HomeMy WebLinkAboutDEIS NarrativeDraft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
Title of Action: Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
80/60 Conservation Subdivision Open Development Area
Location of Action: Suffolk County, Town of Southold, Orient
Parcel Known As Suffolk Co. Tax Map Address
North Dyer (ND) 1000-17.-4-16 21505 Route 25
South Dyer (SD) 1000-17.-6-14.2 21920 Route 25
North Brown (NB) 1000-18.-3-30.3 26975 Route 25
South Brown (SB)1000-18.-6-17.3 7685 Narrow River Rd.
1000-18.-6-18.1 8070 Narrow River Rd.
Lead Agency and Contact:
Town of Southold, PO Box 1179, Southold NY 11971
Donald J. Wilcenski, Planning Board Chairman, 631-765-1938
Individuals/Organizations Preparing Parts of the Statement (Area of EIS input):
1. Carol Tuthill – Managing Director Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company (overall document
preparation and family perspective on proposed action, mitigation and alternatives)
2. Alfred Camissa – Tracker Archeology Services (Archeological and cultural resources)
3. Sam Fitzgerald – Architect (Aesthetic Resources, View Sheds, Architectural Perspective)
4. Bruce Anderson – Environmental Systems (Guidance on completion of DEIS; Water areas)
5. Natural Heritage Program (Protected Species, Vegetative patterns, habitats)
6. John Condon, PE – Condon Engineering (Suffolk County Health Department Subdivision
Approval, Water areas)
7. Jason Tuthill – Member Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company, Industrial Engineer (land use
and soil calculations and maps)
Date Sent to Lead Agency via UPS:September 10, 2018
Date Accepted by Lead Agency:
Draft EIS Comments Deadline:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.Summary – Pages 1-5
Impact on Farmed Land – 1 page
2.Description of Proposed Action – Pages 6-8
3.Environmental Setting – Page 9
4.Environmental Assessment Form Part 2 – Moderate to Large Potential Impacts - Page 10
5.Impact/Mitigation – Overall project - Pages 11-12
6.Impact/Mitigation -- Surface Water - Page 13 - 15
7.Impact/Mitigation -- Ground Water - Pages 16 - 20
8.Impact/Mitigation – Flooding - Page 21
FEMA Maps: North Dyer, South Dyer, North Brown, South Brown – 4 Pages
Sketch Maps w/Elevations: North Dyer, South Dyer, North Brown, South Brown – 4
Pages
9.Impact/Mitigation -- Plants and Animals - Page 22
NY Natural Heritage Program Report– 4 Pages
10.Impact/Mitigation – Agriculture - Pages 23-25
Proposed Action Impact on Soil Summary – 1 Page
Soil Maps By Parcel – 4 Pages
Proposed House Lot and Road Impact on Types of Land Use – 1 Page
11.Impact/Mitigation -- Aesthetic Resources - Pages 26 - 27
12.SD Visual Impact Study – Sam Fitzgerald, Architect
Supplemental Report – 3 Pages
Photo Simulation (18 pgs. ea.)- Current; Proposed 5 Lots; Potential Alternative 4 Lots
13.Impact/Mitigation -- Historic / Archeological Resources - Pages 28
Orient Historic District Overview - 4 Pages
Example Orient Historic District Houses – 4 Pages
14.Phase IB Archeological Survey – Tracker – Al Camissa, Tracker (6 Pgs.+ Drive w/full report)
15.Impact/Mitigation -- Critical Environmental Areas p. 29-30
16.Impact/Mitigation -- Community Character - Pages 31-32
17.Alternatives – Page 33-34
Table Of Contents - Continued
Support Material Referenced in Multiple Impact Areas (Tab #s)
A. South Dyer Lot Design Alternatives (1, 10, 11, 12, 17)
1. Proposed 5 Lot Map – 1 Page
2. Alternative 4 Lot Map – 1 Page
3. Original 5 Lot Layout to maximize views from lots – 1 Page
B. Benefits of Oysters in Nitrogen Reduction (1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 15, 17)
1. Shellfish Culture is Good For the Environment (East Coast Shellfish Growers) – 4
Pages
2. Know Your Nitrogen (Alliance for Chesapeake Bay) 4 Pages
C. Water Quality / Availability (1, 6, 15, 17)
1. Stormwater Management Control Plan (Town Code)– 3 Pages
2. Orient Harbor Water Analysis (USGS) – 12 Pages
3. Water Usage Calculators – USGS, Waterworks, Grace Foundation) – 3 Pages
4. Our Long Island Aquifers: The Basics (Nassau Suffolk Water Comm. Assoc.) – 2 Pages
5. Water Supply Replenishment (SC Comprehensive Water Resources Mgmt Plan) – 1 Pg.
6. Salt Water Intrusion (SC Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan) – 3
Pages
D. Wastewater Management (1, 5, 6, 15, 17)
1. Septic System Nitrogen Discharge (SCDHS Reclaim Our Water) - 1 Page
2. How Conventional Septic Systems Treat HH Wastewater (R. Uebler, PhD) - 21 Pages
3. Individual Sewerage System Approval (SCDHS Sanitary Code) – 2 Pages
4. Standards of Approval of Plans/Construction for Sewage Disposal (SCDHS) – 2 Pages
5. Classification for Possible Advanced Wastewater Treatment Areas (SCDHS) – 2 Pages
E. Alternative Wastewater Systems – I/A OWTS (1, 6, 17)
1. 2017 Annual Report Alt. Wastewater Treatment Systems – I/A OWTS (SCDHS) - 2 Pgs.
