HomeMy WebLinkAboutPBA-09/09/2019 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex �Qf so P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 ®� ®1 Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold, NY Telephone: 631765-1938
�s www.southoldtownny.gov
UNT`I �
CO
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE RECEIVED
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD r i f
SEP X11 2019e4�� Q-3 '
0',
So old Town Clerk
MEMORANDUM -
To: Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
From: Jessica Michaelis, Planning Department I*A
Date: September 12, 2019
Re: September 9, 2019 Planning Board Public Meeting
Attached please find the Final Agenda and Approved Resolutions from the
September 9, 2019 Planning Board Public Meeting. A Records Transmittal
Form has been submitted to Records Management.
OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex ,e®f S®�j� P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 Southold,®�® Southold, NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold NY Telephone: 631 765-1938
www.southoldtownny.gov
COU
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED
PUBLIC MEETING �, l 4
AGENDA SEP 1 1 201A3'o8P1V\
0' n
September 9, 2019 guthold Town,Clerk
6:00 p.m.
Southold Town Meeting Hall
SETTING OF THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING
Board to set Monday, October 7, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at the Southold Town Hall, Main
Road, Southold, as the time and place for the next regular Planning Board Meeting.
SUBDIVISIONS - STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT
(SEQRA — Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS))
Tuthill Conservation Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) —
This is to accept the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tuthill Conservation
Subdivision. This proposal is for an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision of four parcels
(total area=112 acres) into 17 residential lots, with 94 acres to be preserved. The
properties are located on Main Road in Orient in the R-80 and R-200 Zoning districts.
SCTM#'s 1000-17-4-16, 1000-17-6-14.2, 1000-18-3-30.3 and 1000-18-6-17.3.
SUBDIVISIONS
Extension of Time to Render Preliminary Plat Determination:
Mazzoni Subdivision —This proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a 22.94 acre
parcel into 5 lots where Lot 1 = 2.34 acres, Lot 2 = 1.78 acres, Lot 3 = 2.18 acres, Lot 4
= 0.56 acres, Lot 5 = 16.06 acres inclusive of a 0.97 acre right-of-way, 8.58 acres of
Open Space and 6 acres of a Conservation Easement held by the Peconic Land Trust
(PLT) located in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 500 Soundview
Drive, approximately 782' to the north of NYS Route 25 and 256' to the east of Sound
View Drive, Orient. SCTM#1000-13-2-8.2
Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 September 9, 2019
SITE PLANS
Approval Extension:
East End Tick & Mosquito Pest Control - This Site Plan is for the proposed
conversion of an existing building to a single family dwelling with an attached business
office with six (6) parking stalls on 0.25 acres in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning
District. The property is located at 36570 Route 25, ±420' s/w/o of Skunk Lane & Main
Road, Cutchogue. SCTM#1000-97-3-2
APPROVAL OF PLANNING BOARD MINUTES
• July 29, 2019
• August 5, 2019
OFFICE LOCATION: - �: ,. MAILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex �1f , P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 .,:. Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) ;
-'
Telephone:631 765-1938
Southold,NY -0
www.southoldtownny.gov
Z' 'OUa
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 10, 2019
Michael A. Kimack, Esq.
321 Riverside Drive
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Extension of Approval
Site Plan for East End Tick & Mosquito Pest Control
36570 Main Rd., ±420' s/w/o of Skunk Lane & Main Road, Cutchogue
SCTM#1000-97-3-2 Zoning District: Limited Business (LB)
Dear Mr. Kimack:
The following resolution was adopted at a meeting of the Southold Town Planning
Board on Monday, September 9, 2019:
WHEREAS, this Site Plan Application is for the proposed conversion of an existing
building to a single family dwelling with an attached business office with six (6) parking
stalls on 0.25 acres in the Limited Business (LB) Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2018, the Planning Board granted approval with conditions,
including one to be met prior to the Chairman endorsing the site plan, to the Site Plan
shown on the survey for SCTM#1000-97.-3-2, prepared by John T. Metzger, LLS, dated
November 1, 2012 and last revised March 1, 2017; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2019, the applicant obtained Highway Work Permit
#20191078547 from the New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) as
required by condition of approval; and
WHEREAS, on August 22, 2019, the applicant submitted a letter requesting an
Extension of Site Plan Approval and provided reasoning that obtaining the Highway
Work Permit from the NYSDOT took longer than anticipated; and
East End Tick & Mosquito Page 2 September 10;°20'i9,
WHEREAS, at a Work Session held on September 9, 2019, the Planning Board
reviewed the application and determined that the expired Site Plan was in compliance
with current rules and regulations and granted an extension of one year to March 9,
2021; and
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board grants an Extension of Site Plan
Approval for eighteen (18) months from September 9, 2019 to March 9, 2021 to the
Site Plan shown on the survey for SCTM#1000-97.-3-2, prepared by John T. Metzger,
LLS, dated November 1, 2012 and last revised March 1, 2017.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please contact this office.
s
Respectfully,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
cc: Michael Verity, Chief Building Inspector
OFFICE LOCATION: 1\IA_LING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex Q�•45 P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25 �Q 4 Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Southold,NY ;•n Telephone: 631 765-1938
cn www.southoldtownny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE `
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 10, 2019
Karen Hoeg, Esq.
Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley, Dubin & Quartaro, LLP
P.O. Box 9398
Riverhead, NY 11901
Re: Extension of Time to Render a Preliminary Plat Determination
Proposed Standard Subdivision for Mazzoni
Located at 500 Soundview Drive, approximately 782' to the north of NYS Route
25 and 256'to the east of Soundview Drive, Orient
SCTM#1000-13-2-8.2 Zoning District: R-80
Dear Ms. Hoeg:
The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolution at a meeting held
on Monday, September 9, 2019:
WHEREAS, this proposal is for a Standard Subdivision of a 22.94 acre parcel into 5 lots
where Lot 1 = 2.34 acres, Lot 2 = 1.78 acres, Lot 3 = 2.18 acres, Lot 4 = 0.56 acres, Lot
5 = 16.06 acres inclusive of a .97 acre right-of-way, 8.58 acres of Open Space and 6
acres of a Conservation Easement held by the Peconic Land Trust (PLT) located in the
R-80 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the Southold Town Code,
has 62 days to render a Preliminary Plat Determination after the Preliminary Plat Public
Hearing is closed; and
WHEREAS, the Preliminary Plat Public Hearing was closed on July 9, 2018; and
WHEREAS, Southold Town Planning Board and the applicant have mutually agreed to
extend the timeframe to render a Preliminary Plat Determination from August 5, 2019 to
January 6, 2020; therefore be it
Mazzoni Standard-Subdivision Pae 12 September 10, 2019
RESOLVED, that the timeframe to render a Preliminary Plat:Determination is hereby
mutually extended from August 5, 2019 to January 6, 2020.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please
contact the Planning Board Office.
Respectfully, ;
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
5
OFFICE LOCATION: AL&ILING ADDRESS:
Town Hall Annex P.O.Box 1179
54375 State Route 25C , Southold,NY 11971
(cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.)
Telephone:631765-1938
Southold,NY • www.southolc1townny.gov
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
September 10, 2019
Mr. Reginald Tuthill
Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
P.O. Box 86
Orient, NY 11957
Re: SEAR FEIS Acceptance Determination
Proposed Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
Located at 21505 Route 25
SCTM#1 000-17-4-16, 1000-17-6-14.2, 1000-18-3-30.3, and 1000-18-6-17.3 Zoning
District: R-80 and R-200
Dear Mr. Tuthill:
The Southold Town Planning Board adopted the following resolutions at a meeting held on
Monday, September 9, 2019:
WHEREAS, on March 23, 2016 the Southold Town Planning Board, as Lead Agency, found
that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
dated February 11, 2016 inadequate for public review; and
WHEREAS, on, September 14, 2018 the applicant submitted a revised DEIS; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2019 the applicant submitted a one page amendment to the original
DEIS submission which has also been reviewed; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2019 the Planning Board determined the DEIS to be adequate and
ready for public review; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 2019 a public hearing on the DEIS was held and extended for two
weeks for written comment to March 25, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board found that the number and content of substantive public
comments on the potential moderate to large impacts to cultural resources required further
coordination with the New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation and
Native American Tribes, and
F ,ith ill Cc !: setvat! a !l Page ? September 10 , 201 -0
S ib -,' ivj -, ion
WHEREAS, this coordination involved numerous meetings and site visits to the North Brown
and South Brown properties and prompted the need to extend the completion time to prepare
the FEIS; therefore be it
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board, pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, hereby accepts the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Tuthill Conservation Subdivision, dated as received September 9, 2019; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the Southold Town Planning Board hereby authorizes the Planning Board
Chairman to submit the Notice of Completion pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing
regulations pertaining to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law.
If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this resolution, please contact
the Planning Board Office.
Respectfully,
Donald J. Wilcenski
Chairman
Enck
cc:
Scott Russell, Southold Town Supervisor
Southold Town Clerk for Southold Town Board ;
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold Town Building Department ;
Southold Town Engineer
Southold Town Police Department
Southold Town Local Waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator
Southold Town Architectural Review Committee
Southold Town Highway Department
Southold Fire District
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Suffolk County Water Authority
Suffolk County Planning Commission
Suffolk County Legislator
NYS DEC - Stony Brook
NYS DEC - Commissioner
NYS Department of Transportation
NYS Department of State
NYS Natural Heritage Program
Environmental Notice Bulletin
File
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
TUTHILL OYSTERPONDS HOLDING COMPANY
HAMLET OF ORIENT,TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY,NEW YORK
PROJECT LOCATION: Orient,Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York
SUFFOLK COUNTY
TAX MAP NUMBERS: Sections 1000-17.-4-16
1000-17.-6-14.2
1000-18.-3-30.3
1000-18.-6-17.3
1000-18.-6-18.1
APPLICANT: Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
Contact: Carol Tuthill,Managing Director
Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
s
LEAD AGENCY: Town of Southold Planning Board
P.O.Box 1179
54375 Main Road
Southold,New York 11971
Contact: Donald Wilcenski, Chairman
(631) 765-1938
PREPARER & CONTACT: This Final Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared by:
Town of Southold Planning Department
Southold Town Annex
54375 State Route 25
P.O.Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Contact: Mark B.Terry, AICP
Assistaiit Tmwn Planning Directnr
(631) 765-1938
DATE OF PREPARATION: September 2019
AVAILABILITY OF
DOCUMENT: This document,together with the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement(DEIS),is the Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS). It has been prepared for the Lead Agency. Copies are -
available for public review and comment at the offices of the
Lead Agency,54375 Route 25, Southold,New York 11971.This
FEIS is also available electronically at the following address:
http:l/www.SOLl thold townny_gov,
DATE OF FILING: September 11,2019
a
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)for the
Tuthill Oysterponds Holding Company
This FEIS incorporates,by reference,the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for this
proposed action, submitted February 11,2016 and revised September 14,2018.The above-
referenced DEIS was the subject of a Town of Southold Planning Board Public Hearing on
March 11,2019, and written comments on the DEIS were accepted until March 25, 2019.
The Written Correspondence and Public Hearing Transcript are provided in Appendices A and
B of this FEIS,respectively.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'
~~~^...^^~^ ....................................................................................................................................-,.........................-
l'1 Format ofFEIS ....... .......=-_-,..................... ...... ~ ...........................2 �
DEISConoumrtsundResponses...............................................................................................................................3
2.1 Comments inGeneral Support ofthe Proposed Action.......................................................4
2.2 Comments buGeneral Opposition ofthe Proposed Action..................................................4 �
�
2.3 Responses toSubstantive Comments......_-,r.............. ......
--�r�r-----------II `
/
2.31 Water °^ .. � ................................. _' _-_1�
' ''' .` r~^~'~ '-~^ '' '
2.32 Vegetationand Wildlife,Utilities and Storm Water .....................16 �
2.3.3 Transportation, Safety and Access .~" ........°.........................,,-~'20 �
�
23.4 Land Use and Zoning ................ . ....... ....... ........................ ...........23
^
�
2.3.5 Aeatbetics .----...-.----.,—..-......-... ...... ............... .......24 `
23.6. Cultural Resources ..............................' ..............
,.,°'...`..31 '
'
2.37 Process .......... ................._ ...... ............................'............... ......
APPENDICES
~.4U �
�
�
Appendix A-Writteo Correspondence '
Appendix B-Public Hearing Transcripts March ll, 20l9 '
Table of Cojitejits
�
LIST OF FIGURES
f
Figure 1. Town of Southold Orient Historic District Map overlay on the South Dyer parcel.....37
Figure 2. NYS Cultural Resource Information System Orient Historic District Boundary and
area on the South Dyer parcel where a Phase IB Archeological Survey was conducted(Green
Polygon)........ , ...................................... ......................... ...........38
i
Table of Contents
Introduction
This document is a Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS) prepared in accordance with
the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) 6 NYCRR 617.9(x)(5), and in response to
comments received by the lead agency, the Town of Southold Planning Board (hereinafter the s
"Plaiuzing Board"), on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the proposed
action, dated September 14, 2019.
The DEIS for the proposed action was accepted by the Planning Board, as complete and
adequate for public review, on February 11,2019, and circulated to all the involved agencies
and interested parties, and a public hearing was held on March 11, 2019 and the comment
period was held open until March 25,2019.
In accordance with 6 NYCRR§617.9(b)(8):
A final EIS must consist of. the draft EIS, including any revisions or supplements to it; copies or
a sumnianj of the substantive comments received and their source(whether or not the connnents
were received in the context of a hearing);and the lead agency's responses to all substantive
comments. The draft EIS may be directly incorporated into the final EIS or may be incorporated
by reference. The lead agency is responsible for the adequacy and accuracy of the final EIS,
regardless of who prepares it.All revisions and supplements to the draft EIS must be specifically
indicated and identified as such in the final EIS.
All written correspondence received during the comment period is included in Appendix A of
this FEIS, and the Public Hearing Transcripts are included in Appendix B.
7
1.1 Format of FEIS
Among the comments received on the DEIS,multiple commenters expressed general support or
opposition for the proposed action (see Appendix A and Appendix B).While these comments
are included in the aforementioned appendices, they are not"substantive comments" as
contemplated in 6 NYCRR§617.9(b)(8), and, therefore, are not individually addressed in this
FEIS.
All verbal comments made during the public hearing held on March 11,2019, were assigned a
code that begins with "H." Each commenter who provided written correspondence in response
to the DEIS was assigned a code beginning with"W." All written comments are provided in
their entirety in Appendix A.
5
The hearing transcript,with comment designations,is included in Appendix B of this FEIS.
Section 2.0 provides a complete list of commenters with their assigned code.
Substantive comments were primarily related to the following topics and have been categorized
as such:Water Resources,Vegetation and Wildlife,Transportation, Safety and Access, Land Use ;
Zoning, Aesthetics and Process. The written and hearing comments have been paraphrased,
since, in many cases, more than one commenter made the same or similar comment.
2
DEIS Comments and Responses
All written correspondence is included in Appendix A of this FEIS. The public hearing transcripts
are included as Appendices B (March 11, 2019). The following sections summarize the comments
set forth in the written correspondence and stated during the public hearings, and provides
responses to substantive comments.The following is a list of commenters whose substantive
comments are addressed herein. Note that commenters who offered substantive comments in more
than one piece of written correspondence or at more than one of the public hearings,will appear in
the list multiple times.Both substantive and general comments, in either support or opposition of
the proposed action, are included in the list.
