: 17-6-14.2
NYS Route 25
11 Residential Lots
Peconic Estuary
1 Residential Lot
NB: 18-3-30.3
Long
Island Sound
6 Residential Lots,
Peconic Land Trust (16.8 Ac)
NYS Route 25,
1 Residential Lot
4 Residential Lots
SB : 18-6-17.3
NYS Route 25,
1 Residential Lot
1 Residential
Lot,
Agricultural (19.3 Ac)
Narrow River Rd.
1 Residential Lot,
T/o/Southold (62.3 Ac)
SB: 18-6-18.1
Narrow River Rd.
NYS wetlands
Narrow River/ Hallock Bay
T/o/Southold Wetlands
Note:
Not all Residential Lots have been developed
2. Current Uses of Project Sites
a. Overall Acreage Composition:
Vegetated/
Forest
Agricult.
UnVeget.
Buildings/
Wetlands
Water
Non
Agric.
Paved
Surface*
Total
Current
9.5
28.34
52.8
3.8
0.14
10.37
7.8
112.8
Proposed
15.5
24.25
46.8
5.2
2.81
10.37
7.8
112.8
Diff
+6.0
-4.1
-6.0
+1.4
+2.7
0
0
0
* Includes 4.9 acres of Aquaculture
b. North Dyer - There is currently one seasonal residence on the property and two Auxiliary Buildings. These buildings and the gravel driveway
comprise about 3% of the Buildable area. The balance of the parcel is split between forested areas (~ 60%) and Lawns/meadows (~40%). There is a right-of-way path to the Sound. This parcel
has been partially farmed in the past, but is not currently.
c. South Dyer - All the buildable area is used for agriculture including the paths for the equipment and one Farm Stand
– Latham’s. A 4.9-acre Aquaculture operation with 2 docks and 1 shed is located in/next to the Tidal Creek on the south side of the property.
d. North Brown is farmed on about half
of the Buildable area and has one auxiliary building. The balance is forested and the Unbuildable area is vegetated bluff going down to the Long Island Sound. We plan to add a stair/path
right-of way access to the Sound; a permit will be needed for this.
e. South Brown - The Buildable area is used completely for agriculture. There is a dock, and right-of-way path to
it, on the small parcel on the south side of Narrow River Road.
SEQRA Full Environmental Assessment - Identification of Potential Project Impacts
Question Area
Impact
Potential Impact
Expert
Answer
No/small
Mod/Large
Resource
1.
Impact on Land
Yes
7
0
2. Impact on Geological Features
Yes
2
0
3. Impact on Surface Water
Yes
10
1
John Condon
i. Affect water quality in or downstream of
action
x
4. Impact on Groundwater
Yes
1
6
John Condon
a. New wells /more demand on current wells
x
b. Water demand exceeds safe withdrawal
x
c.
Located in areas without water/sewer service
x
d. Wastewater discharged to groundwater
x
e. Ground water for wells may be contaminated
x
g. Commercial
pesticide application <100' of water
x
5. Impact on Flooding
Yes
5
1
John Condon
d. Modification of existing drainage patterns
x
6. Impact on Air
No
7.
Impact on Plants and Animals
Yes
7
1
NYS Natural Heritage Prg
b. Reduction in habitats of endangered species
x
8. Impact on Agricultural Resources
Yes
1
6
a.
Group 1-4 soil groups impact
x
b. Crosses, limits access to agricultural lands
x
c. Excavates/compacts soil of active agriculture
x
d. Irreversibly
converts > 2.5 acre agricultural land
x
f. Increases development pressure on farmland
x
g. Not consistent w Farmland Protection Plan
x
9. Impact
on Aesthetic Resources
Yes
1
5
Sam Fitzgerald
a. Visible from designated Scenic By-Way
x
b. Obstructs, eliminates designated scenic view
x
c. Visible
from public vantage points
x
d. Viewers engaged in work, recreation, tourism
x
e. Diminishes enjoyment of Aesthetic resource
x
10. Impact on Historic/Archeological
Resources
Yes
1
5
a. Near State/National Register of Historical Places
x
b. Near SHPO designated archeological sites
x
Tracker
d. May result in destruction/alteration
of site
x
e. May result in alteration of setting/integrity
x
f. May introduce out of character visual elements
x
11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation
Yes
4
0
12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
Yes
1
1
John Condon
b. Reduced quality of CEA Characteristic
x
13.Transportation
Yes
5
0
14. Impact on Energy
Yes
4
0
15. Impact on Noise, Odor, Light
Yes
5
0
16. Impact on Human Health
Yes
12
0
17. Consistency with Community Plans
Yes
7
0
18. Consistency with Community
Charater
Yes
4
2
Sam Fitzgerald
b. Creates a demand for additional services
x
e. Inconsistent w architectural scale/character
x
SUMMARY
17 Yes-1 No
77
28
Overall Impacts / Mitigation
Overall Project –
Positive Impacts - The Proposed Action covers about 113 acres of property on 4 parcels of land in Orient. It would preserve 96 acres
(85% of total) – all 25 of the Unbuildable area and 80% of the Buildable area (71 acres). Standard Subdivisions would preserve 18 fewer Buildable acres. Proposed Density would be reduced
from 42 lots to 17, a 60% reduction. The houses would be clustered.