2. SC Approved I/A OWTS (SCDHS) - 3 Pages
3. I/A OWTS Phase 1 and 2 System Descriptions – 2 Pages
4. Overview of Provisionally Approved I/A OWTS Technology (SCDHS ROW) – 11 pages
5. What I/A OWTS Homeowners Should Know (SCDHS ROW) – 8 pages
F. SCDHS Subdivision Application Status (2, 6, 7)
1. Test Well Water Analysis (SCDHS) – 56 Pages
2. Test Well Certificates (Casola Welldrillers / Kreiger Well& Pump /Peconic Well &
Pump) - 18 Pages
3. Notice Of Incomplete Subdivision Applications (SCDHS) - 5 Pages
4. Metes & Bounds Maps Showing Adjacent Wells and Septics (Condon/Corwin) - 4
Pages
Summary
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 Presrvd.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/Pave
d
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 (4). 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:
1.Impact on Surface Water – Water quality in or downstream of action
2.Impact on Groundwater – New wells and septic systems, water demand, wastewater
discharge, contaminated water, commercial pesticide proximity
3.Impact on Flooding – Modification of existing drainage patterns
4.Impact on plants/animals – Reduction in habitats of endangered species
5.Impact on Agriculture –Prime soil impact, limiting access, loss of farm land >2.5 acres,
development pressure, not consistent with Farmland Protection Plan
6.Impact on Aesthetic Resources – Scenic Byway/ scenic view impact
7.Impact on Historic/Archeological Resources – Character versus Historic District,
destruction/alteration of designated archeological site
8.Impact on Critical Environmental Area (Peconic Bay) – Reduce Quality of resource
9.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)
Of the 52 acres of active farmland preserved (agriculture and aquaculture),6.3 acres
represent mitigation already built into our proposal: 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 on SD in a niche on the SE boundary of the property 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 - The
proposed SD design represents a 50% density reduction, which significantly lowers
Ground and Surface water impacts versus the SCDHS Design Flow standards for water
usage and wastewater discharge. The SD Design Flow is only 28% of the level allowable
by the SCDHS Yield and half the level of the Zoning Yield. This represents a significant
mitigation relative to Nitrogen impact on Ground and Surface waters.
Our Aquaculture operation on SD is improving the quality of the Peconic Bays by
removing ~23 pounds of Nitrogen from the water for every 10,000 oysters we ship. In
2017 we shipped over 700,000 oysters, which represents elimination of 1,610 pounds
of Nitrogen from the Peconic Bay. This is 8 times the estimated maximum annual
Nitrogen discharge of the SD lots and more than double all 17. Since the business
started in 2003, we have shipped about 2,000,000 oysters, which eliminated 4,600
pounds of nitrogen, the equivalent of 7 years from our total project.
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 1.7 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.
c. 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 farmland would be reduced between 6 and 23 acres, a 12% to 44% 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. 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. This project proposes the transfer of yield in line with Chapter 240-42 G of
the Southold Town Code.
Parcel SCTM# Total Preserved 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 15.91 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 44% 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
successfully completed the test well and soil capability studies of the SCDHS Subdivision
Application Process and have confirmed we have sufficient potable water and septic
capability on each of our proposed parcels. This ensures we are in line with the new Suffolk
County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan. To complete the SCDHS process
we need to obtain Wetlands and Coastal Erosion Hazard Area permits, receive a Negative
SEQRA Declaration, and submit final maps.
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 and
SCDHS requirements. Our Oysterponds Shellfish Aquaculture operation is improving the
quality of the water in the Peconic Bays by removing Nitrogen from the water. According to
the East Coast Shellfish Growers Association, for every 10,000 oysters we ship, 23 pounds
of Nitrogen is removed from the water. In 2017 we shipped over 700,000 oysters,
representing 1,610 pounds of nitrogen elimination from the Peconic Bays area. This is
more than double the maximum Nitrogen we would discharge into ground and surface
waters annually from our 17 proposed homes. Since we started our aquaculture business
in 2003 we have shipped about 2 million oysters, which has eliminated 4,600 pounds of
Nitrogen from the Orient Harbor/Peconic Bays – over 7 years of the maximum discharge
from our project.
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
Narrow River
Rd.