,Public Hdaring—March 11,2019
Commenter Code
Lyle Tuthill HI
Edward Webb H2
Joel Klein,Ph.D. H3
Suzanne Horton H4
Venetia Hands H5
Nancy Kardwell H6
Jesse Gordon H7
Jerry Newman H8
Deborah ivlarkland H9
Glynis Berry H70
3
"Written Correspondence
Commenter Code
John&Thanne Dispenza W1
Orient Association W2
Joel I.Klien,Ph.D. W3
David Backus W4
Kenneth Terry W5
Jerie R.Newman W6
f
Mary Morgan W7
Deborah Marland W8
James Haag W9
Barry Bergdoll&William W10
Carmela Constantino W11
Barry Bergdoll&WilIiam W10 `
2.1 Support of the Proposed Action
H7 -Lyle Tuthill
> General support of project and the conservation subdivision approach.
2.2 Comments in General Opposition of the
Proposed Action
H2—Edward Webb -SouthDver
> Concerned about the lots located on South Dyer and within the Orient Historic District.
> DEIS incorrectly states that the subdivision parcels are adjacent to the Orient Historic
District.
4
> Any construction on the lots located within the Orient Historic District will be subject to
review by the Historical Preservation Commission.
> The DEIS does not show how the visual setting of the Orient Historical District would be
affected.
> The DEIS does not mentioned individually,listed Town landmarks that are within or close
to lots.
> The DEIS implies that it will be the applicant who will determine what is appropriate,
> Requests a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to address the identified
outstanding issues.
T 3 Joel Klin
> Concerned about the adequacy information in the DEIS pertaining to historic and
archeological properties.
> Concerned that potential impacts to the Orient Historic District have not been adequately
considered.
> No View Shed Analysis was carried out with this project.The Visual Impact Study that was
performed for the project was a study of the aesthetic impact of the project on the Route 25
scenic byway.It did not specifically address visual impacts to historical properties,most
significantly, the Orient Historic District and numerous historic structures along Route 25
located outside the Historic District.
> The DEIS is deficient in how it deals with potential impacts to archeological sites.
> Concerns on the protection of the previously known Native American Sites on South Brown; ;
an expected major habitation site. No attempt was made to delineate boundaries of this site
within the South Brown parcel, apparently,because the investigator recommended a Phase
Two intensive testing investigation to collect more information.However,he also states that
this need not be done until prior to groundbreaking or construction.This was a serious error
for several reasons: One, the absence of a specific condition in the site plan approval, the
applicant cannot be required to conduct any archeological investigations and two, the
discovery of a significant archeological site on a given parcel either before or during
construction could render the parcel unusable or usable only after the expenditure of
considerable sums to salvage any discovered remains—which could include human remains
—in this case.
> The Phase Two investigation should have been required as part of the DEIS process to
eliminate the potential problem of a discovery being made on an approved buildirng lot by
allowing the relocation of the proposed lot outside the limits of the archeological site and
provide more permanent preservation of the archeological site within the conservation
subdivision.
> The NY State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has never commented on the Phase 1-B
report or concurred with its recommendations- although it was submitted to the SHPO
somehine prior to the spring of 2018. The reason for this is that on June 11, 2018, the SHPO
requested that the Planning Department provide updated project plans because the areas
investigated during the Phase 1-B study: "" ..do not correspond with the area of potential
fact that was initially submitted for this project."
> The final DEIS contains only a single pdge of uiigiiidl test dealing with historic resources
including archeological sites. Only foto-sentences deal with archeology.
> The DEIS also includes the three page text of the Phase 1-B report,but the 50 pages of maps,
photos and data appendices have been redacted, it is unclear why this was done.
> Concerns about how the DEIS process was handled;no formal scoping was done for this
project.
> Concerns about the organization of the DEIS and why some people could access the
documents and others could not.
H4—Suzanne Horton
> What are the guarantees associated with that land never being built upon in the future?
> It is R-80 zoning,which usually you have two acre lots. Is that part of a deal to give up that
conservation land from preservation so that they can get smaller lots in that area for their
family?
H5 Venetia Hands -South Dyer
> Glad it's an 80-20 conservation subdivision.
> Wants to know what size the houses shown in the Visual Impact Study on South Dyer are,
what is the actual square footage of those houses being represented there?
> Concerned that the Visual Impact Analysis does not show the maximum house size.
> Concerned that there are not regulations that mandate that the future homes are designed to
fit into Orient in style and size.
> We are told by the Visual Impact Study that there are lots of houses in Orient that are at
least 40,000 square feet.Yeah,has anyone seen one of those?Would you tell me where they
are so we can go look at them please?And would you tell us what size Iot they're on?Are
they on an acre?And how visible they are from Route 25?
> Is there some way the family can specify a limit on house size?Something less than
maximum build out?And what might that limit be?
> I'm wondering if there's a way that the Tuthill family, and you, can set a limit of 6,000
square feet then to the houses that can be built there?
> Asked the Planning Board to confirm what square footage is shown for each house in the
Visual Impact Study on South Dyer.
> Does this acreage fall within the Orient Historical Preservation District?And we've heard
about that and what does that mean?
> Will homeowners and builders be required to install the most advanced wastewater systems
available at the time that they build, in all of these lands?
> And I think this is what I understand is the difference between Visual Impact and View
shed, we're looking only from Route 25.
> View shed was very limited in the Visual Impact Study.What happens if you're standing on
Skippers Lane? Or Oyster Ponds Lane?Or even in your garden on Village Lane on the back?
What happens when you're looking, when you're out sailing?It hasn't been looked at in its
totality
l-lta—t�lanc,r (.:arCf���t�ll
> Is the height restriction of the house 35 feet in Orient?
> Concerned about water supply.
t;
> If the town has looked into (water supply) and if there is any plan for moratorium on
building that's in the present or in the future?
> Very supportive of their efforts.
Hi Jesse Gordon.-North Brown
> North Brown—Requests that the access road be placed on western end (boundary) of lot
due to fewer homes,better safety and less curb cuts.
> Relocation of the road would be better ecologically and not break up three farms fields
trying to preserve as open land.Utility lines and power poles would run through middle of
lands that trying to be preserved.
> Did not see any analysis of the impact that the construction of those parcels would have on
the bluff.
> Requests that the Planning Board insist upon an analysis of the stability of that bluff and the
impact of all the drainage from that area(lots and farm)is going to have on that bluff.
H8—Deborah Marland
> Concerned about timeframe to answer questions.
H9— erie Newman -Sou th Deer
> Concerned about devaluation of property with view interrupted from residence.
H10—Glynis Berry—South Dver
> Required clarification of process.
> What happens if we discover that these markup houses are 4,000 square feet footprint and
8,000 square feet totality—what are you going to do?
W1 -,Tohn and Thanne Dispenza-South Over
> Concerned with the four lots proposed on South Dver and how it will impact the view of
shed of Orient and Oysterponds Lane.
> Recommends the approval of two lots rather than four with the remaining transferred to
one of the three other parcels.
W2—Orient Association —South Dver
> Voices appreciation for the TuthilI's to undertake a Conservation Subdivision.
> Seek an accurate rendering of house sizes in the visual impact study conducted for South
Dyer
> Mentions Orient Hamlet Plan and resident endorsement of maximum allowable house sizes
and to preserve view sheds.
> Requests Thal the Tuthill Subdivision Visual Impact Study accurately depict the maximurn
allowable house size to the bulk schedule regulations without accessory structures.
> Concerns about the R-80 and R-40 setbacks and the possibility of a 16,000 square foot homes.
7
> Concerned that the visual impact study did not take into account Oysterponds Lane and
Skippers Lane.
> Identifies the 4 lot option on South Dyer as the preferred option.
> Recommends the use of I/A OWTS.
W3-Toe] Klein
> Concerned about the adequacy information in the DEIS pertaining to historic and
archeological properties.
> Concerned that potential impacts to the Orient Historic District have not been adequately
considered.The Orient Historic District is not adjacent to the project, the five proposed South
Dyer building lots and their associated house are all located within the district.
> No View Shed Analysis was carried out with this project.The Visual Impact Study that was
performed for the project was a study of the aesthetic impact of the project on the Route 25
scenic byway.It did not specifically address visual impacts to historical properties, most
significantly, the Orient Historic District and numerous historic structures along Route 25
located outside the Historic District.
> Views observed by pedestrians,bicyclists, and motorists traveling through the Orient
Historic District, particularly along Racketts Court, OysterPonds Lane, and Skippers Lane,
will be changed to an unknown degree (unknown because these views, which are clearly
within the Project viewshed, were never considered during the impact analysis).Views
both of and from several individual historic properties within the Orient Historic District,
which are also designated Southold Historic Landmarks, will also be affected
> The DEIS is deficient in how it deals with potential impacts to archeological sites.
> Concerns on the protection of the previously known Native American Sites on South Brown;
an expected major habitation site. No attempt was made to delineate boundaries of this site
within the South Brown parcel, apparently,because the investigator recommended a Phase
Two intensive testing investigation to collect more information. However,he also states that
this need not be done until prior to groundbreaking or construction.This was a serious error
for several reasons: One, the absence of a specific condition u1 the site plan approval, the
applicant cannot be required to conduct any archeological investigations and two, the
discovery of a significant archeological site on a given parcel either before or during
construction could render the parcel unusable or usable only after the expenditure of
considerable sums to salvage any discovered remains—which could include human remains
—in this case.
> The Phase Two uivestigation should have been required as part of the DEIS process to
eliminate the potential problem of a discovery being made on an approved building lot by
allowing the relocation of the proposed lot outside the limits of the archeological site and
provide more permanent preservation of the archeological site within the conservation
subdivision
> The SHBO has never commented on the Phase 1-B report or concurred with its
recommendations- although it was submitted to the SHBG sometime prior to the spring of
2018 The reason for this is that on June 11, 2018, the SHBO requested that the Planning
Department provide updated project plans because the areas investigated during the Phase
1-B study. "...clu iiot co,iespond with the area of potential fact that was initially submitted
for this project."
Is
> The final DEIS contains only a single page of original text dealing with historic resources
including archeological sites. Only four sentences deal with archeology.
> The DEIS also includes the three page text of the Phase 1-B report,but the 50 pages of maps,
photos and data appendices have been redacted,it is unclear why this was done.
> Concerns about how the DEIS process was handled;no formal scoping was done for this
project.
> Concerns about the organization of the DEIS and why some people could access the
documents and others could not. ;
W4•—David•:B'akus.—Nyrth B'rdwn
> Concerned about the location of the access road on North Brown and adverse impacts on
farming,vistas and wildlife habitat.
W5—Kevin Terr`u
> Concerns about adverse impacts to the aquifer.Mentions that the aquifer is sole source and
periods of drought.
> Mentions surface contamination to the aquifers by chemical or environmental contaminants.
Identifies impacts and fresh water well contamination in Orient from the use of Aldicarb,a
toxic pesticide now banned.Residents had to filter water using carbon filters.
> Requests that a hydrogeoloo c impact assessment be included that addresses saltwater
intrusion and sea level rise. ;
W6.-Eerie R.Newman--South Liver
> Very concerned about impacts to the scenic view from her property at 790 Oysterponds
Lane.
W7-1,tiry Morgan—North grown
> Concerned about the increased traffic and pedestrians on NYS Route 25.
> Requests that the access road for the North Brown parcel is placed on the west property
boundary where existing access road (farm road) currently exists.
W8—Deborah Marland—North Brown
> Concerned about the proposed access road on North Brown parcel and the proximity to
existing homes.There are 6 homes on the eastern border and 2 on the east.
> Proposes to move the access road frown the east to the west border.
> Identifies advantages of such a move as it would create one curb cut, lessen chances of
accidents from ferry traffic and a lower elevation with less runoff.
W9 1a hi s 1-Iag'-
> Identifies the character of Orient as important and is concerned about the 17 lots adversely
impacting the community and scenic character.
9
W10—Barry Ber4ddlI&.William Ryall—North Brown,
> Requests that the access road for North Brown parcel be located on the west property line.
> The eastern edge is occupied by a hedgerow and property what is protected by a
conservation easement.Relocation of the road would prevent the interruption of protected ;
lands(landscape).
> Would also concentrate accesses.
Y
W1 1 -C armela"Gonstantino�—North Brown
> Concerned about the proposed access road on North Brown parcel and the proximity to
existing homes. Noise and dust from the road.
> Proposes to move the access road from the east to the west border.
> Identifies advantages of such a move as it would create one curb cut, lessen chances of
accidents from ferry traffic and a lower elevation with less runoff.
W12--Io Ann Crinstali'tulo—North Brown
> Concerned about the proposed access road on North Brown parcel and the proximity to
house, disturbance and storm water. Noise and dust from the road.
> Requests to move the access road from the east to the west border.
W13—Mary Ellen Stevens s
> Opposed to proposal and alternative.
> Concerned about the SEQRA assessment and adverse impacts on the environment from
fertilizers, chemicals, water supply,fishing and shellfishing.
> Concerned about impacts to open space on South Dyer and visual impacts.
> Concerned about the disturbance to Orient Historic District.
> Requests a housing size limit, controls on water usage and adverse impacts on scenic
character and water quality.
> Would like all subdivisions to stop. r
W14—Leslie Black Robeft Black. Rick Pevsei-and tan Poyser
> General opposition.
> Concerned about the adverse impacts on the environment,history aesthetic and community
character iiuludnhg building in the Orient Historic District.
> , Concerned about the building of large homes_
> Requests that no variances from zoning or lot size be granted.
> Requests moratorium on permitted house sizes.
VV14—Alex Pearlstein and Bill Adanhs—North Brown
> Concerned about the traffic and safety on SR 25.
> Requests moving access road on North Brown parcel to ivestern edge.
> Identifies eastern side location as dangerous.
> There are two parallel dirt roads on the western edge that could become subdivision road.
10
> Close proximity of 6 houses on east side and only 2 on west side.
> There is animal habitat on eastern border that would be destroyed,potential for disruption
by utilities,risk of runoff and higher elevation.
W 15-=William'MrNnught--North Brown
> Concerned about the location of the access road on North Brown,the proximity of 6 houses <
and adverse impacts.
> Mentions the adverse impact to farmland views.
> Requests moving access road on North Brown parcel to western boundary.
2.3 Responses to Substantive
Comments
2.3.1 Water Resources
Comments C2 C5 C13`
Commenters voiced concerns on water resources and the potential adverse impacts to groundwater
quantity from use and groundwater and surface water quality from sanitary waste.
Response
1. Impacts from Sanitary Waste Disposal
The DEIS states that the submission of an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision significantly reduces the
number of sanitary systems and flow from Standard Subdivision density (from 42 residential lots to
17) thereby further mitigating moderate to large adverse impacts to the ground and surface waters.
The development of a Standard Subdivision representing the maximum development allowed
under existing zoning is included in the DEIS as Alternative 3. Under the proposed action, a total
of 70.87 acres of buildable lands will be permanently preserved through the expected sale of
development rights Overall, 95.91 acres or 85 percent of the combined 112 84 acre parcels total will
be preserved.