Overall Mitigation – The proposed project has significantly less impact than a Standard Subdivision by preserving
more land and reducing density. This importantly reduces all 9 potentially moderate to large SEQR impact areas: Surface Water, Ground Water, Flooding, Agriculture, Aesthetic Resources,
Critical Environmental Areas, Historical Resources, Community Character and Plants/Animals.
Agriculture
The proposed project would preserve 90% of the 57.7 acres of actively farmed
(agriculture and aquaculture) land. Depending on house placement, Standard Subdivisions would reduce active agriculture by 18 to 29 acres, a 32% to 50% loss versus a 6 acre (10%) loss
for the proposed project.
We preserved 6.3 acres of active farmland:
2.5 acres in Soil Group 1, by transferring development rights for 3 SB lots to ND
3.8 acres in Soil Group 3 by
placing 5 NB lots in a currently wooded area
We proposed widening/improving current unpaved farm roads to form the new roads, which will continue to be used for agricultural purposes.
Clustering
the lots mitigates interruption of farm management practice.
Aesthetic Resources, Community Character – Scenic View impact has been significantly minimized by reducing density and
by house siting. The Conservation Subdivision reduces the scale of the houses by limiting lot sizes (proposed average lot is ~ 36,000 s.f.) versus the R-80 required 80,000 s.f.
SD
- The 5 proposed houses are placed in the least visible part of the lot. They would not obstruct, eliminate or significantly screen the important scenic view of the farmland, the Peconic
Bay and the Tidal Creek. The Standard Subdivision yield for this property would have added another 5 lots and all of them would reduce agricultural land and directly impact the important
scenic view.
NB/SB - Houses on North and South Brown would not be visible from the Scenic Byways of Route 25 and Narrow River Road so there would be no scenic view impact on these parcels.
ND - There would be two houses on North Dyer that would be visible from Route 25, but they would be set back 300+ feet from the Road so the view impact would be minimized.
Roads –
We are proposing 25’ private right of ways versus more formal 50’ curbed roads. We meet the requirement for 25’ roads since our 17-lot density is less than R-200 density (19 lots). Planning
Board and NY Superintendent of Highways approvals are needed. The less formal 25’ roads would allow better surface water management and drainage as well as being more in keeping with
the rural character of our parcels and the surrounding areas.
Surface/Ground Water and protection of a Critical Environmental Area
Our proposed 60% density reduction would result in Ground and Surface water impacts significantly lower than the
maximum allowed by the Suffolk County Health Department standards. We are in the process of confirming potable water and acceptable septic system designs/locations on each of our 4
parcels. We have been advised it may take 9 months before we have test well and septic study data available. Our intention would be to confirm potable water and septic feasibility on
all lots before completing the final phase of the application process.
Our Oysterponds Shellfish Aquaculture operation on SD is improving the quality of the Peconic Bays by removing
Nitrogen from the water. For every 10,000 oysters we ship we are removing about 23 pounds of nitrogen from the Peconic Bay, the equivalent of the average nitrogen output for one year
from a single waterfront home. For 2015, we shipped about 300,000 oysters, which is equivalent to the annual nitrogen output from 30 homes, 75% more than the number of our proposed houses
on all 4 parcels. We currently have about 2 million oysters growing on our farm. This level would offset about 200 homes for a year.
Wetland/Bluff Protection – We have built in a 100’
lot setback from all wetlands and coastal erosion Hazard Area lines to further protect these fragile unbuildable areas.
Additional Potential Mitigation
Overall - When we are ready
to develop a specific lot, we will utilize the Best Practices and Technologies available at that time, that are proven effective in comparable situations, and that are not cost prohibitive.
This will avoid or significantly reduce potential environmental impacts.
Impact on Surface Water
EAF Part 2 Potential Moderate to Large Impact
The proposed action may affect the water quality of any water bodies within or downstream of the site of the proposed
action.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
The impacts of the new sanitary systems proposed on the South Dyer and South Brown properties; impact to Long Island Sound and Munn Pond for the North
Dyer and North Brown properties.
Magnitude, importance
Reducing the density versus a Standard Subdivision has already eliminated 60% of the potential impact on surface water. Surface
water impact will be an important factor in how we design our lots when they are developed in the future.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential
impact is low since each future lot development will meet all Department of Health requirements, which will ensure there is minimum impact on the water quality of any water bodies or
within or downstream of the proposed action.
When we are ready to develop a specific lot, we will utilize the best practices and alternative technologies available at that time, that
are proven effective in comparable situations, and that are not cost prohibitive.
Impact on Groundwater
Note: Several of the potentially moderate to large impact areas are being addressed together since the magnitude, importance, probability of occurrence and mitigation
is virtually the same.
EAF Part 2 Potential Moderate to Large Impact
Water Supply/Demand/Quality and Wastewater Concerns. The Proposed action may…
1. require new water supply wells
or create additional demand on supplies from existing wells
2. exceed safe and sustainable withdrawal capacity rate of the local supply or aquifer
3. allow/result in residential uses
in areas without water/sewer services.
4. include or require wastewater discharged to groundwater.
5. result in water supply wells where groundwater is, or is suspected to be, contaminated.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
Availability of potable water, impacts on existing/future development on groundwater supply.