1 Residential Lot,
T/o/Southold (62.3
Ac)
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/Wetland
s
Water
Non Agric.Paved Surface*Total
Current 9.5 28.3 52.8 3.8 0.14 10.3 7.8 113
Propose
d 15.6 24.2 46.8 5.3 2.8 10.3 7.8 113
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 about 75% in agriculture with the balance in woods
and overgrown meadow. 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 Bruce Anderson
4. Impact on Groundwater Yes 1 6 John Condon
Bruce Anderson
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 Prgb. 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
Trackerd. 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
Fitzgeraldb. 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 52 acres, 90% of the 57.7 acres of actively farmed
(agriculture and aquaculture) land. Depending on house placement, Standard
Subdivisions would reduce active agriculture by 6 to 23 acres, a 12% to 44% loss
versus a 6 acre (10%) loss for the proposed project.
Of the 52 preserved acres of active farmland in our proposal, 6.3 acres represent
mitigation already taken:
o 2.5 acres in Soil Group 1, by transferring development rights for 3 SB lots to
ND
o 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 (Peconic Bays
and Environ)
The proposed SD design represents a 50% density reduction, which significantly lowers
Ground and Surface water impacts versus the SCDHS Design Flow standards for water
usage and wastewater discharge. The SD Design Flow is only 28% of the level allowable
by the SCDHS Yield and half the level of the Zoning Yield. This represents a significant
mitigation relative to Nitrogen impact on Ground and Surface waters.
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. In 2017 we
shipped over 700,000 oysters, which represents elimination of 1,610 pounds of
Nitrogen from the Peconic Bay areas. This is more than double the maximum Nitrogen
discharge our 17 house lots would discharge annually. Since the business started in
2003, we have shipped about 2,000,000 oysters, which eliminated 4,600 pounds of
nitrogen, the equivalent of 7 years of the maximum discharge from our project.
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 nearby water bodies
Magnitude, importance
Overall – The proposed 17 lots are within or downstream of significant water bodies:
a. Orient Harbor: 5 Lots on South Dyer and southern 3 lots on North Dyer
b. Narrow River: 1 Lot on South Brown
c. Long Island Sound: 5 Lots on North Brown and northern 3 Lots on North Dyer
d. Munn Lake: Northern 3 Lots on North Dyer (also listed in c. Lon Island Sound
above)
The two main sources of Surface Water impact come from Stormwater Runoff and
Wastewater Discharge. 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.
Stormwater Runoff – Our proposed subdivision has been designed to minimize
stormwater runoff impact. The proposed lot layout on our parcels retains natural
vegetative buffers to protect/preserve wetlands, bluff and other sensitive areas. We are
proposing only permeable surface right-of-ways and driveways on all parcels. We will
develop a detailed Stormwater Management Control Plan in line with the Town Code
(Chapter 236-18 attached) as part of the Final Subdivision Application process, i.e.
protecting the site with hay bales, silt fencing and/or temporary vegetation/mulch,
minimizing the impact of grading, excavation and filling, protecting natural drainage
patterns, etc.
Wastewater Discharge – The SCDHS Reclaim Our Water Septic Improvement Program
(attached) cites nitrogen pollution from cesspools and septic systems as the single largest
cause of degraded water quality. They calculate the average residential septic system
discharges ~40 pounds of nitrogen per year.
In Robert L. Uebler, Ph.D Soil Scientist’s report on “How a Conventional Ground Absorption
Septic Tank System Treats Household Wastewater” (full report attached), it explains that
when wastewater enters the septic tank, Nitrogen is present at 70 mg/l. When it leaves the
septic system and enters the soil, Nitrogen is present at 40 mg/l. The soil treats the
suspended solids through filtration and digestion by aerobic organisms. Most nitrogen is
converted to ammonia in the septic tank. The ammonia is positively charged and attracted
to negatively charged soil. The soil treatment impact dilutes the nitrogen to <10 mg/l,
which is considered safe for reuse. This is the level of nitrogen that could be discharged
into groundwater and ultimately reach surface water. The SCDHS establishes the standards
to ensure septic systems are designed to match the assimilative capacity of the soil to treat
wastewater in line with the amount of water coming from the house so the septic system
does not fail and cause contamination.
We are proposing traditional septic systems for our 17 lots. The Suffolk County Sanitary
Code approves the use of individual sewerage systems for projects outside of Groundwater
Management Zones III, V and VI; we are in Zone IV (Suffolk County Sanitary Code – Article
6, Chapter 760-608, B.1 a-d). We meet the additional requirements of minimum 20,000 s.f.
lot size, and not being within an existing sewer district and we will comply with all other
County and State requirements. Our 60% Density reduction would decrease the potential
septic system discharge to soil from ~1,680 pounds of nitrogen/year to 680 pounds.
There are 678 House Units in Orient based on the 2009 Census. At full occupancy this
would represent 27,120 pounds of annual nitrogen discharge to soil. At full occupancy our
nitrogen discharge level of 680 pounds would represent a 2.5% increase to the nitrogen
impact on surface water of the Long Island Sound, Munn Lake, Narrow River and Orient
Harbor.