The DEIS calculates the annual water consumption for the 17 single family residences at 300 gallons
per day for each lot or 5,100 gallons per day total (Page 18). Originally the initial and revised
submission of the DEIS included a statement that"traditional septic systems will be used on our 17
lots". However, in a January 27, 2019 email sent to the Planning Board, the applicant offered
further mitigation by agreeing to install a sanitary system with the technology to reduce nitrogen
thereby mitigating potential adverse impacts on ground and surface water quality.The installation
of these types of systems is discussed in the DEIS as Alternative 4 (Page 34)
I1
Significant advances in the Suffolk County Department of Health Services(SCDHS)regulatory
framework to allow the installation of I/A Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (I/A OWTS)have
occurred in recent years that were not available when the Positive Declaration was issued by the
Southold Planning Board.The installation of these types of treatment systems are now required as
policy by the Planning Board on each newly created lot in Orient to mitigate the cumulative,long
term, adverse impacts from nitrogen to ground and surface waters(Orient Harbor/Peconic Bay,
Munn Pond,Long Island Sound and Narrow River/Hallock Bay).
The required use of I/A OWTS systems would achieve the following:
1. A reduction in Nitrogen loading to the sole source aquifer.
2. A reduction in Nitrogen loading to surface waters.
Each residential lot will be required to install a I/A OWTS system approvable under Suffolk
County's Innovative and Alternative On-site Wastewater Treatment Systems Program (aka Article
19).The program allows the installation of new residential septic systems that will treat nitrogen in
wastewater to 19 mg/L or less and will help mitigate impacts to water resources from nitrogen
pollution.The specific system design to be utilized in the subdivision has not yet been chosen due
to the expected technological advancements in sanitary waste treatment options by the time the ;
single family residences are constructed.
Impacts from sanitary flow will be minimized through the reduction in residential density and the
installation of I/A OWTS on each residential lot and therefore,moderate to large adverse impacts
are not expected.The DEIS points out that the continued operation of an aquaculture business on
the South Dyer parcel that grows and harvests oysters also contributes to the removal of nitrogen in
surface waters.
2. Impacts on the Sole Source Aquifer
Concerns on Adverse Impacts to Ground Water Quality
All parcels are located withuz Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)
Groundwater Management Zone IV The parcels are not served by public water and new private
wells will be required to provide potable water to each future residence.Potable water supply to
Orient is sustained from a sole source aquifer and the protection and conservation of ground water
is critical due to the geography and geology of the Orient penirisula.The following challenges pose
a threat to providing sustainable, potable, water supply to Orient:
1 Shallow freshwater lens and saltwater intrusion.
2. Overuse of potable water in irrigation.
3. Degradation of groundwater-quality from the use of chemicals and fertilizers.
4. Sanitary waste disposal.
The freshwater lens underlying each parcel is expected to be shallow and saltwater intrusion
through upconing in the future is probable due to use and sea level rise.Upconing occurs when a
well pumps water to the surface from a single point in the freshwater lens essentially pullvig up the
underlying salt water to the well head.
12
Water quality tests were conducted on each parcel to confirm that potable water is currently
available.Results indicate that the saltwater interface occurs 42'+below grade on the North Dyer
parcel.The interface mark is the point where freshwater and saltwater,meet. Above the interface
mark, a freshwater lens is available to provide potable water.At the North Dyer parcel location,
freshwater was encountered at 16' and 18' below grade.The area of freshwater saturated soils
occurs between the 16' elevation and 42' elevation and indicates that the freshwater lens is
approximately-26'+in depth and shallow.Due to the expected shallow depth of the freshwater lens;
the potential of saltwater intrusion in private wells is high if overuse of potable water occurs and
conservation measures are not applied.
The hydrologic data presented is consistent with findings of the freshwater lens in Orient in areas
of higher elevations toward the Long Island'Sound.However, properties at lower elevation,such
as South Dyer and South Brown would exhibit a decrease in separation distance between grade
and fresh water(depth to groundwater) and the sustainable supply of potable water would most
likely require filtering or treatment(i.e.ion exchange, distillation or reverse osmosis) in the long
term.The DEIS indicates that the depth to ground water on South Dyer ranges from 9' to 14' on the
sampled lots. On South Brown ground water was encountered at 7'.
As indicated in the DEIS, the availability of potable water on each parcel was confirmed through a
series of test wells and water quality analysis performed by Suffolk County Department of Health
Services.Test well water quality results identifies sodium levels in groundwater ranging from 11.6
to 59.5 mg/L.These levels meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency Drinking Water
Advisory Consumer Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sodium (2003) that recommends
reducing sodium concentrations in drinking water to between 30 and 60 mg/L based on esthetic
effects (i.e., taste) and to 20 mg/L for individuals restricted to a total sodium intake of 500 mg/day.
All water quality test results met EPA guidance on sodium levels in drinking water, New York
Department of Health Drinking Water Standards and SCDHS test well standards.The SCDHS will
require that additional test wells be conducted (one per lot) to confirm that the water well
installation can be achieved in accordance with guidelines.
A concern was raised on the threat to potable water quality from the application of fertilizers and
herbicides.The DEIS indicated that there are no pesticides outside of standards on any of the four
parcels based on test well data (Page 21). The applicant has agreed to include the following Best
Management Practices in Homeowners Association documents and or Covenants and Restrictions
to prevent the degradation of ground and surface water quality.
1. Using native, drought-tolerant}Tants
2 Fertihzer applications-
(7 riitro<;en, phosphorous, or potassium only between November 1 and April 1
b Lawn Fertilizer Applicatiorrs-
i. Orli/if more tliari 20'away front surface venter or zvithiii 3'of a 10'+ve,Setative
border, or within 3'o1 siii face water if the spreader has a guard deflector shield or i,,, a
drop spieader
13
it 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.
iii. Maximaiin of 1 pound of nitrogen per 1,000 sq.ft in any one application, with a
cumulative application of no more than 2 pounds per 1,000 sq ft per year
iv. 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.
Additionally the subdivision design includes one-hundred foot wide non-disturbance buffers on
North Dyer and North Brown to reduce turf and landscaped areas requiring irrigation and requires
clearing limits to be imposed on each lot Pursuant to§240-49. Clearing of the Southold Town
Code.
The South Dyer, North Brown and South Brown parcels in active agriculture are encouraged to
implement Agricultural Stewardship Programs that are currently implemented by Suffolk County
and the Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County to improve agricultural BMPs by
reducing the amounts of nitrogen and pesticides reaching ground and surface waters. Farm
operations are also encouraged to participate in the New York State Soil and Water Conservation
Committee Agricultural Environmental Management(AEM)program; a voluntary, incentive-
based program that helps farmers make common-sense, cost-effective and science-based decisions
to help meet business ob)ectives while protecting and conserving the State's natural resources.
More information on the New York State AEM program can be found at:
httla:l/���w>-�r.nys-soi land s�it�tr�r.c�rYg/��c�r�i,lindex.l7tti�1
Moderate to large adverse impacts on groundwater quality are not expected.
Concerns on Adverse Impacts on Water Quantity
As stated above, the annual water consumption for the 17 single family residences is estimated at
5,100 gallons per day (gpd) Traditionally, around 40 percent or 2,040 gpd of the 5,100 gpd is
expected to be lost to irrigation with anticipated recharge loss (e.g. surface runoff,
evapotranspiration) to the aquifer.The document concludes that:
" .
our project would not have a measureable impact on the existing and,fit ture ground zoater supply
and therefore would not have an impact on the private or 00711717077 wells adioiriing our properties
(zone of inftucnces).
Although the statement supports a lack of short term impacts, the use ofpotable water to irrigate
turf and landscaped areas poses a significant, long term adverse impact to the sustainability of the
groundwater resources in Orient.
The long tern influence of all proposed and existing wells drawing potable water from the sole
source aquifer could result in adverse impacts to water duality and quantity increasing the risk of
saltwater intrusion acid sliurtage5 uvei [he long term. During dry periods, the threat becomes more
severe. Water conservation practices would mitigate the long term adverse impacts to groundwater
quantity.These practices protect the proposed private wells and the neighboring wells (located
14
within 150' of each lot)from potential saltwater intrusion, shortage and degradation of water
quality.
Water Conservation Practices
1. Limit irrigated areas on each lot.
2. Require smart irrigation practices (rain sensors).
3. Install low flow wells with a maximum 10 gallons per minute (gpm)flow rate.
4. Space wells evenly and as far from the edge of the shore as possible to minimize saltwater
intrusion.
Potential adverse impacts to water quality and quantity of the sole source aquifer will be partially
mitigated though the preservation of 95.91 acres of unbuildable and buildable acres of farmland
and woodland on the 4 parcels,the reduction in residential density, and the installation of I/A
OWTS.Further mitigation is necessary to minimize the adverse impacts to the greatest extent
practicable.This mitigation includes the implementation of the above water conservation practices,
and BMP's and faun management programs developed to reduce adverse impacts on the 3
environment, as described above.
Significant adverse impacts to groundwater quantity are not expected.
2.3.2 Vegetation and Wildlife,Utilities and Storm Water
"'Comments H7,'W4,.W14
Concerns were raised about the location of the access road on North Brown and the potential
adverse impacts on animal habitat on the eastern border and from the placement of utilities and
storm water runoff.
Response
Potential Adverse Impacts to Wildlife Habitat
Specific concerns were raised on how the construction of the right of way on the eastern property
boundary of the North Brown parcel would adversely impact wildlife and habitat due to the
clearing of vegetation.
The vegetation on the North Brown parcel is comprised of wooded areas located in the south
against New York State Route 25 and in the north of the parcel and three wooded windbreaks along
the east and west property boundaries and between the cultivated fields.The habitats on-site are
not significant in size and are impacted by existing residences, roadways and cultivated fields.The
habitats are expected to support wildlife indicative of woodland habitat and neighborhood settings
(large and small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and avian spp.). Vegetation on both the east and
western property boundaries are unremarkable and similar in composition and the wildlife use is
expected to be bmulau ui species composition. The wmdbreaks are expected to offer food and cover
opportiunities to avian spp. and small mammals.
15
The construction of the access road would involve the clearing of vegetation including a portion of
the larger area of woodland in the north of the parcel and the windbreaks on the eastern property
line.The heavily wooded area in the north of the North Brown parcel against the Long Island
Sound bluff will be preserved through a 100' wide non-disturbance buffer and limits of clearing
required by Southold Town Code applied to each residential lot.
"Potential Adverse,impacts.cin Protected Species
The DEIS discusses the presence or absence of protected species on all parcels and includes a
response from the New York State Natural Heritage Program(NYSNHP)dated September 15, 2016.
Based on the species and associated habitats listed in the response compared to those on each
parcel, the discussion concluded that there is a low probably of the occurrence of protected animal
species on each parcel,including North Brown.
Eastern Box Turtle and Northern Long Eared Bat
It is recognized that the protection of slow moving animals including reptiles and amphibians
should be a priority during all clearing operations. Habitat types on site are suitable for the eastern
box turtle(Terrapene carolinn) and other reptiles and amphibians.The box turtle is a Species of
Special Concern in New York State. To minimize adverse impacts,best management practices to
prevent the injury or death of animals should be taken during clearing and grading operations.
Walkthroughs of each area prior to clearing could be conducted and all animals that can be
captured be relocated to outside of areas to be cleared.
The NYSNHP response failed to include the northern long eared bat(Myotis septentrionnlis) and
therefore the DEIS impact on Plants and Animals discussion does not include the species.This
omission was most likely due to the fact that the information provided by the NYSNHP reflects
only occurrence records within their database. The following corrects the omission in the DEIS.
The DEIS excludes the potential occurrence of the long eared bat on the North Brown (North Dyer
and South Brown parcel also). The northern long-eared bat (NLEB) is listed as federally-threatened
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under section 4(d) of the federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, due to significant population declines as a result of the white-nose
syndrome fungal disease which is found in Suffolk County populations. The DEC identifies all four
parcels as located within a Confirmed Summer Occurrence area.
The USFWS final 4(d) rule for NLEB (effective February 16, 2016) includes certain prohibitions
against incidental taking, which is defied as killing, wounding, harassing or otherwise disturbing
a species that occurs incidental to, and is not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. The DEC
provides the following guidance for projects that result in a change of land use in areas of occupied
habitat.The proposal to subdivide the parcels into residential lots constitutes a change of use.
NYSDEC Recommendations for Northern Long Eared Bat
Ful prujecls iequii ing tree rennoval to convert forest habitat to another land use that are within 5
miles of an occupied hibernaculum or 1.5 miles of a documented summer occurrence, the following
recommendations must be followed unless a permit is obtained from the Department
l5
April to October 31 (Clearing is restricted)
During this period of time, NLEB are active and are within the forested landscape.The following
restrictions are required unless a permit is obtained from the DEC:
• No cutting of any trees may occur within the 1/4 mile buffer around a hibernaculum.
o Please note that if you plan any tree clearing activities within 1/4 mile of a hibernation area for
NLEB,you may be required to obtain a permit from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the
DEC.
• For cutting of trees in occupied NLEB habitat outside of the 1/4 mile buffer around hibernacula or
within 1.5 miles of a summer occurrence:
o The following are restrictions that must be followed for forest management activities at this
time of year: i
■ Leave uncut all snag and cavity trees unless their removal is necessary for protection of
human life and property.For the purposes of this guidance,protection of human life and
property includes removal of trees that, if not removed,could result in the loss of electric
service.Snag and cavity trees are defined under DEC Program Policy ONR-DLF-2
Retention on State Forests.l-tttp_I/www:dee.nv:gov/IatidsfF t�58.htrr�l
Leave uncut all known and documented roost trees,and any trees within a 150 foot
radius of a documented summer occurrence.
• Please note that if you plan any tree clearing activities within 150 ft. of a summer
occurrence for NLEB during June or July,you may be required to obtain a permit
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service and DEC.
• If any bats are observed flying from a tree, or on a tree that has been cut, forestry
activities in the area should be suspended and DEC Wildlife staff notified as soon as
possible.
If a project cannot follow the restrictions above, a permit from DEC under Part 182 would be
required.
November 1 to March31 (Clearing can occur)
During this period of time, the NLEB are inactive and are within the hibernation sites.
• No cutting of any trees may occur within the 1/4 mile buffer around a hibernation site.
• No activities that may result in disturbance to a hibernation site including,but not limited to,
actions that would alter the hydrology, increase noise or introduce fill may occur.
o Please note that if you plan any development or tree clearing activities within 1/4 mile of a
hibernation area for NLEB, you may be required to obtain a permit from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service and the DEC.
• For cutting of trees outside of the 1/4 mile buffer around hibernacula•
o No restrictions, with the following voluntary measures recommended-
• Leave uncut all known and documented roost trees, and any trees within a 150 foot
radius of a documented summer occurrence
17
■ Leave uncut all snag and cavity trees unless their removal is necessary for protection of
human life and property.For the purposes of this guidance,protection of human life and
property includes removal of trees that, if not removed,could result in the loss of electric
service.Snag and cavity trees are defined under DEC Program Policy ONR-DLF-2
Retention on State Forestswill. htt .."/[N�yww.dec:nV:aovllallclsJfaJ658:lifml
Potential moderate to large adverse impacts to the NLEB will be minimized by avoiding vegetative `
clearing during breeding and hibernation seasons.
The imperiled plant species Woodland Agrimony(Agrimonia rostellata) was identified as potentially
occurring on or in the vicinity of the parcels.The Orient record was established in 1938 and the `
location of the population is unknown. The North Brown parcel contains suitable habitat to ;
support the species(Woods, fields and shrub thickets).The NYSNEP recommends that any field
surveys to the site include a search for these species,particularly at sites that are currently
undeveloped and may still contain suitable habitat. The method should be employed in the
development areas on the North Brown and the North Dyer parcels.