Sustainability of aquifer/ Impact to adjacent property owners/parcels
(zone of influences).
Threat of salt water intrusion
Determine impact on water supply of potable groundwater sources for each parcel location.
Wastewater gallons per day that will be
discharged to groundwater
Current groundwater quality, contamination and potential impact
Suffolk County Department of Health Services approvals will be required
Magnitude, importance
The proposed action is in an area that does not have public water or sewer services. It will require one new well and a sewage disposal system for each of the 17 house lots. Reducing
the density versus a Standard Subdivision has already eliminated 25 (60%) of the potential new wells and septic systems needed. There are no immediate plans for developing lots and we
expect it will be many years before all 17 would be developed.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential impacts is low because the proposed action
cannot move forward without Suffolk County Health Department approval. Their approval signifies there is adequate potable water available, impact on the aquifer and adjacent areas is
acceptable, and our wastewater systems are acceptable regarding groundwater impact. We are working with Condon Engineering in Mattituck to submit the Suffolk County Subdivision applications
for each parcel. This enables us to install test wells to assess potable water and to do sub-soil test holes to determine suitability for sewage disposal systems. It may take up to 9
months to complete this part of the process. Before final Subdivision approval from the Health Department, all 17 wells and sewage systems must be approved.
Commercial Pesticide Concerns –
6. The proposed action may involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources.
Lead Agency
Concern Areas - Impacts of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water or irrigation sources for lawn and crops
Magnitude, importance - There is active farming bordering
the proposed lots on SD (5) and SB (1).
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
There is low probability of impact since wells will be sited more than 100’ from commercial pesticide
application. Health Department approval is required for all wells, so there is low pesticide impact probability. We will also include the required Subdivision Best Management Practices
for landscaping in HOA covenants /restrictions.
The use of native, drought-tolerant plants shall be required in landscaping the lots.
No fertilizers containing nitrogen, phosphorous,
or potassium shall be utilized between November 1st and April 1st.
Application of lawn fertilizer within 20’ of any surface water except: where there is a vegetative buffer of at least
10’; or where fertilizer is applied by a device with a spreader guard, deflector shield or drop spreader at least 3’ from surface water is prohibited.
Only organic fertilizers where
the water-soluble nitrogen is no more than 20% of the total nitrogen in the mixture may be utilized on the lots.
A maximum of 1 pound of nitrogen per 1000 s.f. in any one application,
with a cumulative application of no more than 2 pounds per 1000 s.f. per year is permitted.
The use of phosphorus containing lawn fertilizer is prohibited unless establishing a new lawn
or soil test shows that the lawn does not have enough phosphorus. Fertilizer labels have three bold numbers. The number in the middle is the percentage of phosphorous in the product,
e.g. 22-0-15. Use of products with 0.67 in the middle or lower is not restricted. Products with a number higher than 0.67 may only be used if a new lawn is being established or a soil
test indicates it is necessary.
The application of lawn fertilizer on impervious surfaces is prohibited. Any fertilizer that is applied or spilled on impervious surfaces shall be immediately
picked up.
Impact on Flooding
EAF Part 2 Potential Moderate to Large Impact
The proposed action may result in, or require, modification of existing drainage patterns.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
Sea
level rise and the impact on low-lying areas of each parcel (located in the mapped flood zoned areas). Assessment of impacts and mitigation must be discussed.
Magnitude, importance
All
proposed lots are in the FEMA moderate/low risk of annual chance of flooding areas
FEMA Flood Zone Classification For Proposed House Lots
North Dyer
South Dyer
North Brown
South
Brown
# Lots
6
5
5
1
Approx. Lot Elevation
25’ – 50’
5’ – 15’
65’ – 90’
5’-10’
Mod/Low Risk (X)
100%
100%
100%
100%
High Risk (AE)
FEMA Maps attached:
ND:
SD:
36103C0068H
NB:
SB:
Sketch Maps showing elevations attached:
ND
SD
NB
SB
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential impacts is low since our lots are
in zones classified by FEMA as moderate/low risk. The lot elevations for 14 of the 17 proposed lots are at 10’ or above, which further lessens the flooding risk. Of the remaining lots,
two are on SD: Lot 4 is ~90% at 10’-15’ and Lot 5 is ~50%~at 10’-15’. The lot on South Brown is 100% between 5’-10’. When we are ready to develop any of the 3 lots in the lower elevation
areas, we will implement the best practice drainage patterns/systems that are available at that time, that are proven effective in comparable situations, and that are not cost prohibitive.
This should minimize the potential impact of any flooding or storm water run-off that could occur.
Impact on Plants and Animals
EAF Part 2 Potential Moderate to Large Impact
The proposed action may result in a reduction or degradation of any habitat used by any rare, threatened
or endangered species, as listed by New York State or the federal government.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
Presence or absence of protected species and potential impacts (if any) to such
species or habitat as determined by the New York State Natural Heritage Program.
Magnitude/importance - Full NY State Natural Heritage Program report is attached – 4 Pages
The NY State
Natural Heritage Program stated that they, “cannot provide a definitive statement as to the presence or absence of all rare or state-listed species or significant natural communities.