The only USGS water analysis station in Orient is in Orient Harbor (Site 01304200). Based
on USGS data collected from May 2017 – April 2018 (the most recent 12 month period with
data approved for publication) the Orient Harbor’s Nitrogen level meets the EPA’s ‘Good’
Ecological Criterion for 99.6% of the samples taken. See attached USGS Water Analysis
Details.
5/1/17-4/30/18 USGS Orient Harbor Water Analysis – Nitrate, water, in situ, mg/l as
nitrogen
(Daily Mean is used to evaluate overall classification by day)
Measure Total EPA Good <.1 mg/l EPA Fair .1 to <.5
mg/l
EPA Poor > .5
Days Samples Days Samples Days Samples Days Samples
#254 11332 253 11288 1 42 0 2
%100% 100% 99.6% 99.6% 0.39% 0.37% 0% 0.02%
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential impact on surface water is low since each future lot
development will meet all requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health
Services and the NYS Department of Environmental Control. We are not requesting any
exceptions to these requirements and 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.
We intend to keep the property and lots within our family, and it is likely that lots will be
developed over a long period of time and that most will be used as seasonal/vacation
homes. This will further reduce the amount of nitrogen introduced into the water bodies in
the area.
The nitrogen impact on nearby water bodies should be minimal. Surface water impact from
our lots would mainly impact the Long Island Sound and Orient Harbor. It is highly unlikely
that the per year nitrogen discharge from the 3 northern lots on North Dyer and the 5 lots
on North Brown to the Long Island Sound would affect overall nitrogen levels given the
large size of this body of water (1,268 square miles with depths varying between 65-230
feet) and the high flushing rates of the eastern portion of the Long Island Sound. Since
Munn Lake is brackish and is frequently overtopped by the Long Island Sound during storm
events, the impact should be minimal and temporary. The Nitrogen impact on surface
waters should be negligible from our proposed 5 South Dyer and 3 southern lots on North
Dyer, given the water volume of the Orient Harbor and its open connection to the larger
Peconic Estuary, and the lack of current nitrogen issues. We are only proposing one house
lot that would impact Narrow River, so this should also have a negligible impact.
Mitigation of Surface Water Impact Already Taken
Our proposed density reduction reduces our potential Surface Water impact by 60%. Further,
the placement of our lots and the preserved acreage maintains natural vegetative buffers to
protect wetlands, bluffs and the natural topography. In addition, we are proposing that all
right-of-ways and driveways on our properties will be permeable surfaces. These things will
help significantly with storm water runoff.
Our Aquaculture operation on the South Dyer property has been reducing nitrogen and
improving water quality in the Orient Harbor and the Peconic Bay since 2003. Our operation
removes 23 pounds of Nitrogen from the water for every 10,000 oysters we ship (East Coast
Shellfish Growers Association “Shellfish Culture is Good for the Environment”). In 2017 we
shipped over 700,000 oysters, representing 1,610 pounds of nitrogen elimination. This is more
than double the maximum 680 pounds of Nitrogen we would discharge annually into
groundwater and local water bodies for all 17 of our proposed lots. Since we started our
aquaculture business we have shipped about 2,000,000 oysters, which has eliminated 4,600
pounds of nitrogen in the Orient Harbor/Peconic Bay. This is the equivalent of almost 7 years of
the maximum discharge from our project. Our business has steadily grown over the last 17
years and we are committed to continuing the operation for the foreseeable future.
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.
6. involve the commercial application of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking
water or irrigation sources.
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 saltwater intrusion on existing and proposed private wells.
Determine impact on water supply demand of potable groundwater sources for each
parcel location.
Provide calculations of the expected amount of water (in gallons per day) used for each
residential structure, including areas proposed to be irrigated.
Sustainability of the aquifer and impacts to adjacent parcels. Provide details about the
aquifer (confined, sole source, geology replenishment source, freshwater depth, etc.).
Please provide the number of private wells currently within 150’ of each parcel and if
the new private wells would impact the existing private wells.
Compliance with SCDHS regulations for wastewater gallons per day discharged to
groundwater.
Current groundwater quality, contamination and potential impact. Include potential
impact from new sanitary system, fertilizers, herbicides, Pharmaceuticals, personal care
products. There are particular concerns with nitrates, perchlorate, 1,4-dioxane, PPCPs,
VOCs and pesticides. Submit test well data, depth to groundwater, technology available
to mitigate impacts.
Compliance with Storm Water Management Regulations (Chapter 236 of Southold
Town Code)
Suffolk County Department of Health Services approvals will be required
Impacts of pesticides within 100 feet of potable drinking water, irrigation sources for
lawn/crops.
Magnitude, importance
Overall - 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; most
would be seasonal/vacation properties.