Clearing Timeframes
Potential moderate to large impacts to wildlife species will be minimized by avoiding clearing
during breeding and hibernation seasons(April 1 to October 31).Lots on North Dyer and North 4
Brown will be cleared applying regulatory controls and best management practices;excluding the
disturbance buffers and the areas required to be left in vegetation through the establishment of
clearing limits required in Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land of the Southold Town Code. North
Brown provides the largest area of woodland within the open space area. The area is comprised of
successional hardwood trees,brush and ground cover. It is recommended that the area is retained
to the greatest extent practicable to continue to provide wildlife habitat.
Correspondingly,based on the expected low species diversity and size of habitat in the tree lined ;
windbreaks along the east property boundary (in the open space),moderate to large adverse
impacts to wildlife and habitat from the construction of the right of way and road are expected to
be low.
Based on the above best management practices and mitigation proposed, significant adverse
impacts on protected species are not expected.
Impact from Utilities
Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land of the Southold Town Code requires that all utilities are to be
located underground for new subdivisions and thezefore utility poles will not be visible.
There will be no visible impact from the placement of utilities on the North Brown parcel.
i8
Impacts from Stormwater Runoff
The higher elevation and risk of runoff from a future impermeable road surface is a public concern.
Roads are designed to shed stormwater to passive drainage swales or discharge to underground
catch basins. In accordance with the Town and the NYSDEC regulations, a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan(SWPPP) will be prepared and approved prior to construction.The SWPPP will
outline all measures that will be required to prevent excess stormwater runoff from leaving the site
and affecting neighboring properties both during construction and after.Stormwater runoff will be
collected,stored, and infiltrated to groundwater via a private storm system of catch basins,piping,
drywells and drainage reserve areas. Correspondingly, stormwater will be controlled with
pursuant to Town of Southold Chapter 236 Stormwater Management regulations.
2.3.3 Transportation, Safety and Access
Comments U6 H7 W4 W7 WS W10W11 W,12,,W14,W15
Response
Location of Right of Way and Road on North Brown Parcel
Several concerns were raised about the location of the 1.32 acre North Brown parcel right of way
and access road along the eastern parcel boundary and the potential adverse impacts to existing
homes, the existing hedgerow,wildlife habitat,protected lands and traffic and pedestrian safety.
The DEIS does not specifically discuss the location of the right of way and access road on the parcel.
The right of way is proposed at 25' in width with a 16'wide access road to serve 5 lots in the north
of the parcel.The open space parcel is proposed to have direct access from NYS Route 25.
To the east of the North Brown parcel are 5 improved,residential lots created under the Browns
Hill Subdivision and one improved, residential lot located just north of NYS Route 25.Also
bordering the eastern parcel boundary is a 16.89 acre lot upon which the Peconic Land Trust holds
an easement;further east from this protected parcel,is a second 18.83 acre parcel upon which
development rights have been sold to the Town of Southold. These two parcels form a contiguous
block of 35.72 acres of farmland directly east of the North Brown parcel. Chapter 240 Subdivision of
Land of the Town of Southold Town Code supports designing subdivisions to achieve contiguous
blocks of open space.This design is even more important when preservnng active farmland_
Interruption of open space by roads, street trees and other improvements has the potential to
conflict with farming operations.
The right of way proposed along the eastern border abuts 4 lots improved with single family
residences within the Browns Hill Subdivision All have varying widths of vegetated areas between
the rearyards and the proposed right of way Further south and near NYS Route 25 the proposed
right of way would also abut a single family residence.
19
r
The approximate distances from the proposed road to the existing single family residences
(principal structures) along the eastern parcel boundary are as follows:
Tax Mah Distance Roadway.
1. SCTM#1000.-18-4-2.1 50' + NYS Route 25
2. SCTM# 1000-13.-3-5.1 50'+ Browns Hills
3. SCTM# 1000-13-3-4 96' +_ Browns Hills
4. SCTM# 1000-13-3-3 109'+ Browns Hills
5. SCTM#1000-13-3-1 69'± Browns Hills
6. SCTM# 1000-13- 1-1 383'+ Located to the north of the road and lots.
The west parcel boundary borders a New York State storm water recharge area, two
improved lots with single family residences, two vacant lots and a 11.06 acre lot upon which ;
development rights have been sold to Suffolk County.The lots are accessed by two existing parallel
curb cuts beginning at NYS Route 25.
r
If the right of way was relocated to the west boundary the distances to existing, single family
residences would be as follows:
1. SCTM# 1000-18-3-9.11 131'+
2. SCTM# 1000-18-3-9.2 170'+
Between the single family residences and the proposed right of way on North Brown is a wide
vegetated area, an improved road and an unimproved driveway. If the right of way were to be
relocated to the west parcel boundary the design would need to account for a 53.22' lot line ;
deviation to the west.The adverse impacts on prime or soils of statewide importance would be
similar if the right of way were located on the east or west side.The 1.32 acreage converted from
agricultural use and woodland is expected to also be similar in size.
Note that the design of the right of way and road proposed to access the North Brown lots does not
currently meet required highway specifications in Chapter 161 Ighway Specifications of the Town
Code and fire protection design standards.A 50' wide right of way and 26' wide load bearing
surface is required to serve the lots in this location. The DEIS (Page 12) indicates that 25' wide right
of ways will be sought to support the purpose of the Conservation Subdivision, allow better surface
water management and retain lural character.The reduction in width requires that the right of way
remain private and approval from the Town Fire Marshall and Town of Southold Superintendent of
Highways.
The relocation of the road from the east to the west property boundary would decrease the
potential for noise and dust impacts to 5 improved, neighboring lots located on the east boundary
of the parcel.The distance and width of vegetation between the residences and potential access
road alulig the west parcel boundary would provide a more effective buffci to noise, dust and
overall disturbance than the homes located along the proposed road in the east. This is due to the
proximity of the homes to the proposed road and lack of screening vegetation of the homes in the
20
rear yards abutting the east property boundary.The re-location of the road to along the west
property boundary would better protect the quality of Iife of the residents in the area and lessen
adverse impacts to community character.
Impact of Curb Cuts on North Brown and Traffic Safety
Commenters voiced concerns about adding an additional curb cut to establish the North Brown
access road along the eastern parcel boundary and the adverse impacts to traffic,bicyclists and
pedestrian safety. Currently there is an unimproved farm road located on the east boundary, a
driveway flag serving SCTM#1000-18-3-30.4(vacant) on the west boundary and a right of way
easement located just west of the flag.The driveway flag is unimproved, in disrepair and shows no
signs of recent use.
The North Brown access road is proposed to be located over the existing farm road in the east
adjacent to the parcel boundary. Commenters requested that the access road be relocated to the
west property boundary, effectively creating "one curb cut".
The creation or consolidation of one curb cut is a Planning Board policy for applications accessing
NYS Route 25. NYS Department of Transportation also requires the consolidation of curb cuts
where possible. However,in this instance, the creation of one curb cut cannot be achieved without
further agreement between landowners because the access flag and right of way easement located
along the west parcel boundary are under different ownerships and a shared access agreement has
not been submitted for the action.The relocation of the right of way to along the west parcel
boundary would congregate three separate curb cuts in this location"side by side".
Commenters also pointed out that with such relocation, traffic safety would be improved and
lessen chances of accidents from ferry traffic and with bicyclists and pedestrians.It is expected that
the number of vehicle trips entering and exiting the North Brown access road would be the same
irrespective of the curb cut Iocation.
The proposed right of way location was discussed at the July 2, 2019 field inspection with the
Planning Board.Adequate line of site for drivers enteruig NYS Route 25 from driveways and access
roads was identified as a concern. Line of sight can be nnterrupted or obstructed by curvature of the
roadway, vehicles pulling out of adjacent road and driveways, vegetation, structures, and other
activities occurring within the shoulder of the road.The location of new access roads and curb cuts
should optimize the line of site for vehicle operators
A slight curve on NYS Route 25 is located to west of currently proposed access road (eastern)
location and poses no significant impediments to the line of site looking east or west Vegetation
occurs to the east and west of the existing and proposed curb-cuts in both locations.
At the east location there are street trees to the east of the proposed access road that could
potentially obstruct the view of a driver looking east for oncoming traffic (depending upon where
the vehicle stops). The street trees are not located on the North Brown parcel and therefore, the
ability to remove the trees is low.
On the west property line at NYS Route 25 the vegetation is indicative of roadside, early
successional field growth. No large trees occur along the roadway in this location. If the access road
21
were relocated to the west parcel boundary,vehicles pulling out of the three separate accesses at
one time are possible due to the parallel alignment. If this occurs, the line of site of drivers looking
west or east could be hindered depending on which driveway the vehicles are pulling out of.The
probability,however, of this occurrence is low due to the low residential density on the parcels
served and expected vehicle trips.
The line of sight from a curb cut located along the west property boundary would not be
significantly impacted from vegetation,however, could be impacted from vehicles exiting the
parallel accesses at the same time.The probability of this occurring is low.
The safety of bicyclists and pedestrians could be impacted if the operator of a motor vehicle does
not see therm approaching from the east due to the street trees.Similarly, the pulling out of vehicles
at the same time at the western location could result in safety risks to bicyclists or pedestrians.
Significant, adverse impacts to pedestrians, traffic and safety are not expected.
2.3.4 Land Use and Zoning
Coniinents.H4 ,H5,H10,W2,W4
Response:
There were several comments concerning the development of and potential size of the 4 single
family residences on the South Dyer parcel and whether a cap in total square footage could be
applied.The South Dyer lot is zoned Residential 80 or R-80.The purpose of the R-80 Zoning District
is as follows:
The purpose of the Agi-icultural-Conservation (A-C)District and the Low-Density Residential R-80,
R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts is to reasonably control and, to the extent possible, prevent the
Winecessm y loss of those currently open lands within the Town containing large and contigilolis
areas of prinic agricultural soils which are the basis fpr a significant portion of the Town's econ07Ily
and those areas with sensitive environmental fenttires, including aquifer)echarge areas and bluffs In
addition, these nreas provide the open rural environment so highly valued by year-round residents
and those persins who support the Town of Southold's 1 ecreation, resort and second-honie econoiny.
The economic, social and aesthetic benefits which call be obtained fir all citizens by Inviting loss of
such areas are well docuinented and have inspired-a host of governmental programs designed, with
varying degrees of success, to achieve this result. Foi•its part, the Town is expending large simis of
monel/ to protect existuig farm acreage. At the snore tinge, the Town has an obligntlon to exercise its
author Ili/ to rensonnl:li/Iegnlate the subdivision and development of this land to fia thee' the same
prirposes while honoring the legithiiate Interests of farniers and other forinland owners.
The proposed construction of 4 single family residences and protection of open space do not
conflict with the zoning district purpose.The Bulk Schedule of the R-80 Zoning District requires
80,000 square foot]ots h0X-%-ever, when an applicant is proposing to subdivide a parcel equal to or
greater than 7 acres;Section 240- Clustering of the Town Code applies and lots are reduced in size
(clustered) to less than 80,000 square feet The reduction in square footage of each lot is
proportionate to the amount of land area required to be preserved and the number of lots (density)
proposed. On South Dyer a total of 14.38 acres of buildable land is proposed to be preserved under
22
the 80/60 Conservation Subdivision program. The residential lot sizes proposed for South Dyer
include:
Lot 1 38,122
Lot 2 40,682
Lot 3 40,625
Lot 4 40,685
The lot sizes proposed on South Dyer have been reduced by approximately 50 percent in size than
the permissible minimum lot area required (80,000) square feet through clustering.
Community concerns also focused on the potential size in square feet and height of the future
single family residences on the 4 lots.This is discussed below in Aesthetics.
2.3.5 Aesthetics
Ciiaimerits'H2>.H3,H4,Mi K6,.M,H10,W1,W2,W3,W6..W9,W14
Concerns were express on the adequacy of the view shed analysis,potential adverse impacts of the
location of lots and size of future structures on the South Dyer parcel view shed and the Orient
Historic District.
Response
The SEQR assessment on impacts to Aesthetics Resources evaluates consistency in land use
between a proposed project and other land uses that may be seen from or part of an officially
designated and publicly accessible scenic or aesthetic resource.In this case,officially designated
scenic areas include NYS Route 25 a scenic byway. Other designated areas may also include places
or saes listed on the National or State Registers of Historic Places (Orient Historic District) and
Orient Harbor.The DEIS recognizes the significance of NYS Route 25 and Orient Harbor stating
that:
"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 Hnrbor."
Therefore, the DEIS discusses two view sheds; the first from NYS Route 25 looking south, east and
west over the South Dyer parcel and the second from Orient Harbor looking predominately north.
A Visual Impact Study prepared by Sam Fitzgerald,Architect PC and submitted on October 35, 2016
as part of the DEIS for the proposed development on the South Dyer parcel evaluates the view
sheds. A total of 12 vantage points from NYS Route 25 were established and 2 from Orient Harbor.
The DEIS did not contemplate how the proposed action would impact the view shed from
properties on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [36 U.S.C.
5 470a et seq., Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.071 including the Orient
Historic Distract or on Iocal roads.
23
The view sheds from properties on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of
Historic Places will be affected from the construction of 4 single family residences on South Dyer,
however, the adverse impacts on these types of structures are expected to be low for the following
reasons:
1. The proposed action does not propose to alter or demolish any existing building on or
off site.
2. The proposed residential use is compatible with and does not conflict with the existing
historic,neighborhood setting of the hamlet of Orient and the Orient Historic District.
The South Dyer property is zoned Residential 80(R-80) and the properties to the north, ^
west and south are also zoned R-80 and Residential 40 R-40.
3. The DEIS indicates that future construction of single family residences and accessory
buildings will meet zoning of the R-80 district and include architecture compatible with
the character of existing homes found within the Orient Historic District.
Future construction of residences on North Brown, South Brown or North Dyer will not directly
impact properties on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places.
AIterations or demolition of structures on the parcels is not proposed and the lots are not located
near NYS Route 25,which has a preponderance of these types of structures.
The viewsheds from both NYS Route 25, a NYS Scenic Byway and Orient Harbor have been
identified as important to the community and several concerns about the potential adverse impacts
on the aesthetic qualities from the placement and construction of future residences of the South
Dyer parcel were raised by the public.
Page 26 of the DEIS states:
"that the houses on South Dyer are placed in the least visible part of the lot. They will not obstruct,
eliminate, or significantly screen the unportant scenic view of the farmland, the Peconic Bay and tidal
creek."
By design the 80/60 Conservation Subdivision requires the preservation of 80 percent of buildable
lands and the reduction of overall density by 60 percent. These two parameters mitigate potential
adverse impacts to scenic quality through mandatory clustering of lots, often near existing,
improved lots and sterilization of acreage. The placement of residential lots is determined by the
submission and evaluation of an Existing Resource Site Analysis Plan or ERSAP pursuant to SS240-
10. Technical regirire»ient,ti and the identification of Primary and Secondary Conservation Areas
pursuant to Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land,Article XI Cluster Development§240-43 Determinntion of
location of open spaces created by cluster development using primary and secondary conservation areas of
the Southold Town Code. A primary goal of an 80/60 Conservation Subdivision design is to
achieve, uninterrupted and undivided areas of open space to support agriculture. The Town of
Southold Community Preservation Project Plan (2016) includes a List of Eligible Parcels and the
Community Preservation Fund (CPF) categories for each listed parcel to qualify the reason to
purchase the parcel All of the parcels are in included within the plan.