Depending on the nature of the project and the conditions at the project site, further information from on-site surveys or other sources may be required to fully assess impacts on biological
resources”.
There was only one recently documented (2003-07-10) rare plant, Scotch Lovage, in the vicinity of the project area. It was found in the Narrow River Road Nature Trail in
a low-grade coastal oak-hickory forest near the headwaters of a short tidal river.
There were 11 other rare plants and one rare animal, documented in 1944 or earlier, and there is uncertainty
regarding their continued presence. In most cases the precise location of the plant or animal at the time of the documentation is also unknown.
Probability of occurrence of potential
impacts
There is low probability that any of the rare/endangered species -- 12 plants and one animal-- are present in the area covered by the proposed subdivision. Even if one or more
of these species would be present, it is very unlikely that any of their habitats would be disturbed since they would normally be found in areas classified unbuildable based on the habitat
data on the New York Natural Heritage Program website (acris.nynhp.org). The most common habitats are wetlands, marshes, cliffsides – all unbuildable areas.
The New Jersey Pine Barrens
Tiger Beetle is not even listed in the NY DEC database. Further, in a 2006 ‘Bugguide’ posting by Daniel P. Duran, Assistant Teaching Professor Department of Biodiversity Earth & Environmental
Science, at Drexel University, “Cicindela patrela consentanea - is now only found in a few counties in the NJ Pine Barrens. “ Therefore the proposed action will likely have no/small
impact on this species.
Impact on Agricultural Resources
1. The proposed action may impact NYS Land Classification Soil Group 1 through 4
Lead Agency Concern Areas - Impact to prime farmland soils and soils
of statewide importance, including agricultural areas converted to residential use.
Magnitude, importance - The proposed action has 69 acres of Soil Groups 1-4. About 10 of these
(14%) would be converted to residential use and 6 of the 10 are currently farmed (10% of current agriculture and aquaculture area). See attached Impact on Soil Portfolio (1Page) and
4 Soil Maps.
Proposed Action Buildable Area Impact By Soil Group -- Acres
Soil
ND
SD
NB
SB
Total
Group
Total
Impact
Total
Impact
Total
Impact
Total
Impact
Total
Impact
1
9.
6
5.1
7.7
0.5
22.7
0.4
40.0
6.0
2
7.2
3.4
0.1
0.1
10.7
0.1
3
7.3
2.7
1.7
6.2
.3
3.4
0.8
18.6
3.9
4
0.01
0.01
0.0
Sub-Tot
7.3
2.7
18.5
5.1
17.3
1.0
26.2
1.2
69.4
10.0
5
8.0
2.8
9.0
4.2
17.0
7.0
Total
15.3
5.5
18.5
5.1
26.3
5.1
26.2
1.2
86.4
17.0
Probability of occurrence of potential
impacts –At completion 14% of land with Soil Groups 1- 4 and 10% of farmland will be converted to residential use. It will likely take many years before this occurs.
Mitigation of impact
on Farmland and prime soils already taken
The proposed subdivision will preserve 80% of Buildable Land and reduce density by 60%, which greatly reduces impact on prime soils and farmland.
We further preserved 6.3 acres of prime soil and farmland through transfer of development rights and placement of 5 lots in a wooded area.
SB – We saved 2.5 acres of SB Soil Group
1 farmland, by moving 3 lots from SB to ND Soil Group 5, which is not currently farmed. We placed the remaining lot on SB in Soil Group 3 (poorest soil present on that site), which saves
0.92 acres of better soil for agriculture.
NB - Placing 5 NB lots in wooded Group 5 soil area saves 3.8 acres of farmland/prime soil.
SD –5 lots and access road use prime soil in active
agriculture, but minimize view impact.
Additional potential mitigation (further study is required to determine feasibility)
NB - 3.8 acres of currently wooded Soil Group 3 could potentially
be reclaimed for farmland. This could bring the total reduction in farmland to 2.2 acres, ~4% of total.
SD – There is some potential to increase the size of the Aquaculture operation
in the future.
2. The proposed action may sever, cross or otherwise limit access to agricultural land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.).
Lead Agency
Concern Areas – Potential impacts to access agricultural lands and any mitigation that has been achieved in the proposed Conservation Subdivision identified and /or proposed.
Magnitude, importance, probability of potential impacts
The proposed roads do not sever, cross or limit access to agricultural land. It will likely take many years to develop all the
lots.
Mitigation of impact already taken
The proposed 25’ roads are formed by widening and improving the current unpaved farm roads. The new roads will continue to be used for agricultural
purposes as well as residential traffic. Clustering the lots mitigates interruption of farm practices.
3. The proposed action may result in the excavation or compaction of the soil
profile of active agricultural land.
Lead Agency Concern Areas - Potential loss of agricultural lands/soils; mitigation achieved by proposed Conservation Subdivision.
Magnitude, importance,
probability of potential impacts
There are 6 acres of agricultural lands/soils that will be converted to residential use. There will be some excavation and soil compaction in the construction
areas.
Mitigation of impact
The proposed subdivision preserves 80% of Buildable Land and reduces density by 60%, which greatly reduces impact of excavation and compaction. We plan
to move any of the Group 1-4 soils excavated to NB agricultural areas. Best practices will be utilized to minimize excavation and soil compaction.