Impacts of Existing and Future Development On Ground Water Supply
Water Usage -We expect the average water usage for our future households to be 200-
300 gallons per day (gpd), including irrigation. This is based on USGS data (80-100 gpd per
person), and the Grace Communications Virtual Water Use Calculator and the Home
Waterworks calculator. If all 17 lots were developed, the maximum consumption would be
5,100 gallons per day (17 lots x 300 gpd).
Availability of Potable Water / Current Groundwater Quality – According to the Nassau
Suffolk Water Commissioners Association’s 2014-2018 report on “Our Long Island
Aquifers: The Basics”, Nassau and Suffolk counties obtain their drinking water from 3
major aquifers underlying Long Island, which constitute a sole source aquifer. The Upper
Glacial aquifer is the shallowest and provides water to most areas of the Town of Southold,
including Orient. The sole source of replenishment for the three aquifers is precipitation.
The report goes on to state: “Our aquifers are among the USA’s most prolific, containing an
estimated 90 trillion gallons of fresh water. All Long Island aquifers receive their fresh
water from precipitation, averaging some 44” of precipitation per annum”.
“Precipitation/snowmelt replenish more water than is pumped out annually…”
The Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (3.1.2.9) states,
“Water balances developed using the Main Body and East End groundwater flow models
confirm that recharge greatly exceeds water supply pumping rates, and the County’s
aquifer system can continue to meet current and projected rates of water supply pumping
on a County-wide basis”.
These two sources support that our project would not have a measureable impact on the
existing and future ground water supply and therefore would not have an impact on the
private or common wells adjoining our properties (zone of influences). The attached maps
show all the private wells and septic systems we were able to identify via certified letters
mailed August 1 and 3, 2016, and door-to-door canvassing on September 3, with an
additional certified letter to those who didn’t respond to earlier contact attempts.
# Private Wells Within 150’ Of Each Parcel (# lots within 150’ of Private Wells)
North Dyer South Dyer North Brown South Brown Total
6 (3)* 16 (1)** 7 (0) 2 (0) 31
*Test wells > 150’ from private wells for 2 lots; unknown private well location near
3rd lot
** Test well > 150’ from any private well
Saltwater Intrusion – Based on the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources
Management Plan (3.4.1.3), “There are several areas of potential saltwater intrusions,
primarily located on the North and South Forks, on Shelter Island, and in other coastal
areas of the North Shore”. “Saltwater intrusion is a relatively slow moving occurrence, with
rates of advance generally in the tens of feet per year”. The current recommendation is to
monitor saltwater intrusion via outpost wells in each of the areas of potential future
intrusion. There are no current intrusion areas mentioned and no recommendations being
made beyond monitoring. This indicates that there is no evidence that our proposed
project could cause saltwater intrusion either in our new wells or in nearby existing wells.
The SCDHS has not established a Maximum contaminant level (MCL) for Sodium (Na) in
their Water Analysis Standards. The Sodium levels in our test wells ranged from 11.6 to
59.5 mg/L. These levels are well below the ‘moderately restricted’ sodium diet level of 270
mg/L; 3 of our 9 test wells are below the ‘severely restricted’ sodium diet level of 20 mg/L.
Water Quality - SCDHS has completed water analysis from our test wells and all 4 parcels
have met NYSDOH Drinking Water standards, including for VOC’s, PPCP’s and Pesticides. In
fall 2016 we installed 6 test wells: 2 on North Brown, 1 on South Brown, 2 on South Dyer
and 1 on North Dyer. In December 2016, SCDHS conducted water analysis for the test wells
and one existing well on North Dyer. Final results were issued March 29, 2017. Nitrate
levels from South Brown and the two South Dyer test wells met the NYSDOH standards, but
exceeded the Suffolk County test well standards. Also, one of the South Dyer wells exceeded
the drinking water standard for iron.
As a result we were asked to install two additional test wells on South Dyer, which we did
in late summer 2017 to minimize farm disruption. Water samples were taken in October
2017, and final results were issued February 20, 2018. All results met NYSDOH Drinking
Water Standards and SCDHS test well standards. We were also requested to do another test
well on South Brown, but we elected not to do this at the time since we could address the
issue by installing a system to remove nitrate from the drinking water (i.e. ion exchange,
distillation or reverse osmosis). These systems could also be used if future problems arise
with VOCs, PPCPs or pesticides. Before we develop a lot on South Brown we will likely do
an additional test well, but didn’t feel the additional cost at this time was warranted.
Complete Water Analysis results are attached.
Depth to Groundwater Based on Test Well Static Water Level
Parcel Test Well # (SCDHS Request
#/Lot #)
Depth to Groundwater
North Dyer 1(PR16-0377 / Lot #1) 16’
2 (PR16-0375 / Lot #4) 18’
South Dyer
4 (PR16-0376 / Lot #4) 14’
2 (PR16-0378 / Lot #1) 10’
3 (PR16-0378 /Lot #2) 7’
1 (PR16-0376 / Lot #4) 9’
North Brown 1 (PR16-0373 / Lot #1) 65’
2 (PR16-0372 / Lot #5) 65’
South Brown 1 (PR16-0374 / Lot #1) 7’
Wastewater Discharge – The SCDHS Reclaim Our Water Septic Improvement Program
cites nitrogen pollution from cesspools and septic systems as the single largest cause of
degraded water quality. They calculate the average residential septic system discharges
~40 pounds of nitrogen per year.