24
Table 1. Town of Southold Community Preservation Project Plan Parcels and Categories for
Purchase
Owner/Name SCTM# CPF Category
North Dyer 17.-4-16 a.establishment of parks,nature preserves or recreation areas;
b.preservation of open space,including agricultural lands and f;
preservation of undeveloped beach lands or shorelines
including those in significant risk of coastal flooding due to
'projected sea level rise and future storms.
South Dyer 17.-6-14.2 a establishment of parks,nature preserves or recreation areas;
b.preservation of open space,including agricultural lands; c.
preservation of lands of exceptional scenic value; d.
preservation of fresh and saltwater marshes or other wetlands;
e.preservation of aquifer recharge areas and f. preservation of
undeveloped beach lands or shorelines including those in
significant risk of coastal flooding due to projected sea level rise
and future storms.
North Brown 18.-3-30.3 b.preservation of open space,including agricultural lands and f.
preservation of undeveloped beach lands or shorelines
including those in significant risk of coastal flooding due to
projected sea level rise and future storms..
South Brown 18.-6-17.3 b.preservation of open space,including agricultural lands; c.
preservation of lands of exceptional scenic value; d.
preservation of fresh and saltwater marshes or other wetlands
The designs of the parcels meet the 80/60 Conservation Subdivision program and support the
Community Preservation Project Plan On the South Dyer parcel, exclusive of the proposed
development area, the exceptional scenic value as a view shed should be protected, uninterrupted
in perpetuity for the benefit of the public.
On South Dyer, the clustering of the 4 proposed residential lots and access road in the east of the
parcel supports the above categories.This design also results in the preservation of the working
landscape as uninterrupted actively farmed open space, an aquaculture operation and supports the
continued operation of Latham's Farmstand which is a contributor to the high scenic qualities of the
hannlet of Orient and NYS Route 25.The location of the lots is discussed and supported in the DEIS
on page 26 with reference to the NYS Route 25 North Fork Trail New York Scenic Bywav
application:
Route 25 is part of the North Fork Trail, which is designated as a New York Scenic Byvmy The NYS
Scenic Byways npplicntion stated. .."Perhnps the road's Most drrnnntic scenic of/erni�; is rri erre of
25
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 poprtlar 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 waterfront
housing that provides an interesting background for the spectacular water views
If the lots were relocated to another location on the parcel and outside of the Orient Historic ,
District, a greater interruption of the designated scenic view shed would occur and oversight of
future architecture of the residences will not be possible without a mutual agreement between the
landowners and the Planning Board.
Scenic Impacts on Local Roads
A public hearing comment was made about the omission of vantage points on Racketts Court,
Oysterponds Lane and Skippers Lane in the Visual Impact Study and notably the Orient Historic
District and,properties on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic
Places (W3).
Racketts Court, Oysterponds Lane and Skippers Lane are collector streets located to the east and
south of the South Dyer property.Racketts Court is a private road and not accessible to the public.
Two private single family residences are served by the road and the occupants view into the
property from the residences is west and south.
Oysterponds Lane is improved with residences on single and separate lots on both the west and
east sides.The private single family residences, accessory structures and landscaping located on the
west side of the road obscure the view shed from the roadway looking west into the South Dyer
parcel.Skippers Lane,located to the south of the parcel, provides an obstructed view north into the
parcel due to a hedge and single family residence.
None of the roads are identified as possessing scenic qualities important to the public in past Town
plans. Public comments received at the public hearing suggest,however, that the scenic views from
the roadways are important to members of the community.
-, The three roads were not included as vantage points in the Visual hnpact Study because the Planning
Board found that the proposal for a 80/60 Conservation Subdivision mitigated the significant
impacts to the view sheds from the roadways with the significant reduction of density from a
potential of 10 lots (Standard Subdivision) to 4-lots and that the level in which viewers are engaged
from the local roads did not justify the inclusion.
This decision was supported by the existing private, residential structures and landscaping that
interrupt the view sheds looking west and south from Racketts Court across the parcel; ,vest from
Oysterponds Lane and the hedge and residential structures and accessory buildings obscuring the
view looking north from Skippers Lane.
The NYS Route 25 view shed was included due to the relevance of the New York State Scenic
Byway designation and identification of its scenic qualities in Town plans. Orient Harbor was also
included due to the level of high public use on the waterbody. The design of the subdivision
focused on the extremely high scenic value of the view shed from NYS Route 25 with the objective
that the future houses VVrould not obstruct, eliminate or significantly screen the view.
26
To further protect scenic qualities on South Dyer one of the proposed lots from South Dyer will be
relocated to North Dyer.As a result, a total of 4 residential lots are proposed on South Dyer even
further mitigating impacts to aesthetic qualities through the reduction of unit density. Reducing
the widths of the roads serving the lots to less than 50' would also minimize impacts.
Size of Homes Modelled in DEIS Visual Impact Study
In conjunction with the concerns about the architectural styles of future structures constructed in
the Orient Historic District,several comments were received at the public hearing about the size of
the future structural build out on the lots proposed on South Dyer; the total square footage of
structures allowed under Southold Town Code;and what adverse impacts may result to the
character of the Orient Historic District and the Hamlet of Orient.Specific questions were asked
regarding the structure sizes modelled and submitted in the Visual Irnpact Study provided by the
applicant. Concerns were also raised about ability to build twice the square footage over the total,
percent cover permitted by 280 Attachment 3 Town of Southold Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts
(Bulk Schedule) of the Southold Town Code with the construction of 2 and'/2 story principal and
accessory structures.A related concern was the potential height of the structures.
The Visual Impact Study included 3D Computer Models of single family residences for a 5 lot and 4
lot alternative that;maximized the bulk regulations;included architecturally appropriate designs
with wide appeal;and that could be seen as reasonable to build in this location.
Each lot was modelled to be consistent with the Bulk Schedule requirements for the R-80 Zoning
District.Bulk Schedule requirements allow up to 20 percent total lot coverage,2 and 1/2 stories and a
building height of 35' in the district.
The DEIS states that houses built on South Dyer will meet all zoning and building requirements.
Accessory Structures
In the R-80 district, the Southold Town Code requires that accessory buildings and structures or
other accessory uses must be located in the required rear yard. On lots ranging from 20,000 to
60,000 square feet the maximum area of an accessory building is 1,200 square feet. The maximum
height of an accessory building varies and is dependent upon lot size and setbacks.
The maximum accessory building height for lot 5 ranges from 18 to 22 feet with minimum setbacks
for side and rear yards ranging from 10 to 20 feet.The maximum building heights for lots 2,3 and 4
is 22 feet with minimum setbacks for the side and rear yards of 20 feet.
The maximum percent cover regulates the total amount of ground area in square feet that both the
principal and accessory structures could occupy Lot coverage does not account for second stories;
therefore there is potential that a future land owner could build a 2 and 1/2 story single family
residence and accessory structures on each of the lots.This build out will meet all zoning and
building code requirements.
At the request of the Planning Board, as lead agency, on April 5, 2019, the applicant provided
additional information that clarified the square footage of each principal and accessory structure for
the South Dyer lots modelled in the Visual Innpact Study prepared by architect Sam Fitzgerald R A.
2;
Tables 2 through 4 below summarizes the information submitted.The applicant reiterates in the
submission that the modelled sizes of the stricture are a "worst case scenario" in conformance with
the 20 percent lot coverage requirement and the Bulk Schedule. In a subsequent phone conservation
with the applicant on April 19,2019 the applicant pointed out that the structures depicted in the
Visual Impact Study are a representation of what could be constructed on each lot, and are not
proposed.The DEIS states on page 26 (2018 resubmission) that the study included the "worst case
scenario".
"Since we are not planning any development in the foreseeable future, the size/design of facture houses
is very speculative When we do develop SD lots, we will hilly 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 "
Table 2. Maximum Structure Lot Coverage(Ground Surface Area)Modelled in the Visual Impact `
Study.
5
'> Lot 1 " rvL " 2. Lot
Principal Structure 151 floor ` 3,750 sq. ft. 3,926 sq.ft. 3,815 sq. ft. 4,215 sq. ft. ;
Decks and Porches 1st floor 825 sq.ft, 950 sq. ft. 850 sq. ft. 1,058 sq. ft.
Garages/UtiIity 864 sq.ft, 1,200 sq.ft. 1,200 sq. ft, 864 sq.ft.
Pool House/Pool 2,185 sq. ft. 2,060 sq. ft. 2,260 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft,
Total 7,624 sq. ft, 8,136 sq.ft. 8,125 sq. ft. 8,127 sq.ft.
Table 3. Total Living Space for the 15' and 2nd floors of the Principal Structure (Single Family
Residence) Modelled in the Visual Impact Study.
Lot 1, Lot 2 Lot 3 :Lot 4
Living Space 1,1 Fl 3,750 sq ft. 3,926 sq.ft. 3,815 sq. ft. 4,215 sq. ft:
Livnng Space 2-1 F1 3,750 sq. ft. 2,400 sq. ft. 2,973 sq. ft 2,633 sq. ft.
Total Floor Area 7,500 sq. ft. 6,326 sq. ft. 6,788 sq. ft. 6,848 sq ft.
The maxununn ground cover allowed on each lot ranges from 7,624 to 8,137 square feet as shown un
Table 4 beloxv. Accessory structures would also be allowed and would count towards the proposed
total covera7r, hrmlover rhe ahplwan I noted that the accessory structures would be located in the
rear-vards and would not be directly visible frons NYS Route 25 or Orient Harbor.
28
Table 4. Total Lot Size and Twenty Percent Lot Coverage of Structures as Permitted by Town Code.
hot Number .Total Lot Area(SQ.,W) 20 Percent Cover(Sq.Ft.)
1 38,122 7,624
2 40,682 8,136
3 40,625 8,125
4 40,685 8,137
The visual impact study did not model the largest houses possible as shown by comparing Tables 2
and 3.The visual impact study included typical houses in the areas that are less than the size of
what would be possible under the Town Code(e.g. on proposed Lot 4, a two story home with no
additional structures with the maximum 20 percent ground cover and a second story mirroring the
15t floor could be as large as 16,274 sq.ft.).
There is potential that homes with architecture, and a mass significantly larger and out of character
with the surrounding older single family residences could be constructed on the proposed lots n1
the future.
Structures designed to be similar to the size to the existing single family residences and accessory
buildings found within the Orient Historic District would support the historic character, scenic
view shed of South Dyer and minimizes impacts to aesthetic resources and community character.
Some mitigation is provided by the conservation subdivision option, which requires the number of
homes to be reduced by 60%, and the proposal to cluster the lots against existing single family
residences in the west of the parcel. Additional mitigation is needed to insure that future structures
are not discordant with the character of the Orient Historic District and the scenic view shed of
South Dyer. This can be achieved by ensuing that at least 80 percent of the buildable lands are
preserved, which will reduce the size of the development area to the required 20%. Currently it is
proposed at over 35%. This would reduce adverse impacts from future build out of the lots by
reducing lot size.
To further mitigate potential adverse impacts frorn the mass, scale and architecture of future build
out of the residential lots, the Planning Board will accept the recommendation made by Ms Beth
Cwnming, Senior Historic Restoration Coordinator,Division of Historic Preservation of the
OPRHP to review site plans, and elevatio i plans of structures proposed on Lots 1 through 4 in
addition to the local review of applications for new construction by the Southold Historic
Preservation Commission. Both reviews will take place prior to issuance of a building permit.
29
As a result of the mitigation described above, the proposed action will not result in moderate to
large adverse impacts to the aesthetics.
2.3.6. Cultural Resources
Comments H2,H3,W3
Concerns were expressed about the adverse impacts and protection of archeological resources on
the parcels, the timing of the archeological surveys and overall process.
Response
i
The Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation
(OPRHP) and the New York's State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)was contacted early in the
subdivision process and a response was received on(March 13, 2015) that the agency concurred
with the recommendation that a Phase 113 archeological investigation is warranted on each of the
four parcels prior to any proposed development that would involve ground disturbance
(NYSCRIS).The Phase IB field investigation was recommended by a previous Phase IA
documentary study conducted on the property.
From June 6 to September 6, 2015,Tracker Archaeology Services, Inc.conducted a Phase IB
archeological investigation for the proposed subdivision on the 17 proposed lots,roads and some
additional areas.The purpose of the survey was to provide physical evidence for the presence or
absence of archaeological sites on the project area.
On the South Brown parcel/lot 52 quartzite artifact fragments were found, which is evidence of a
prehistoric site. Due to the findings,Tracker Archeology Services, Inc. recommended that Phase II
intensive testing on the lot prior to any development related to grading or construction.
A Phase Il archeological survey would include:
1. Site integrity, including the depth and extent of undisturbed soil horizons and the presence
or absence of cultural features, and the degree of natural and/or human disturbance to those
features.
2. Cultural components/affiliations and the time range present.
3. Vertical and horizontal distribution of archeological remains (spatial boundaries and
stratigraphic levels).
4. Site interpretation, including any uniqueness/significance, in a local regional context,must
be demonstrated.
At the public hearing a concern was raised that SHPO never commented on the Phase 1B report or
concurred ,,%,ith its recommendations "although it was submitted to the SHPO sometime prior to
the spring of 2018" Tip mmmentnr indicated that the reason for this is "on June 11, 2018, the SHPO
requested that the Planning Department provide updated project plans because the areas
investigated during the Phase 113 study: ...do not correspond with the area of potential fact that was
30
initially submitted for this project."The file record was checked and no such correspondence was
located. The request most likely was made through the CRIS system.
No comments were received from SHPO during the DEIS public comment period which closed on
March 24,2019.However,in response to comments made at the public hearing the Southold
Planning Department contacted Tim Lloyd Ph.D.,RPA of OPRHP to discuss the archeological
record on each of the parcels. Mr. Lloyd requested the latest subdivision maps and the link to the
laser fiche file be sent to him on April 23,2019. Mr.Lloyd obtained the maps on April 30,2019.
On May 6,2019 the Planning Department received a letter from Dr.Lloyd requesting revisions to
the Phase IB report included and referenced in the DEIS.A supplemental`Phase 1B field
investigation was also recommended for the North Brown parcel.
Recommended revisions to the Phase 1B report(March 2011)included:
North Dyer: A foundation found on North Dyer was not discussed..
• The text should be revised to clearly state that the foundation and rubble represent an
archaeological site. i
• An attempt should be made to correlate the foundation zoith structures indicated on
historical maps that zoere analyzed as part of the Phase IA Documentary Study.
• Recommendations should be made regarding the potential eligibility of the site for
listing in the State and/or National Registers of Historic Places (SINRHP).
• Recommendations should be made regarding the potential need for additional
investigation to assess the site's eligibility for listing in the SINRHP.
South Brown: A Pre-Contact Period Native American archaeological site was identified on Lot
1 of the South Brown parcel. OPRHP recommends the following revisions to the Phase IB
report relating to the Native American artifacts recovered on Lot 1.