4. The proposed action may irreversibly
convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, either more than 2.5 acres if an Agricultural District…
Lead Agency Concern Areas
Assessment on the severity of impacts to the Agricultural
District. The mitigation resulting from the Conservation Subdivision and amount of land area preserved should be considered.
Magnitude, importance, probability of potential impacts
The
proposed action will convert 6 acres of agricultural land to residential use. This represents 10% of currently farmed land. South Dyer, North Brown and South Brown are within an Agricultural
District and therefore must meet the Type 1 threshold regarding the number of allowable lots. In our case, the threshold is 12.5 and we meet the requirement with a total of 11 lots on
the 3 affected parcels.
Proposed Action Agriculture Impact - # Acres (Excludes 5 Aquaculture Acres, which are unaffected)
ND
SD
NB
SB
Total
Current
0
19.7
12.0
21.1
52.8
Propo
sed
0
14.9
11.7
20.2
46.8
Difference
0
-4.8
-0.3
-0.9
-6.0
For details, see attached Impact of Project Completion on Land Use.
Mitigation of impact already taken–
The proposed subdivision will preserve 80% of Buildable Land and reduce density by 60%, which will greatly reduce the impact on agricultural land.
We further preserved 6 acres of prime soil and farmland through transfer of development rights and the placement of 5 lots in a wooded area.
Additional potential mitigation (further
study is required to determine feasibility)
NB - 3.8 acres of currently wooded Soil Group 3 could potentially be reclaimed for farmland. This could bring the total reduction in farmland
to 2.2 acres, ~4% of total.
SD – There is some potential to increase the size of the Aquaculture operation in the future.
5. The proposed action may result, directly or indirectly,
in increased development potential or pressure on farmland.
Lead Agency Concern Areas - The potential impact to directly increase development
Magnitude, importance
The proposed action
entails the construction of 17 houses and associated roads/infrastructure. It will create short-term employment opportunities for people involved in the construction, but no on-going
employment. The lots will likely be developed one at a time over many years, so the normal workforce availability should be able to accommodate the construction needs. The number of
people who would likely live in these 17 houses would not justify creating new stores or services in the area. The proposal does not involve extending any existing roads, sewers or water
mains, so no secondary development would be enabled.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
Source Information: Town of Southold Full Demographic Inventory for the Comprehensive
Plan
If all 17 lots were developed, the total increase in population would likely be about 37-41 people, based on the average household size of Orient and Southold Town, respectively.
We expect it will be many years before all 17 proposed lots would be developed, so there would be only a very gradual increase in population. We expect most of the houses would be summer
residences. This further diminishes the chance that new stores or services would be needed.
6. The proposed project is not consistent with the municipal Farmland Protection Plan
Lead
Agency Concern Areas - Consistency with the Southold Town Farm and Farmland Protection Strategy (2000) and Community Preservation Project Plan (2008)
Magnitude, importance and probability
of occurrence of potential impacts
Since the proposed action is for an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision, it will reduce density by 60% and preserve 80% (71 acres) of Buildable area plus
an additional 25 acres of Wetlands and Bluff area. The proposed project preserves 90% of actively farmed land, with potential for further mitigation. This seems very consistent with
the intent of both the Farmland Protection Strategy and the Community Preservation Project Plan.
Impact on Aesthetic Resources
Note: All 5 areas of potentially moderate to large impact are being addressed together since the magnitude, importance, probability of occurrence and mitigation
is virtually the same for all.
Areas of Concern – The proposed action may…
1. be visible from officially designated federal, state, or local scenic or aesthetic resources.
2. result
in the obstruction, elimination or significant screening of designated scenic views.
3. be visible from publicly accessible vantage points, seasonally and year round.
4. be viewed during:
a) routine travel by residents, including travel to and from work;
b) recreational or tourism based activities.
5. cause diminishment of public enjoyment/appreciation of designated
aesthetic resource.
Lead Agency Concern Areas - Address South Dyer impacts in regard to…
aesthetic resources and scenic view sheds important to the community, travellers, tourists/recreational
participants using Route 25 and Orient Harbor
siting and scale of the 5 single family homes
Magnitude importance and probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The proposed action
on South Dyer will be visible year round by local residents, tourists and recreational visitors from the Route 25 NYS Scenic Byway and the Orient Harbor. The proposed action consists
of 5 single-family residences that will be located at the east side of the property, 4 of which are recessed in a niche that borders the backs of the houses on Oysterponds Lane. This
is the least visible part of the property and would at most be in the distant background or on the margin of the photos and paintings that are taken of the view from our property.
Since
we are not planning any development in the foreseeable future, the size/design of future houses is very speculative. When we do develop SD lots, we will fully comply with zoning requirements,
which would be in keeping with other waterfront homes in Orient. At the Town’s request we developed a worst-case visual impact study. This necessitated using hypothetical houses, so
we used houses that can be found in/near the Orient Historic District and ‘adjusted’ them with computer modeling to maximize the profiles visible to the public. It is not our intent
or desire to build these specific houses. The complete report is included in Tab 12.