In Robert L. Uebler, Ph.D Soil Scientist’s report on ‘How a Conventional Ground Absorption
Septic Tank System Treats Household Wastewater (attached), it explains Nitrogen is
present at 70mg/L in wastewater entering the septic system. When it leaves and enters the
soil, Nitrogen is present at 40 mg/l. The soil treats the suspended solids through filtration
and digestion by aerobic organisms. Most nitrogen is converted to positively charged
ammonia in the septic tank, which is attracted to negatively charged soil. The soil treatment
impact dilutes nitrogen to <10 mg/l, which is considered safe for reuse. This is the level of
nitrogen that could ultimately reach surface water. The SCDHS establishes standards to
ensure septic systems perform in this safe manner.
We are proposing traditional septic systems for our 17 lots. The Suffolk County Sanitary
Code (Article 6, Chapter 760-608 B. 1 a-d) approves individual sewerage systems for
projects outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V and VI; we are in Zone IV. We
meet additional requirements of minimum 20,000 s.f. lot size, and not being within an
existing sewer district, and we will comply with all other County and State requirements.
Our 60% Density reduction would decrease the potential septic system discharge to soil
from ~1,680 pounds of nitrogen/year to 680 pounds.
There are 678 House Units in Orient based on the 2009 Census. At full occupancy this
would represent 27,120 pounds of annual nitrogen discharge to soil. At full occupancy our
nitrogen discharge level of 680 pounds would represent a 2.5% increase to the nitrogen
impact.
Our parcels are in Groundwater Management Zone IV. The SCDHS has established a Design
Flow of 300 gpd for this Zone. Density for this Zone has been defined based on 40,000 s.f.
lots. The SCDHS has determined the impact on water supply demand, sustainability of the
aquifer, and wastewater discharge is acceptable at this level. Our project is based on
density at the 80,000/200,000 s.f. lot size and then reducing the # of lots by 60%. On this
basis, our level of impact on Water usage and wastewater discharge would be 22% of the
SCDHS allowable level, a sizeable reduction in impact.
Design Flow Comparison - #Lots (gpd water usage and wastewater discharge)
Parcel (Zoning
District)
SCDHS Yield* Zoning Yield Prop. Cons. Sub. Yield
North Dyer (R-80) 14 (4200) 8 (2400) 6 (1800)
South Dyer (R-80) 18 (5400) 10 (3000) 5 (1500)
North Brown (R-80) 25 (7500) 14 (4200) 5 (1500)
South Brown (R-80) 14 (5200) 8 (2400) 1 (300)
South Brown (R-200) 3 (900) 2 (600) --
Total 74 (23,200) 42 (12,600) 17 (5100)
* Based on 20,000 s.f. lots
The Suffolk County Reclaim Our Waters program has 4 Surface Waters Contributing Area
classifications regarding need for advanced wastewater treatment (see attached maps):
Priority #1
Priority #2
< 2 years Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Waters
2-25 year Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Waters
Our 4 parcels are in the < 2 year or 2-25 year, lower priority classification areas.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of potential impacts is low because our proposed water usage, wastewater
discharge system and discharge levels, and our design flow meet or exceed SCDHS
requirements. The Suffolk County Water Resource Management plan indicates that there is
adequate potable water supply for current and future demand in our locations and that
there are no current saltwater incursion threats in our areas. With one exception, we have
SCDHS approval for our Test Well analysis (water quality) and our Test Hole Soil analysis
(suitability for conventional septic systems). The South Brown Nitrate level was within
NYSDOH standards, but over the SCDHS test well standards. We can address the South
Brown situation either by locating another test well site that meets all standards or by
using filtration systems. Net, there is adequate potable water available, impact on the
aquifer and adjacent areas is acceptable, and our wastewater systems are acceptable
regarding groundwater impact.
Commercial Pesticide Concerns
Magnitude, importance - We have no pesticides outside of standards on any of our
parcels based on test well data. With the exception of the South Brown test well location,
we have test wells on South Dyer and North Brown that are more than 100’ from active
agriculture and we can place wells on all lots that would meet the 100’ setback. We would
need to confirm that any new wells would meet State and County standards, but this would
take place at a later date after subdivision approval from the Town of Southold.
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:
using native, drought-tolerant plants
Fertilizer applications
o nitrogen, phosphorous, or potassium only between November 1 and April 1.
o Lawn Fertilizer Applications:
Only if more than 20’ away from surface water or within 3’ of a 10’+
vegetative border; or within 3’ of surface water if the spreader has a
guard deflector shield or is a drop spreader
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.