• The text should be revised to include an analysis of the recovered projectile points
• Figure 2D Addendum shozos the results of the shovel tests excavated ill Lot 1, but there
is no indication of the sur face finds and no indication of the boundary of the
archaeological site. The figure should be revised to include the locations of sio face finds,
mid/or concentrations of artifacts, and the site boundary should be indicated
• OPRHP recommends that impacts to the Native Anierican archaeological site on Lot 1
of the South Brozon pm-cel be avoided If impacts to the site cannot be avoided, then
OPRHP recoirnriends a Phase 11 investigation to evaluate the site for cligibilil y for'
listing in the SINRHP
• A Phase IB archaeological survey/of the proposed route of the drivezuay to Lot 1 is also
recommended.
31
On May 9, 2019 the P1armirng Department received a second letter from OPRHP requesting a
supplemental Phase 1B field investigation on the North Brown parcel because shovel tests
excavated at 15 meter intervals conducted during the initial Phase 113 investigation were
inadequate for the identification of burials.
The request was based on new information that a Native American burial site, known as the Orient
Site may be located in the north of parcel. The Orient Site is repeatedly mentioned in archaeological
literature,but the site's precise location is unknown. On May 28, 2019 the Planning Board received
a letter from the Tribal Council Unkechaug Indian Nation concerned with the potential of Native
American burials on the parcel and requested copies of Archaeological reports, the details of the
subdivision and a meeting. On June 3,2019 the Planning Board agreed to arrange a meeting
between the Unkechaug and Shinnecock nations,the landowners, staff and representatives from
OPRHP.
Information was also presented to the Planning Board at the public hearing regarding the potential
of two archeological sites"on property' of South Brown and one"adjacent". The site is referred to
as the"5 Acres Indian Village Site". A "fact sheet" on this site was provided to the Planning
Department by the Southold Town Historian identifying the location of an archeological site
referenced as the"Four-Acres Indian Site" on a certain Suffolk County tax map parcel. The tax map
number referenced the Suffolk County Tax Map is not located on or adjacent to the South Brown
parcel.
The Planning Board discussed the recommendations made by OPRHP at their May 20, 2019 work
session decided to coordinate with Tracker Archaeological Services,Inc. to seek guidance on how to
proceed.Tracker Archeological Services,Inc.was contacted on May 21, 2019 and the two letters
received by the OPRHP were forwarded to the company.
In response to the information received,on June 25, 2019 the Planning Board held a meeting with
applicants, and representatives from the Unkechaug and Shirmecock tribal nations, staff and
representatives from OPRHP to discuss the North Brown and South Brown parcels.The meeting
agenda included a project overview, discussion on the OPRHP recommendations and consultation
from the Unkechaug and Shinnecock tribal nations.
During the meeting representatives from OPRHP handed out a map showing three known
archaeological sites east of the North Brown parcel.Two of the sites, referred to as Orient 1 and 2
are excavated burial sites.The exact location of the sites in relation to the North Brown parcel is
unknown and it was agreed that further investigation is necessary to continue with processing the
application.
The recommendations made by OPRHP for further archaeological investigation on South Brown
were also discussed for the lot and driveway locations. The Narrow River area includes a series of
villages with burial sites but the exact locations are also unknown.
Site visits to the North and South Brown parcels were conducted on July 2, 2019. In attendance
included representatives from the Planning Board, Planning Department, the Unkechaug and
32
Shinnecock tribal nations and the landowners.The purpose of the site visit was to consult native
American expertise and identify locations to conduct further archaeological investigations. Flags
were placed in several Iocations at areas of higher elevations or around distinct boulder patterns on
the North Brown property. A drive and walk through of the South Brown property was conducted
and the location of the residential lot was discussed.
In the field, the timing of the archeological investigation was discussed with those in attendance
and if they would be opposed if a condition to conduct the archaeological investigation at a later
date was placed on approval of the subdivision.The condition would require that the landowner of
the North and South Brown parcels conduct the required archeological investigations prior to any
ground disturbance on the residential lots.No decision was reached.
Following the meeting,planning department staff developed a map of the flags in the field using
ArcGIS and GPS reference points.Polygons were then drawn to delineate where a future
archeological survey should be conducted.
On July 24,2019 a letter was received by the Planning Board from Chief Harry Wallace of the Tribal
Council of the Unkechaug Indian Nation which recommended the following:
1. With respect to the North Brown parcel ..potential burial sites were marked with flags for further
examination utilizing the least invasive protocols by TRACKER Archaeology,Inc. to determine if
there are possible burials. It was agreed that TRACKER Archaeology, Inc. would pe7 form the
necessary investigation.
2. With respect to the South Brown parcel, TRACKER Archaeology,Inc. will examine, with the least
invasive protocols based upon the findings of artifacts such as arrow heads No obvious burial sites
were identified.
3. Pending the results of these investigations, we recommend that no digging or excavations take place
at this present time.
At their August 19 work session, the Planning Board accepted the recommendations from Chief
Harry Wallace of the Tribal Council of the Unkechaug Indian Nation with the clarification that the
additional archeological investigations would be conditioned to be completed prior to future
ground disturbance on the North Brown and South Brown parcels and that no timeframe would
apply. The placing of condition(s) on the parcels was in response to the testimony from the
applicant that it is unknown when construction on the lots would commence.The applicant further
acknowledged the risk of proceeding in this way and that if archeological artifacts or a burial site is
located, the lot approved by the Planning Board may be partially or wholly unusable
The condition(s) shall apply to all and any ground disturbance on the North and South Brown
parcels and shall be recorded in the Final Plat resolution, covenant and restriction and Town of
Southold inter-departmental Municity database Ongoing or future agricultural operations and
practices shall be excluded from the condition(s).
33
The Planning Board also approved sending the map prepared by the planning department staff
showing the delineated areas where additional archaeological investigations are required to
Tracker Archaeology Services,Inc. and Chief Henry Wallace.
The conditions requiring archeological investigations are as follows:
North Brown
1. A Phase 1 B cultural survey shall be conducted within the areas identified and flagged during the
July 2, 2019 Native American consult and field inspection.No ground disturbance within these areas
shall occur prior to completion of the survey and the findings are published and made available to the
Tribal Council of the Unkechaug Indian Nation, the Shinnecock Indian Nation and any and all
parties who wish to receive a copy.
2. Agricultural operations or practices conducted in the open space areas as shown on the Final Plat are
excluded from the above conditions.
The potential occurrence of Native American burial grounds or individual burial pits where the
residential lots are located on the North Brown parcel and the known burial sites that occur in the
Browns Hills subdivision to the east supports the relocating of the access road from the west side of
the North Brown parcel to the east side of the parcel.With the relocation, the consolidation of curb
cuts or merging with the access serving SCTM#1000-18-3-9.2 (vacant)is recommended.
The relocation of residential lots from South Brown or South Dyer to the North Brown Parcel would
not avoid or reduce moderate to large adverse impacts to potential Native American archaeological
sites and therefore, such relocation is not recommended.
South Brown
1. A Phase II investigation to evaluate the site for eligibility for listing in the State National
Registration of Historic Places shall be conducted by the landowner or future landowners prior to
anygroui2d disturbance.
2 A Phase IB archaeological survey of the proposed route of the driveway to Lot 1 shall be
conducted by the landowner or ftiture landowners prior to any ground disturbance.
3. Agricultural operations or practices conducted nn the open space areas as shown on the Final Plat
are eticltided from the above conditions.
All known archeological resources will be preserved to the greatest extent practicable under New
York State Law.
34
Potential Adverse Impacts on the Orient Historic District
Comment 111,H5,W2,W3
Community concerns include the design of the South Dyer subdivision,lot placement and the
adverse impacts to the Orient Historic District.
Response
Orient Historic District Boundary
The Orient Historic District is listed in the New York State National Registers of Historic places
(S/NRNP).
The Positive Declaration issued by the Planning Board incorrectly identified South Dyer as
"substantially contiguous" to the Orient Historic District(District)using the best available
information at the tune.The DEIS also references the Orient Historic District as "adjacent" to the
South Dyer parcel(2018 DEIS,Page 5).
The Orient Historic District as adopted by the Southold Town Board shows the western line
intersecting a small area of the South Dyer parcel in the lower, southeast corner(Figure 1).
The New York State Orient Historic District map includes the eastern portion of the South Dyer
parcel within the District where the construction of 4 single-family residences is proposed (Figure
2).The North Dyer parcel north of NYS Route 25 abuts the District.This area is proposed as open
space.
Chapter 170 Landmark Preservation of the Southold Town Code establishes the review of certain
actions within the Town's Historic Districts by the Town of Southold Historic Preservation
Commission (Commission).The review of new construction in the District is not required by the
Commission.
Similarly, the New York State Historic Preservation Office also does not require review of new
construction in the District, rather they recommend placing conditions on projects that require
review though the local Commission.However Beth Cumming, Senior Historic Site Restoration
Coordinator,Technical Services submitted a letter through the Cultural Resource Information
System (CRIS 15PR00026) dated May 23, 2019 requesting details of the construction of homes on the
proposed lots currently under review for the South Dyer parcel that is partially located within the
Orient Historic District.
On June 6, 2019 the Town of Southold Planning Board responded to the request through CRIS
indicating that the Planning Board cannot provide the information requested at this time because
the construction of homes are not proposed
33
The applicant has stated in the DEIS that the.future single family residences would be designed to
reflect the existing range of architectural features of homes located throughout the hamlet of Orient
and provide a good transition to the District.
A Visual Impact Study with 3D renditions of potential architecture styles with historical features for
single family residences proposed to be constructed on the South Dyer lots is included as part of the
DEIS. Photographs of representative, existing,historic, single family structures were also
submitted as a part of the DEIS. It is important to note that existing range of architectural styles in
the District is dependent upon what period the structures were constructed and reflects many
variations(not all with historic elements).
The architectural styles of the single family residences submitted in the Visual Impact Study do not
appear to be in significant conflict or discordant with the historic character of existing homes found
within the Orient Historic District.
�$ -�, -�'-�;', _. �gas-,,�r,As°�,�::' .,�,� '* w•. �.. .;-;�,���,—�.^,-,",� ... .. ,
»9 �i§3,=, rLB�bYs}'�y"�q�7�'.''•. ,�. �.g ".,,.g�:�x�'� d .., y "'" «a. "
ti �'$�'��; ....14�, ,;• [p+y�j,` ^Y'.;,. ,+i>. °F`' ,; - �3$}' :'"' ..rCit;. �/y ;j t• ✓',° s.
^'a r" ., s
pa°'h"�" '.�,;� '",?,a n• `r:° < s '' "G�'pmx«�3 °'TM�� c?T r.' <2• a �%'
sy+z.f v w' + 5 i�;.' ".Y v.,-�,a, fes:\" .r``a• ,d.'" ii; ^+ i,, a'a;t.,,;r- z•; _ 7'a• '., t
.rks"e'g'"..'�.�sa+.;`'s�'xa 6 ,"p '.3;.•t -`'�t`"°' , f: '"`+�qq,+ 'g, a°^' "",E�!'`��',, u
..a �f$aw' •� x �'c.'
£>.aR ;1 (yw•k`l`BS'fi y'^a;s.• „a,. ...*.,�•;�4 ,�a:.'y f,�' L '�s'•��'a +t tY� ' "{
nt
s
$lEd Rf q'SX?.P "U'4' '
.k`
g8 ,�,rq'�"i.'a'p� Iy'•;"���. i `t'�., .�, Y, ° 3 N , F
an
..7I�L�. q -s3 r'Z{` :� y✓'„ ,! ,.• ,
r a, "'T�w•r, ':,xle$,=., ; `�`a$� ;' t �e ,, rss°s� � "%'0'
„zYa« "�a: �"a0-; ..n:�x'�;i Vis: ``; y'm"y^"_„�j�. t ' 4 �`� �^• ,
'ZU. �yR^fts Shp�•.� s:• '`�6 ` _ ' _ „ ' ; ;
Figure 1 Town of Southold Orient Historic District Map overlay on the South Dyer parcel.
36
__...._,.,...._1 ----aW.._.._.__,�.._.-._.iS„�� •,,; ...a � '""ms`s. .r.�,zz� �.: ,�. § •_c g ;
' w ,�' �- . " (fix _. �• ��; . " . • . i `
>° UConn/CTDEEP, Esd, HERE,Garmin, INCRE...
Figure 2. NYS Cultural Resource Information System Orient Historic District Boundary and area
on the South Dyer parcel where a Phase IB Archeological Survey was conducted (Green Polygon).
Impacts on Listed or Eligible State of National Historic Register Properties
The proposal does not include the alteration or removal of listed or eligible State or National
Register Historic Properties.
North Dyer
The North Dyer parcel abuts the Orient Historic District On July 1, 2019 the Planning Board
received a letter from Mr. Tim Lloyd,Ph.D., RPA Scientist—Archeology of the NYS OPRHP
regarding the North Dyer parcel.The following assertions were specified in the letter regarding the
potential adverse impacts to the Orient Historic District:
1. The budding at 21505 Mau? Road (NYS Route 25) zuill be retaiured, and
2 The area inu?iediately adjacent to the Orient Historic District alone Main Road zurll r•en?mn as
open space
The leper CUJILIUL1425 [hat OPRI IP has no concerns regaidiing polenlial adverse impacls to (lie Orient
Historic District if the open space area along Main Road is to remain undeveloped. If developnnent
is proposed within the open space area, consultation with OPRHP is recommended.
37
r
Furthermore, the letter indicates that the archaeological site identified in the "Phase 1B
Archeological Survey for the proposed Tuthill Subdivision, Orient, Town of Southold, New York"
requires no further investigation.
South Dyer
South Dyer lots 1 through 5 (now 4) are located within the Orient Historic District.
On July 5, 2019 the Planning Board received a letter from Ms.Beth Cumming, Senior Historic Site
Restoration Coordinator,Division of Historic Preservation of the Office of Parks,Recreation and
Historic Preservation.Ms. Cumming recognized in the letter that the applicant has no plans to
construct single family homes within the Orient Historic District at this time and recommended the
following condition:
1. If construction is proposed,plans including site plans and elevation plans shall be submitted to
our office for review and approval prior to construction.
The proposed condition provides oversight of future construction to ensure that structures
constructed on the South Dyer parcel are within character and context with existing structures
representative of the Orient Historic District.
Further oversight of the future architecture proposed for each single family residence and accessory
buildings would be achieved under the review of the Town of Southold Historic Preservation
Commission.
Consequently,potential moderate to large adverse impacts to listed or eligible state or national
historic register properties including those Iocated within the Orient Historic District are not
expected.
Design of Subdivision and Lot Placement
The 80/60 Conservation Subdivision design on South Dyer involved numerous concept meetings
between the landowners and Planning Board and Land Preservation Staff to discuss the
preliminary design of the subdivision.
During the concept meetings,Planning Board staff applied the Existing Resource Site Analysis Plan
or(ERSAP) inethod outlined in Chapter 240 of the Southold Town Code. The purpose of the
ERSAP is to identify and evaluate the scenic qualities, waters, wetlands, ground and surface waters,
prime sods and soils of statewide significance, land in active agriculture (including aquaculture),
flood zones, protected species and impact to cultural and archeological resources.
ERSAP maps were provided to the Planning Board in 2014 and staff worked to identify the primary
conservation areas (areas under legal protection) and secondary conservation areas (areas that are
difficult or discouraged for development). Once the primary and secondary conservation areas
were idellhfied, [lie bell layuul uI areas lu lie piesei ved and develuped [v avuid ui lessen adverse
impacts to the greatest extent practicable were discussed.