Importance of potential impacts
Route 25 is part of the North Fork Trail, which is designated as
a New York Scenic Byway. The NYS Scenic Byways application stated….”Perhaps the road’s most dramatic scenic offering is in one of these spots, a site where Orient Harbor can be seen
to the southeast and Dam Pond to the north, featuring tidal marshes, distant water-front housing and a popular farmstand. “ The popular farmstand cited is Latham’s Farmstand, which is
on SD at the western property boundary. Our proposed houses would be on the east boundary and form a continuation of the distant water-front housing that provides an interesting background
for the spectacular water views.
The definition of a scenic view is very personal and subjective, however, there are ways to describe/define it. The Town of Southold’s Scenic Corridor
Management Plan, Section 2.1 Byway Character: Scenic Landscape states:
“In Southold, topography is not a defining condition. Rather, scenic quality comes from a variety of elements working in concert. Like a musical composition, Southold’s scenic corridors
present variations on a few basic themes: historic hamlets, farmland vistas, Open Water, and lush vegetation. Moving along a road, a driver or cyclist experiences complex combinations
and contrasts of these themes. Where in music, drama is provided through harmonic tension and release, in Southold roads such as Route 25 use visual compression and expansion. The driver’s
field of view narrows through hamlets or stands of old trees, then suddenly opens with an expansive view of farmland or water.”
We have a history of maintaining and enhancing our scenic
properties as evidenced by people who stop to enjoy the view on SD. We regularly have artists come to paint or photograph. Visitors travelling by car, bicycle or on foot stop to take
photos. There are several popular ‘coffee table’ books that feature the SD view i.e.:
Long Island A Scenic Discovery, by Steve Dunwell - pp 40-41 Dawn at Truman Beach
North Fork Living
by Harry Haralambou – 1) p 166 Orient (a view of the Osprey nest on the South Dyer beach with Tidal Creek in foreground and the Peconic Bay and Shelter Island in Background); 2) p 131
Orient (a view of the Tidal Creek on South Dyer, looking west)
Between Sea and Sky by Jake Rajs – p. 99 Latham’s Farm Stand on our South Dyer Property; p. 154 Orient (from the Tidal
Creek looking East with South Dyer in the background)
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
We do not have any specific plans or timelines for building the houses on South
Dyer and it is likely that there will be several years between the developments of each house lot. Our intent is to keep the lots in the family and if any descendant wants to sell a
lot, the Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company or any other direct Tuthill descendant will have first refusal right to buy the lot.
Houses that we build on South Dyer would meet all zoning
and building code requirements. We intend the houses to represent the character of the waterfront homes in Orient, to provide a good transition to the Historic District and be attractive
to local residents and visitors to the area. The houses would not obstruct, eliminate or significantly screen the view. The typical photographs and paintings of the view rarely show
any part of the area where the houses would be located, except as distant background. As with most subjective, personal perspectives, there will be a few individuals who feel our future
houses diminish their enjoyment of the area, but we feel they would be in the minority.
Mitigation of visual impact of South Dyer already taken
Originally we were planning to do a
Standard Subdivision on SD, which would have added 5 more lots for a total of 10. These additional lots would come from active farmland and would have directly impacted the view of the
Tidal Creek and Peconic Bay. When we decided to move forward with the 80/60 Conservation Subdivision, our initial lot design had the 5 lots along the southern side of South Dyer overlooking
the Tidal Creek. See attached layout. This represented the best views for the house lots we could build. In recognition of the impact this would have both for our lots across the street
on North Dyer, and for the impact on the local community and visitors, we decided to move the proposed lots to the least noticeable part of the property that still had good views for
our family.
The proposed 25’ private right of way is more in keeping with the rural character of the surrounding areas than a 50’ curbed road would be. Planning Board and NY Superintendent
of Highways approvals are needed, but we meet the criteria to allow for this approach.
Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources
1. The proposed action may occur wholly/partially within/ substantially contiguous to, any buildings, archeological site or district,
which is listed on or has been nominated by the NYS Board of Historic Preservation for the State or National Register of Historic Places. The proposed action may result in: the destruction
or alteration of all or part of the site or property, the alteration of the property’s setting or integrity, the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site
or property, or may alter its setting.
Lead Agency Concern Areas - Potential moderate to large adverse impact of South Dyer, which is adjacent to the Orient National Historic District.
Magnitude
of potential impacts
Part of the eastern boundary of the South Dyer parcel is adjacent to the Orient Historic District. The proposed action will involve 5 new single-family residential
house lots. They will not destroy or alter any of the Orient Historic District site, property, setting or integrity.
Importance of potential impacts
The SD property provides an important
visual transition between the views coming from East Marion heading into Orient. This starts with the Causeway views of the Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay and Tidal creek with the distant
view of the houses along the Orient Harbor. This leads to the beginnings of the Orient residential areas along the North side of the Main Road and the farmland along the South side.
The proposed SD lots will provide a continuation of the houses that line the Orient harbor and will create a backdrop for the end of the SD agricultural area.
Based on the Orient
Historic District website, the houses in the district cover several different styles. Cape Cod, framed dwellings sheathed with shingles or clapboard having a moderately pitched roof,
Federal, Greek Revival, Italianate, Second Empire, rural vernacular frame architecture and the ornate frame structures of the late Victorian era. The website describes Orient as exhibiting
a notable congruity in appearance despite the numerous styles represented in its structures. Our intent would be to develop the SD House lots in a way that would harmonize with the range
of styles present in the District. We would build all houses in accordance with any standards set by the Zoning or Building Departments in affect at the time of development.