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
phosphorus containing lawn fertilizer is prohibited unless
establishing a new lawn or soil test shows that the lawn does not
have enough phosphorus. The phosphorous level must be 0.67 or
lower unless a soil test indicates it’s needed.
prohibited on impervious surfaces. Any applications or spills must be
immediately picked up.
Mitigation of Groundwater Impact Already Taken
Our proposed density reduction reduces our potential Surface Water impact by eliminating the
need for 60% of the potential Wells and Wastewater systems. We are only utilizing 22% of the
water usage (gpd) and Wastewater discharge (gpd) allowable by the SCDHS. We have agreed to
use the required Subdivision best practice for landscaping our lots. While our Aquaculture
business does not directly link to Groundwater, eventually some nitrogen that is discharged to
soil and reaches groundwater will ultimately reach surface water. This means that the benefits
of our oysters removing Nitrogen from surface waters will also mitigate the impact of
wastewater going to groundwater.
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:
1.ND:
2.SD: 36103C0068H
3.NB:
4.SB:
Sketch Maps showing elevations attached:
1.ND
2.SD
3.NB
4.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 20.7 12.0 20.1 52.8
Proposed 0 15.9 12.0 18.9 46.8
Difference 0 -4.8 0 -1.2 -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 with conventional septic
systems in an area currently devoted to agriculture.
The SCDHS Reclaim Our Water Septic Improvement Program cites nitrogen pollution from
cesspools and septic systems as the single largest cause of degraded water quality. They
calculate the average residential septic system discharges ~40 pounds of nitrogen per year.
The Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Article 6, Chapter 760-608 B. 1 a-d) approves individual
sewerage systems for projects outside of Groundwater Management Zones III, V and VI; all
4 of our parcels are in Zone IV. We meet additional requirements of minimum 20,000 s.f. lot
size, and not being within an existing sewer district, and we will comply with all other
County and State requirements.
In Robert L. Uebler, Ph.D Soil Scientist’s report on ‘How a Conventional Ground Absorption
Septic Tank System Treats Household Wastewater (attached), it explains Nitrogen is
present at 70mg/L in wastewater entering the septic system. When it leaves and enters the
soil, Nitrogen is present at 40 mg/l. The soil treats the suspended solids through filtration
and digestion by aerobic organisms. Most nitrogen is converted to positively charged
ammonia in the septic tank, which is attracted to negatively charged soil. The soil treatment
impact dilutes nitrogen to <10 mg/l, which is considered
safe for reuse. This is the level of nitrogen that could ultimately reach surface water. The
SCDHS establishes standards to ensure septic systems perform in this safe manner.
Probability of occurrence of potential impacts
The probability of significant impacts is low since the Suffolk County Department of Health
Service has approved SD Test Well water analysis and Test Hole Soil analysis. This confirms
that we have adequate potable water, that there is no evidence of salt water incursion and
that the soil conditions are acceptable for conventional septic systems.
The SCDHS has established a Design Flow of 300 gpd water usage and wastewater
discharge for Zone IV (SD). Density for this Zone has been defined based on 40,000 s.f. lots.
The SCDHS has determined the impact on water supply demand, sustainability of the
aquifer, and wastewater discharge is acceptable at this level. The proposed South Dyer
design is based on density of 80,000 s.f. lots and then reducing the # of lots by 50%, which
would significantly lower Ground and Surface water impacts versus the Suffolk County
Health Department Design Flow Standards. Specifically, SD’s impact would be only 28% of
the SCDHS Yield level and half the Zoning Yield -- a sizeable reduction in impact.
South Dyer Design Flow Comparison - #Lots (gpd water usage and wastewater discharge)
Parcel (Zoning
District)
SCDHS Yield* Zoning Yield Prop. Cons. Sub. Yield
South Dyer (R-80) 18 (5400) 10 (3000) 5 (1500)
* Based on 20,000 s.f. lots
The Suffolk County Reclaim Our Waters program has 4 Surface Waters Contributing Area
classifications regarding need for advanced wastewater treatment (see attached maps):
Priority #1
Priority #2
< 2 years Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Waters
2-25 year Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Waters
South Dyer is in the < 2 year, lower priority classification area.
Mitigation Already Taken -
Density reduction of 50% cuts potential impact in half.
Our Oysterponds Shellfish Aquaculture operation on SD is improving the quality of the
Peconic Bays by removing Nitrogen from the water. 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.
In 2017 we shipped over 700,000 oysters, which represents elimination of 1,610 pounds of
Nitrogen from the Peconic Bay areas. This is 8 times the estimated maximum annual
nitrogen discharge for our SD proposal. Since the business started in 2003, we have
shipped about 2,000,000 oysters, which eliminated 4,600 pounds of nitrogen – 23 times the
estimated SD maximum annual discharge.
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/importance -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 1.7 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.
3. 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. 9.2 11.7 16.0 9.3 6.4 52.7
Sub.