As a result of the ERSAP review, the high scenic quality and agricultural soils were identified as the
most innportant attributes of the South Dyer parcel The applicant was aware of these qualities and
38
decided to cluster the lots to the east with the existing residential structures leaving a contiguous
and uninterrupted view shed (excluding Lathain farm stand) over the parcel from New York State
Route 25 across Orient Harbor.Further,later on in the process, the applicant agreed to amend the
number of lots on South Dyer as outlined in Alternative 1 in the DEIS.This alternative proposes to
transfer one lot from South Dyer to the permissible 80/60 Conservation density on the parcel from 5
to 4 lots.The transfer of the lot mitigates impacts to groundwater,surface waters, agricultural soils,
scenic quality and cultural resources.
The DEIS indicates that a total of 86 percent of the 35.34 acre South Dyer parcel is proposed to be
preserved.The preserved area incorporates agricultural soils to preserve farming, areas currently
farmed, waterfront access for an existing commercial aquaculture operation and statewide,
important scenic view sheds.
2.3.7 Process
Coniinerit9 113,W3
Comments were received concerning the availability of the Phase 1B Archeological Survey,SEQR
Scoping and the DEIS public comment,period process conducted by the Planning Board.
Response
The Phase 1 Archeological Survey is available in its entirety through the Town of Southold website
Laser Fiche system.The complete path is as follows:TownOfSouthold\Town Records\Planning
Department\Applications\Conservation Subdivision\Pending\1000-17.-4-16 Tuthill Conservation
Subdivision\Archaeological Survey
Scoping
The Planning Board, as lead agency decided that scoping was not required due to the 80/60
Conservation Subdivision design pursuant to Chapter 240 Subdivision of Land of the Southold
Town Code.Relevant potential adverse impacts were identified by the Planning Board in
recognition that a substantial reduction in yield on the four parcels is proposed.The Conservation
Subdivision program mitigates most moderate to large impacts through design by requiring a
minimum of 80 percent of the buildable lands to be preserved and 20 percent developed. In this
instance the total area to be preserved equals 95.91 acres or 85 percent of the combined parcel
acreage of 112.84. (DEIS)
The DEIS Notice of Completion was filed on February 13,2019 and sent directly to numerous local,
State and Federal agencies.Paperwork was also filed with the New York State Environmental
Notice Bulletin to cause publication of the notice on February 20, 2019 and provide public
comment. A public hearing on the DEIS was held on March 11, 2019 at 6:02 p.m. at the Town of
Southold Meeting Hall , Main Road, Southold, NY and written comments were accepted to until
March 25, 2019. No comments were received on the DEIS from local,State or Federal agencies.
39
Another concern raised was that access to the DEIS from the New York State Department of
Y
Environmental Conservation Environmental Notice Bulletin and Town of Southold website was
inconsistent.The Planning Board office received complaints that certain people could access the
documents and others could not.To rectify the situation,Planning Board staff contacted the
t
Southold Information Technology department.It was verified that the links to the DEIS documents
worked on certain devices and not on others.All of the links were then changed to a working IP
address which resolved the situation.
Y
i
F
1
5
S
f
40
APPENDIX A
Vn
To: Cummings, Brian A. El J�D
Subject: RE: [SPAM] -did you receive? —,�„Planning Bo
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2019 9:53 AM ��1
To: Michaelis, Jessica
Subject: FW: [SPAM] -did you receive?
f
From: meeriit50t@aol.com-[mailta:rrieemt50@aol.cbM
Sent:Tuesday, March 26, 2019 7:30 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject: [SPAM] - did you receive?
Hi Brian,
I'm curious to know if you received my letter to the Planning Dept. If I don't hear from you I will
presume that you have not, and send it again, as well as the additional concerns I am adding below.
Another question I have for them is why 4-5 lots on SD are being allowed in R-200 zoning. The
purpose of this zoning is to minimize the adverse impact of the effect of any development having
close proximity to environmentally sensitive areas such as wetland, is it not? I do not see how a
subdivision with 3 different geographical areas can offset this law, even if it is preserving many other
acres. The acres that should be preserved are the ones which are the most likely to be
adversely affected by development, are they not?
Please let me know if you have receive my previous correspondence, and if it has been passed on to
the Planning Department.
Thank you,
Mary Ellen Stevens
From: Cummings, Brian A. �s
Sent: Tuesday, March 26,2019 9:14 AM �°�
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: FW:Tuthill Conservation Subdivision /
SoUU101 l rovan—
Planning Board
From: Rblack [maiito.doriell6boatggtri6it,e6ml Cq)l prevtcz1y rcvd
Sent: Monday, March 25, 20195:58 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Subject:Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
FYI Corrected Copy with local citizen addresses listed below
From: Leslie Black-<les1kri6vs rbl�tck tt}�'"nam ul c'o 1?
Date: March 23,2019 at 7:02:00 PM EDT
To: bt`ian cuznri�i3i�st�t�tc�vvn.Solit}1F)1Cl t11.115
Cc: lesliep vcfblack(e�i,�,-- `—Ldorif
Subject: Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
To whom it may concern,
Subject: Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
I am writing on behalf of my family members who are all property and business
owners in the Village of Orient.
I would like to raise strong protest to the proposed Tuthill Conservation
Subdivision. I am a 3rd generation homeowner of our family home and a business
owner located on Village Lane in Orient.
We think the time is now to enforce all codes,to the letter of the law,under which
they are written and protect the environment,history, aesthetic and community of
those that call Orient home. Too many parcels have been developed with
maximum size homes on small lots and too many homes are being demolished
thereby taking away much of the historic and village lifestyle with it
While I understand that many acres would be put in preservation; I feel most of
the preserved land would fail to be buildable anyway If we have min lots size,
we should adhere to it. If they are preserving"unbuildable land" as part of this
subdivision....it should be called out and refactored in the their request. If they are
requesting to build or subdivision on ANY of the land that falls into Historic
Preservation District that needs to be firmly prohibited. The subdivision request
effects much of Orient and its inhabitants . It has potential to change Orient
forever. Main Road ,Narrow River ,North Dyer each effer-ting nthrr
homeowners; visitors and ycs even businesses as my business is built on people
coming to Orient for a truly unique Historical lifestyle experience I would like to
ask that NO zoning or lot size or other variances be granted to allow this "bundle
type-- of building be permitted . I would also like to ask for a moratorium on
i
permitted house sizes that are permitted .Please do not support this Subdivision
or building size application as it will have irreversible effects on ALL of the
community.
Sincerely,
Leslie Black
Robert Black
Rick Peyser
Jan Peyser
1420 Village Lane, Orient NY 11957
1240 Village Lane, Orient NY 11957
Phone : 610.574.3121
L
From: Cummings, Brian A.
Sent: Monday, March 25,2019 9:10 AMCEI 9�Jl
To: Michaelis,Jessica _
Subject: FW: [SPAM] -Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
MAP. 91X01
Southo o ToWri
Planning Board
From: Leslie Black [nal!o:le"sliegeyserblackggmail.corn]
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 7:02 PM
To: Cummings, Brian A.
Cc:_Ie51iepqyserblack(a)gmail:com
Subject: tSP.AMa -Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
To whom it may concern,
i
Subject: Tuthill Conservation Subdivision
I am writing on behalf of my family members who are all property and business owners in the
Village of Orient.
I would like to raise strong protest to the proposed Tuthill Conservation Subdivision. I am a 3rd
generation homeowner of our family home and a business owner located on Village Lane in
Orient.
We think the time is now to enforce all codes,to the letter of the law,under which they are
written and protect the environment,history,aesthetic and community of those that call Orient
home.Too many parcels have been developed with maximum size homes on small lots and too
many homes are being demolished thereby taking away much of the historic and village lifestyle
with it
While I understand that many acres would be put in preservation,I feel most of the preserved
land would fail to be buildable anyway . If we have min. lots size, we should adhere to it. If they
are preserving"unbuildable land" as part of this subdivision....it should be called out and
refactored in the their request. If they are requesting to build or subdivision on ANY of the land
that falls into Historic Preservation District that needs to be firmly prohibited. The subdivision
request effects•much of Orient and its in-babitant"s .It has potential to change Orient forever.
-.Main Road ,Narrow-River,North Dyer each�effecting other honieowners,visitors and-yes even
businesses as my business is built on people coming to,'Orient-fora truly unique Historical
lifestyle experience. I would like to ask that NO zoning or lot'`size or other variances be granted
to allow this"bundle type' of building be permitted . I would also like to ask for a moratorium
on permitted house sizes that are pen-nitted . Please do not support this Subdivision of building
size application as it will have irreversible effects on ALL of the community.
Sincerely,
Leslie Black
Robert Black
Rick Peyser
Jan Peyser
'
/
From: Cummings, Brian A. .
/
Sent: Monday, March Z5, 20199:09AMFRECEIVED
To: Michaelis,Jessica `
Subject: FVV [SPAM] - MykettertoSoutho|dTownMAR '
5 LI 19
Attachments: Tuthill proposal response . ,
March 23'docx Sr whPlanning Board �
�
�
�
�
From:
Sent: Sunday, March 2-4, ^°^� `^`` "` .
To: Cummings Brian A. �
Subject: [SPAM] - My letter to Southold Tow .
'
Hi Brian, `
I spoke with you last week about sending a response letter to the town regarding the Tuthill �
subdivision proposal, and so, as you have suggested since Heather was away this past week, I am �
sending ittoyou eothat you can forward itontoher. ^
Thank you for facilitating this. �
Mary Ellen Stevens `
. �
�
`
�
�
'
'
/
i
'
z
Mary Ellen Stevens March 24,2019
32217 Main Road
Orient, NY 11957
Heather Lanza,AICP RECEIVE®
Planning Director
Town of Southold Planning Board 1�
Ii� AR 2 5 2019 <
53095 Main Road __ "
Southold, NY, 11971oulhio�d Town
Planning Board
Dear Heather,
I attended the hearing at Southold Town on the proposed Tuthill Conservation/Subdivision on
Monday, March 11th. I feel compelled, as a long time resident of Orient, to present my
thoughts and concerns associated with this proposal.
After reading the DEIS, I am struck by the disparity of the Adverse Impact-SEQRA Assessment,
and the Beneficial Impacts, including the Proposed Mitigations presented by the Tuthill
Oysterponds Holding Company. The attempt to erase, or"mitigate",the stated adverse
impacts that this subdivision proposes is repetitions, and hints at an attempt at psychological
brainwashing. The Tuthill's answers and responses to the statements in the SEQRA Assessment,
as well as to other assessments made by various parts of the DEIS are repeated over and over,
like a mantra, on the subjects of water quality impact-the oysters eating up the nitrogen, and
regarding the overall effect of the proposal-the fact that they will be preserving 96 acres
because of their intended cluster, rather than standard,type of subdivision. These responses
make it appear like Orient is being done a big favor-despite the scientific studies to the
contrary that have been done. I would say that a moderate to large impact is nothing to be
taken lightly, when talking about areas which are already compromised by actions of
landowners already misusing their land with fertilizers and chemicals, and overusing the water
supply with filling pools and lawn irrigations, possibly due to unawareness. All the areas cited
for development in this plan will be suffering further damage to the soil, fauna,flora, and
waters. The area surrounding Munn Pond is filled with wildlife and vegetation which will be
destroyed by the excavation of the area. Tearing up the open space on SD will most definitely
disturb the ecosystem of the adjacent meadowland, bay frontage, and nearby estuary. It also
stands a chance of appearing like a mini "Keys", or Dune road, if the largest allowed monoliths
of houses are constructed on this "conservation"/subdivision
I fully realize that this is their property, and they are entitled to do whatever they choose with
it. I don't agree with it however. What is wrong with being a gnnd steward of their land, in
keeping with their forefathers? I view this entire application as a greedy, unconscionable act in
that they are knowingly disturbing the historic character of Orient, putting the water quality
and quantity,the soil, and the ecosystem of the bay at risk of irreparable damage. By implying
that they are "saving" it for future generations,they contradict what this very action will, in
effect, do.
Their"probable" and "should be" remarks in attempts to downplay the negative impact of their
actions are not definite, nor exact, even if these statements are made in good faith. They
should not be allowed to be used as arguments against scientifically tested studies.
My father, Lloyd Terry, also had many acres of wetlands taken by Eminent Domain in the
1980's. Our family and forefathers were also excellent stewards of our land for 200+years.
Dad, also, owned 80+acres which he willed to my siblings when he died in 2001. They have
sold the Development Rights on the majority of those acres,thus assuring the prohibiting of any
future housing developments. He had a similar option of what to do with the land when he
finished farming. Having a true love for the land and the natural resources it held, he could
not, in good conscience, pave the way for its development, even for the use of future
generations. He was, however,forced to put in a minor subdivision in the 1970's so that he
could pay off a large debt incurred from a bad year in farming. It was not an action well liked by
the family, however it was a necessary one in order for him to continue farming.
I am disappointed that a "first family" of Orient is taking the steps outlined in this
conservation/subdivision. In owning five homes in Orient, do the Tuthills not have adequate
housing to provide current and future generation Tuthills a place to spend summers/vacations
"many years"from now? Perhaps other families who haven't sold development rights will do
the same. Certainly the Town of Southold cannot grant permission for some, only to deny it to
others. If this is granted for a proposal that will negatively impact a fragile region, surely there
will be no problems with others having less impact. Where are our safeguards? When will it
end? When our water needs to be carted in from off the island? When the shellfish and fishing
industry is forced to end because of pollution from contaminants? When future generations
have stopped coming to Orient because it is no longer the Orient they remembered as a child,
and go elsewhere? Will the Tuthills feel the same and sell to "outsiders",thus ironically
backfiring on the basic premise for this proposal in the first place?
It has been made more apparent to me since the public hearing, that Orient desperately needs
a housing size limit to fit the historic character of our hamlet. It also needs safeguards to insure
that what is left of the natural resources in this delicate region will be protected from those
who are unconcerned about our fragile state of affairs. We need controls on our water usage,
and further housing developments because they will eventually suck out more water than can
be replaced, other than with salt water. I think that any subdivisions proposed for an area that
will be negatively impacted visually, and environmentally, such as this one, should not be
allowed unless they are necessary for the greater good of the community. The Tuthill
Conservation/Subdivision does not fit into this category.
I continue to be amazed at the liberties of some residents in doing pretty much anything they
want with their property. Helipads are one example Destroying wetlands and its inhabitants
(even though supposedly protected),for personal gain is another. Turning a blind eye on some
activities regardless of the ecological impact they create, while shining a spotlight on others
which have no deleterious outcomes, hardly seems like a fair justice system. As a taxpayer I
object to the continued raping of the land around me, and to the anticipated disastrous results
of unchecked building engagements in Orient. As a taxpayer, I look to Southold Town to
protect my water quality as well as my acre in Paradise.
am opposed to this proposal, as well as the "alternative" proposal. If we had the proper land
use restrictions and/or controls in place, we wouldn't be having this dilemma. I hope,and pray,
that the officers in Southold Town begin looking at what the future of Orient will be, if drastic
measures are not adopted now. I understand the concept of Cluster subdivisions vs Standard,
and I agree they have been beneficial in many instances, however there needs to come a time
when ALL subdivisions need to stop. I believe that time is now, before we are all sorry.
i
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ellen Stevens, longtime resident, and lover of Orient
From: Cam Constantino <cammycon@aol.com> ��-
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2019 10:51 AM RECEIVE
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Subject: Tuthill Subdivision Road
I
so-utnUC-1 Town
To whom it may concern: Planning-Board ;
I am a resident of Browns Hills and am writing in regards to the new road that is proposed to be put in to
accommodate a new housing subdivision.