Probability
of occurrence of potential impacts - Given the wide variety of architectural styles in the Historic District there is very low probability that the houses we would build in the future
would be out of character.
2. The proposed action may occur wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, an area designated as sensitive for archeological sites on
the NY State Historic Preservation Office archeological site inventory. The proposed action may result in: destruction or alteration of all or part of the site or property, the alteration
of the property’s setting or integrity, the introduction of visual elements which are out of character with the site or property, or may alter its setting.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
- Results of the Phase 1B Cultural Assessment
Magnitude, importance and probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The Archeological IB Survey did Shovel Tests and walkovers covering
our 17 proposed lots, roads and some additional areas. No historic artifacts were found. However, there were white quartzite artifact fragments found on the proposed SB lot, which is
evidence of a prehistoric site. If we want to proceed with this SB lot location, Phase II intensive testing is recommended.
Impact on Critical Environmental Areas
EAF Part 2 Potential Moderate to Large Impact
The proposed action may result in a reduction in the quality of the resource or characteristic,
which was the basis for designation of the CEA
Lead Agency Concern Areas
Impacts of South Dyer to the NYSDEC Critical Environmental Area of Peconic Bays and Environ – The Peconic Bays
and Environ was designated effective 11/13/1988 as a Critical Environmental Area based on a benefit to human health and protecting drinking water.
Magnitude/importance - The magnitude
of the potential SD impact has already been mitigated by the proposed Conservation Subdivision, which would preserve 74% of the buildable land and reduce density by 50%. The potential
new impact on the Peconic Bays and Environ would come from development of 5 new house lots in an area currently devoted to agriculture.
The potential impact would come primarily from
the nitrogen output from these residences. The Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay “Know Your Nitrogen – A Guide to Reducing Nitrogen Pollution at Home” estimates the average amount of
nitrogen produced by a person in septic system effluent over one year to be 9.9 pounds. The Average household size in Town of Southold is 2.4 people (Orient is 2.15); Source US Census
Bureau 2000 study. The East Coast Shellfish Growers Association in “Shellfish Culture is Good For the Environment” cites that a single waterfront home has annual nitrogen output of 23
pounds of nitrogen.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential impacts is low since all houses must have Suffolk County Department of Health Service
approval for potable water and septic systems. This ensures that any impact is deemed to be acceptable by the regulatory agency. Without this approval, we will not be able to build houses.
Further, we will implement the best systems that are available at that time, that are proven effective in comparable situations, and that are not cost prohibitive.
Mitigation Already
Taken -
The East Coast Shellfish Growers Association in “Shellfish Culture is Good For the Environment” cites that since oysters are 1.4 percent nitrogen by weight, for every 10,000
oysters shipped, 23 pounds of nitrogen are removed from the water – the equivalent of the annual nitrogen output of a single waterfront home.
We currently have an oyster growing aquaculture
operation on South Dyer that has about 2 million oysters. In 2015, we shipped about 300,000 oysters, which will remove the equivalent nitrogen of about 30 waterfront homes, six times
the number of homes of our proposed action on South Dyer and 75% more than the number of homes on our full proposal. The current inventory in the farm represents the annual Nitrogen
output of about 300 homes. Net, while our proposed action will produce nitrogen, it will be more than mitigated by our oyster aquaculture program.
Consistency With Community Character
1. The proposed action may create a demand for additional community services (e.g. schools, police and fire)
Lead Agency Concern Areas - Expected
to create a demand for police and fire services
Intent of Proposed Action
The intent of the proposed action is to keep the land/lots in the family over many generations. No immediate
development is planned.
Magnitude/importance of potential impacts - Source Information: Town of Southold Full Demographic Inventory for the Comprehensive Plan (population history and
projections); US Census
If all 17 lots were developed as year round occupancy, the total increase in population would likely be about 37-41 people, based on the average household size
of Orient and Southold Town, respectively. This represents a 5-6% increase versus the 709 people living in Orient in 2000, but would be 8% below the 817 people in 1990. For the Town
of Southold the increase would be 0.2% versus the 2000 census.
These increases are relatively small compared to the significant population increase in the summer: Town of Southold
nearly doubles during July/August and Wikipedia estimates Orient residents go up 25% in the summer. Town of Southold estimates one-third of residences in the Town are attributed to seasonal
residency by second homeowners and about 50% in Orient. This indicates our potential population increase would not represent an important change to the current police and fire services,
which are set up to handle far larger increases in the population.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
There is a high probability that it will be many years before all 17
lots are developed and most will be summer/vacation homes. Family members will have the right to purchase any lot that could be sold in the future. This is further insurance that the
lots will stay in the family. Even if all 17 lots were developed immediately, there would be little to no impact on police and fire services.
2. The proposed action is inconsistent
with predominant architectural scale/ character.