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 6 to 23 acres, a 12% to 44% 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.
4. Alternative Wastewater Management Systems
Suffolk County Initiated an innovative and alternative onsite wastewater treatment system
(I/A OWTS) Demonstration Project in 2014. The purpose of the program is to assess the
design, operation, maintenance, installation, and overall ability of I/A OWTS technology to
meet nitrogen reduction objectives. Demonstration systems were installed in 19 year
round residences between June 24, 2015 and February 29, 2016. Technologies that
maintained an average of 19 mg/l Total Nitrogen (TN) or better for 75% of all systems
tested for a minimum of 6 months were granted provisional approval.
2016 I/A OTWS Demo Performance in Suffolk County
Technology Average mg/l TN Provisional Use Approval
Hydro-Action AN Series 11.6 Approved September 2016
Norweco Singulair TNT 18.3 Approved October 2016
Orenco AX-RT Series 18.5 Approved March 2017
Norweco Hydro-Kinetic 17.5 Approved April 2017
Orenco AX Series 21.6 Cannot Project Approval
Busse MMF 72.3 Cannot Project Approval
One additional system was approved for Provisional use in January 2018: Fuji Clean CEN.
There is no cap on the amount of Provisional systems that may be installed in year-round
residences. There are no systems approved for General use at this time and no testing has
been done on Seasonal Residences.
For reference, Robert Uebler, PhD Soil Scientist states conventional septic systems
discharge 40 mg/l nitrate to soil. This is about double the levels for the I/A systems
approved for Provisional use. The conventional system’s nitrate discharge is positively
charged and attracted to negatively charged soil where it is affected by aerobic nitrifying
bacteria and dilutes to < 10 mg/l which is safe for re-use.
I/A OTWS technology is a promising way to reduce nitrogen discharge entering the soil, but
it’s not clear how much better it is versus a conventional septic system’s impact after soil
treatment. The cost of I/A OTWS technology is 2-4 times that for a conventional septic
system. Maintenance and servicing are also more expensive. Most I/A systems discharge
Nitrogen to the air, which can also cause environmental contamination. The system start-
up involves adding Nitrogen to activate the bacteria that processes the nitrogen and this
can take 3 months before the system can be used. There is limited data available on using
these systems in seasonal residences, but the owners’ manuals indicate special
maintenance is required and potentially a new start-up procedure. This could be very
inconvenient if a seasonal resident needs to re-set the system 3 months in advance of using
it each year, in addition to the extra cost for servicing the system. When a conventional
septic system is not in use, no nitrogen is being added to the environment, but I/A OWTS
technology seems to need constant Nitrogen to work.
The SCDHS has a system for classifying areas in the county that need advanced wastewater
treatment. Our parcels are in the lower priority areas (#3 and #4).
1. Priority 1 – Unsewered Residential
2. Priority 2 – Unsewered Residential
3. 0-2 year Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Water
4. 2-25 year Baseflow Contributing Areas to Surface Water
IMPACT ON FARMED LAND -- ACRES*
Total Buildable Acres ND SD NB SB Total
15.38 19.43 26.68 26.29 87.78
Proposed 80/60 Conservation Subdivision Versus Current
Agriculture -- Includes Land For Equipment Access and Auxilliary Structures Aquaculture Total
ND SD NB SB Total SD Farmed
Current 0 20.7 12.0 20.1 52.8 4.9 57.7
Proposed 0 15.9 12.0 18.9 46.8 4.9 51.7
Diff Prop vs Curr - Acres 0 -4.8 0.0 -1.2 -6.0 0.0 -6.0
Diff Prop vs Curr - %0 -23%0%-6%-11%0%-10%
Standard Subdivision Versus Current and Proposed Conservation Subdivision
Agriculture -- Includes Land For Equipment Access and Auxilliary Structures Aquaculture Total
ND SD NB SB Total SD Farmed
Minimum Impact **0 12.9 12.0 15.8 40.7 4.9 45.6
Versus Current - Acres 0 -7.8 0.0 -4.3 -12.1 0.0 -12.1
Versus Current - %0%-38%0%-22%-23%0%-21%
Versus Proposed - Acres 0 -3.0 0.0 -3.1 -6.1 0.0 -6.1
Versus Proposed - %0%-19%0%-16%-13%0%-12%
Maximum Impact **0 12.9 1.4 9.6 23.9 4.9 28.8
Versus Current - Acres 0 -7.8 -10.7 -10.5 -29.0 0.0 -29.0
Versus Current - %0%-38%-89%-52%-55%0%-50%
Versus Proposed - Acres 0.0 -3.0 -10.7 -9.3 -22.9 0.0 -22.9
Versus Proposed - %0%-19%-89%-49%-49%0%-44%
*Buildable Acres except Unbuildable for all Aquaculture and 1.26 Agriculture Acres on
SD
** Minimum Impact based on lots placed in all non farmed area first and remaining in currently farmed area
Maximum Impact based on lots placed in all currently farmed area