Lead Agency Concern Areas
South Dyer siting and scale of homes
North Dyer and North Brown impacts to State Route 25
a. SD Siting
Magnitude/importan
ce -The proposed action consists of 5 single-family residences located in the least-visible, east side of SD, 4 of which are recessed in a niche that borders lots on Oysterponds Lane.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts - The houses would not obstruct, eliminate or significantly screen the view from NYS Route 25/Orient Harbor. At most they would be in
the distant background or on the margin of photos and paintings made of the view from our property. This should provide a pleasing transition between the farmland and residential area
of the community.
SD Siting – Mitigation already taken.
Originally we were planning to do a Standard Subdivision on SD, which would have added 5 more lots for a total of 10. These
additional lots would come from active farmland and would have directly impacted the view of the Tidal Creek and Peconic Bay. Our initial Conservation Subdivision lot design had the
5 lots along the southern side of South Dyer overlooking the Tidal Creek. (See attached.) This represented the best views for the house lots we could build. We decided to move the proposed
lots to the least noticeable part of the property in recognition of the impact this would have, both for our lots across the street on North Dyer and for the impact on the local community
and visitors.
b. SD Scale of homes
Magnitude/importance/Probability of occurrence
Since we are not planning any development in the foreseeable future, the size/design of future
houses is very speculative. - All future houses would meet Zoning and Building code regulations and any other established standards associated with house design, so they will be in keeping
with the permitted scale. We intend the houses to represent the character of the waterfront homes in Orient, to provide a good transition to the Historic District and be attractive to
local residents and visitors to the area.
SD Scale of homes – Mitigation already taken
The Conservation Subdivision reduces the scale of the houses by limiting lot sizes. The proposed
average SD lot is 39,600 s.f. versus the R-80 required 80,000 s.f, which further limits the scale of the houses.
c. ND Impacts to State Route 25
Magnitude/importance/probability
of occurrence
Only two of the six house lots are visible from State Route 25. The houses would sit back at least 300’ from the road, minimizing their impacts. There is already one existing
house, barn and auxiliary building on this parcel that were originally outbuildings for the “House of Seven Gables” located on SD, which was destroyed in the 1938 hurricane. There are
no current plans to develop a second lot on State Route 25, but any future house would abide by the Zoning and Building Code regulations and any other established house design standards
established at that time.
d. NB Impacts to State Route 25
Magnitude/importance/probability of occurrence
No lots are visible from State Route 25 so there would be no impact on State
Route 25. There are no current plans to develop the NB lots, but any future house would abide by the Zoning and Building Code regulations and any other established house design standards
established at that time.
Alternatives
1. Move one lot from South Dyer to North Dyer or North Brown in area that is not currently farmed –We would adjust the remaining 4 SD lots so boundaries would be to the
east of the existing farm road. See attached SD 4-lot alternate layout.
Mitigation on Environmental Impact - Fewer houses in the far eastern border of South Dyer, which is contiguous
with the Orient Historic District, would lessen the potential impact on:
The view from the Route 25 Scenic By-Way (Aesthetic Resources, Historic Resources, and Consistency with Community
Character)
Agricultural land and Prime Soils irreversibly converted to residential use - an additional 1.2 acres of actively farmed, Soil Group 1 land would remain in agriculture.
The
Peconic Bay and Orient Tidal Creek (Critical Environmental Areas) - Surface Water, Ground Water and Flooding Impact would be reduced by 20% (4 lot impact versus 5 lots)
2. No Action
Likely
Circumstances At The Project Site If The Project Does Not Proceed - If the proposed project does not proceed, one house could be built on each of the 3 parcels that currently have no
houses (South Dyer, North Brown, and South Brown). This would not preclude applying for Subdivisions at a future date. The 3 potential new houses would be built in line with all building,
zoning and Health Department codes and regulations, but would not be governed by further Subdivision standards and requirements.
Likely Future Conditions If Developed To Maximum Allowed
Under Existing Zoning
Standard Subdivisions represent the maximum development allowed under existing zoning. The Standard Subdivision Yield calculations would total 42 houses, versus
17 proposed; 52.7 Buildable acres would be kept as Open Space (60%) versus 70.9 acres (80%) proposed.
Standard Versus Proposed Conservation Subdivision Implications
R-80 Zone
R-200
Zone
Total
ND
SD
NB
SB
SB
Buildable Acres
15.38
19.43
26.68
15.57
10.72
87.8
Yield - # Lots Std. Sub.
8
10
14
8
2
42
Yield - # Lots Prop. Cons.
6
5
5
1
0
17
Yield Std. Vs Prop. Cons.
+2
+5
+9
+7
+2
+25
Preserved Ac. – Std. Sub.
9.2
11.7
16.0
9.3
6.4
52.7
Preserved Ac.- Prop. Cons.
9.9
14.4
21.6
14.3
10.7
70.9
Prsvd.
Std. Vs Prop. Cons.
-0.7
-2.7
-5.6
-5.0
-4.3
-18.2
Environmental Impact of Standard Subdivisions Versus the Proposed Project - Standard Subdivisions would create a sizeable
increase in the impact on all environmental areas versus our Conservation Subdivision proposal, due mainly to 25 additional houses and 18 fewer preserved Buildable acres. Depending on
placement of the house lots, total active agriculture would be reduced between 18 to 29 acres, a 32% to 50% loss, compared to a 6 acre (10%) loss of agricultural land proposed. See
attached farm impact details. Also, it is highly likely more houses would be visible from NYS Route 25.