Of course, you a`re awbre-that the location of this road will impact many of my neighbors directly which in and
of itself should tie-addre'ted. My;understanding is that there.are already dirt roads in place that could very
well take care of the new proposed housing as well as keep traffic accidents to a minimum. In addition the elevation
of the area where the dirt road that already has access to the subdivision is at a lower elevation which would provide
less runoff and erosion.
The road proposed would be;a problem with the noise and dust elements to all of us whor;enjoy our,;quiet time in Browns
Hills. Mybeautiful view.-of:l]he'fa6nIand below to-the bay will be,interrupted vuith,this newly'proposed road.
1 believe the Tuthill 16mi ily;should beheighbbrly,ah&take the feelings of Browns Hills residents into
consideration.
I thank you for your help in advance to work on this issue and hope you will take all of our feelings and
thoughts into consideration.
Carmela Constantino
2105 Browns Hills Road
3
From: William McNaught <wmcn@optonline.net> �)�prr
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2019 10:21 PM
To: Michaelis,Jessica E C E I V E 1.J
Subject: Tuthill:North Brown parcel
MAR } 2 J_019
$(uthol 'own—
To the Members of the Planning Board: Planning Board_ '
Y
As a resident of Brown's Hills Estates which borders the North Brown parcel of the Tuthill Subdivision, I am writing in
hopes that the Board will strongly consider an alteration to the current plan for the road on the North Brown parcel.The
current plan is for the road to extend along the easterly border of the North Brown parcel.This is very close to five or six
houses and within clear sight of several more houses.All those houses will be adversely impacted by the proposed road.
The beautiful farmland views-getting so be so rare in Orient-would be severely marred by such a road.I very much
hope that the proposed road on the eastern edge of the North Brown parcel could instead be moved to the westerly
border.
Thank you for considering this suggestion.
William McNaught
i
RECEIVE®
MAR 2 2 2019
SIL
outhaT�°t aiirt
Planning Board
Southold Town Planning Board. March 17,
2019
3
Re:Tuthill Subdivision
t
Dear Board Members,
It is commendable that the Tuthill family has decided to preserve the majority of
their land holdings.They have consistently shown an affection for Orient and had
the best interests of our Hamlet in mind.
The issue that has concerned so many in our community is the proposed four
building lots on the South Dyer property.
We believe there may be a satisfactory compromise that would preserve the view
shed entering Orient as well as the views from Oysterpond Lane.
Rather than, as proposed, a wall of four building lots, consider an approval of two
lots with the remaining two transferred to one of the other three parcels.
Thank you for considering our comments and suggestion.
r �
4� �/'u'l� �-' v r
John and Thanne Dispenza
Orient
y . �.�,��, •� mss+ .'�� '�s ..'s, ,...�,;
i rF ��" ' Fri � aq,�•�'�• '��R�.
1 t� d � � � m' _ •,tyil• � �. e ry+�, fA.
BOX 282• 0 111 E^J1;NEW YORK 11957•OPUENTASSOCIATION.ORG
EEIV .D S rJ rim
Southold Town Planning Board MAR 21 2019 Jai I ao 1 �
54375 Main Road 31
Southold, NY 11971 Southot.. Town
Planning Board
S
Dear Chair of the Southold Planning Board, �k� i)l 17�-
F1'
Board members from the Orient Association attended the March 11,2019 Southold Planning
Board hearing on the Visual Impact Study for the Tuthill Conservation Subdivision DEIS applica-
tion. The views of the Orient Association were presented on the accuracy of the Visual Impact
Study submitted to the Planning Board. While we seek an accurate rendering of house sizes on
the South Dyer subdivision,we also want to express our full appreciation of the Tuthill Family
for undertaking a conservation subdivision that preserves a great deal of open space. In addi-
tion,we welcome the opportunity to present our concerns at additional hearings,including at
the Historical Preservation Commission.
The Orient Association has spent several years working on a hamlet plan that will attach to the
new Comprehensive Plan being created for Southold Town. Our hamlet plan has been sup-
ported by a significant portion of the community, planning staff and Town Board members, A
substantial portion of Orient residents overwhelmingly endorsed several key proposals,two of
which are to reduce the allowable house size to keep new homes in scale with the existing ar-
chitecture and to preserve viewsheds. Many surrounding townships already have such re-
strictions in place.
Therefore,we request an accurate portrayal of the maximum house size allowable in the Visual
Impact Study, and a full rendering of all aspects of that impact on the viewshed:
o Depict Maximum Allowable House Size: The Orient Association Board is writing now to
'request that the Tuthill Subdivision Visual Impact Study represent a full and accurate
rendering of the maximum house size possible on the site without including accessory
structures. The existing Visual Impact Study depicts a house that is described as appro-
priate and in keeping with the surrounding village of Orient. However, it does not de-
pict what is the maximum allowable size under the current Southold Town code without
the"accessory structures". We request that the Visual Impact Study be redone with the
house sizes shown at the maximum allowed without accessory structures.
We believe that it is the purpose of a Visual Impact Study to show what the houses
would look like if they were built to the maximum size permitted However, in depicting
the houses in the study,the applicants utilized setbacks that they considered appropri-
ate (R-80 setbacks), even though the lots are approximately one acre and would be enti-
tled to R-40 type setbacks.This resulted in a depiction of buildings that are much
smaller than the maximum that would be allowed on those lots. Under current law, the
maximum allowable building area on lots of that size is 8,000 sq.ft., which would create
a two-story house of 16,000 sq.ft. No one living on the North Fork of Long Island would ;
think that a home of 16,000 sq.ft. is within the scale of the current village homes which
are on average less than 2,500 sq.ft.
®. Viewshed Geographic Vantage Points: We also note that the Visual Impact Study did
not take into account the impact these houses will have on Orient residents living on,or
passing through, Oysterponds Lane,Skippers Lane,and even the rear yards of some Vil-
lage Lane houses.We request additional vantage points be included from each of these
areas.
As part of viewshed preservation,we note that the Tuthill Family DEIS recognizes an op-
tion to build 4 houses on the South Dyer site, rather than 5. The 4 lot option is prefera-
ble to the 5 lot option as it preserves a greater portion of the viewshed.
• Use of Advanced Septic Systems: As part of the Orient Plan which we mentioned
above,the Orient Association and a majority of Orient residents support the require-
ment that advanced septic systems be installed on any building in a fragile environment ,
such as South Dyer.
We also understand the intent of the Tuthill Family is to pass this land onto younger members
of the family,anticipating that no houses will be built in the near future.Their expectation is
that when family members do build,they would do so in keeping with size and style norms of
the Village. However well-intentioned the family is,there is no guarantee under current code
that houses on these lots will be in keeping with the size and norms of the Village.
Respectfully,
The Orient Association Board
,JOEL 1. KLEIN,, Ph.D., .��RPA
635 Lloyds Lane,Mattituck,New fork 11952
March 19,2019 RECEIVED-- -.,
Southold Town Planning Board 1 MAR 12019
Town Hall Annex Building 1
54375 Route 25 �- u-Oiol'd 7i5VV
P.O.Box 1179 Planning Board
Southold,NY 11971
RE: DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL TMAPCT STATEMENT(DEIS)
PROPOSED TUT13ILL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION
LOCATED AT 21505 ROUTE 25
SCTM#1000-17-4-16,1000-17-6-14.2,1000-18-3-30.3,AND 1000-18-6-17.3
ZONING DISTRICT:R-80 AND R-200
Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Board:
I am writing to expand and provide additional information relating to the comments I made at the March
11, 2019 Public Hearing relating to the DEIS for the proposed Tuthill Conservation Subdivision (the
Project). As indicated in my previous remarks, my concerns are primarily, but not exclusively, with the
adequacy of the information in the DEIS relating to historic and archeological properties, and withwhat I
believe to be irregularities in how the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) process for this
project has been handled. Given the deficiencies in the DEIS described below,I believe that the Planning
Board erred when on February 11,2019 it deemed the DEIS "complete for public review and comment,"
and has failed to take the requisite"hard look"at the Project's environmental consequences.
I want to repeat what I said at the Public Hearing that I am not advocating for or against the Project. I
believe that the basic idea for the conservation subdivision is a good one. My concerns relate to a failure
on the part of the Applicant and the Board to fully identify both the nature and extent of potential
environmental impacts, and potential mitigation for those impacts, that the Board itself identified as
potentially significant when it completed the Environmental Assessment Form(EAF)for the Project,and
issued a Positive Declaration requiring a DEIS,in 2015.
I believe that both the inadequacies in the DEIS,and the way the SEQRA process has been handled,leave
the actions of the Board relating to the SEQRA process and subsequent actions relating to the Project
subject to legal challenge. I am concerned as a Town of Southold taxpayer that tax dollars may have to
be spent defending any such actions. Likewise, both the Applicant, and potential bringers of legal
challenges, who will almost certainly be Southold residents, will also be forced to incur legal expenses.
Finally, I believe, as I will explain below, that the Board's premature acceptance of the DEIS, has
exposed the Applicant to a likely significant financial risk that could be avoided.
Visual Impact to Historic Resources
One of the principal reasons for the Board's Positive Declaration resulting in the requirement that a DEIS
be prepared,was the determination as stated in the attachment to Part 3 of the EAF that"The South Dyer
property is adjacent to the Orient National Historic District . . " The.Pnsitive Declaration goes on to say
that"Potential moderate to large adverse impacts to the National Historic District must be assessed."In
spite of this recognized concern, the DEIS provides virtually no information dealing with if or how
historic properties would be affected by the Project.
Throughout the project review process beginning in 2015 there were numerous calls for a visual impact
study and a viewshed analysis. The terms seem to have been used interchangeably,yet they are not the
same thing, and this has caused considerable confusion. A viewshed analysis is usually a precursor to a
visual impact analysis. It defines the geographic area--called the Zone of Visual Influence (ZVI)--from
within which a proposed project will be visible.It is the basis for determining where visual impacts must
be considered. No viewshed analysis was carried out for this project.
This confusion could have been avoided had the Applicant taken note of the October 23, 2014 Planning
Department's mention to the Applicant that the "New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has produced a policy memorandum on assessing visual impacts." The Planning
Department also provided a web address where that memorandum, Assessing and Mtigating Visual
Impacts (DEP-00-2), could be found. That memorandum discusses the relationship between a visual
analysis and a viewshed.
In an attempt to address the question of visual impacts in general, not specifically impacts to historic ,
properties, the Applicant retained the services of Sam Fitzgerald Architect PC. An October 16, 2015
report entitled Visual Impact,Study (VIS)–South Dyer Lots–Supplemental Report,was prepared for the ;
Applicant. It is unclear when this report was fust made available to the Board(see below).
The DEIS title page identifies Sam Fitzgerald-Architect as the party that prepared the portions of the
DEIS dealing with"Aesthetic Resources,View Sheds,Architectural Perspective."Only the 3-page text of
the visual assessment is included in the DEIS. The 54 pages of accompanying photographs and ;
photosimulations, although they can be found on the Town website, have not been included in the DEIS
(although the DEIS says the "complete report can be found in Tab 12)". The DEIS table of contents
incorrectly states that 36 pages of photosimulations are included.
The Visual Impact Study states that its purpose "is to accurately portray the visual impact of the five
South Dyer lots along Rt. 25 and Orient Harbor as if the lots were fully developed." It is quite clear that
the Visual Impact Study limited itself to only the consideration of impacts to aesthetic–not historic—
resources—the NYS Route 25 Scenic Byway and Orient Harbor. It should be noted that the DEC
guidance memorandum noted above clearly states that aesthetic resources of statewide significance can
include "propert[ies] on or eligible for inclusion in the National or State Register of Historic Places [16
U.S.C. § 470a et seq., Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law Section 14.07]". The Orient
Historic District is one such property and, as discussed below, the Applicant made no attempt to identify
National Register"eligible"properties that might be affected.
The photosimulations which form the basis for the Visual Impact Assessment are problematic in several
regards. The DEIS states that"At the Town's request we developed a worst-case visual impact study."It
is unclear whether the simulated house in the photographs do represent the "worst-case." One of the
reasons for this is that neither the Visual Assessment nor the DEIS states the size or actual height of the
simulated houses. The DEIS states that computer modeling was used to"adjust"the simulated houses"to
maximize the profiles visible to the public." Presumably this is referring to views from Route 25—not
views from within the Orient Ilistoiic District.The Visual Assessment also notes that the"houses and lots
meet the maximum bulk regulations for the zone . . ." It goes on to state that"the maximum allowable
Building Area would be 8,000 sq ft."(which could include accessory structures, decks, swimming pools,
etc.). No such structures are visible in any of the photosimulations. This leaves open the questions: how
large are the simulated homes, and how do they compare to the sizes of existing houses in the associated
viewsheds?l
The photosimulations are also misleading in that they show the simulated houses with associated
simulated mature landscaping which in many cases partially blocks views of the simulated homes. Even
if the Board were to require, as part of its site plan review, specific landscaping requirements, it is
obvious that it would be many years before the conditions portrayed in the Visual Assessment Study
would actually exist.
The photosimulations also fail to account for the possible inclusion of overhead electrical service
connections which could have a significant visual impact. The DEIS is also silent on this. Does the
Board plan to include a requirement that all required utilities be underground installations as a mitigative
measure?
One of the principal failings of both the DEIS and the Visual Assessment is their failure to address
impacts to the Orient State/National Register Historic District. The DEIS notes that the Lead Agency
[Planning Board's] Concern Area regarding historic resources is "Potential moderate to large adverse
impact of South Dyer, which is adjacent to the Orient National Historic District." It goes on to conclude
that the proposed 5 new single-family house lots "will not destroy or alter any of the Orient Historic
District site, property, setting or integrity. No evidence to support this conclusion is presented in either
the Visual Assessment or the DEIS, and there is evidence to support a contrary conclusion.
The'0xiPrit 1-1i*ric District is not a4jrrcent"tri the Prbject-. The five proposed South Dyer'building lots
and their associatcd,house are all located wiffiln the district2. Views obsciv_ed bypcdestriaiis: bicyclists,
and motorists traveling through the Orient Historic District, particularly along Racketts Court, Oyster
Ponds Lane, and Skippers Lane, will be changed to an unknown degree (unknown because these views,
which are clearly within the Project viewshed,were never considered during the impact analysis).Views
both of and from several individual historic properties within the Orient Historic District,which are also
designated Southold Historic Landmarks,will also be affected.
1 When a representative of the Orient Association expressed concern at the March 11, 2019 Public Hearing
about the size of permitted houses, noting that an 8,000 sq. ft. Building Area would permit construction of
houses considerably larger than those found in Orient,the Board Chair incorrectly stated that the 8,000 sq.ft.
was referring to the size of the houses—not the Building Area.
z The February 12,2015 Southold Planning Department's Staff Report to the Board states that"Portions of the
Orient National Historic District are contiguous with South Dyer. .. this threshold would classify the entire
action as a Type 1. The LWRP map below shows the . . . District boundary just east of the South Dyer
property.This is our best example. The NRHP website has not digitized the map yet."
The LWRP map included in the report is of such small scale as to be virtually useless.It is true that the NRHP
website does not have a digitized map showing the Orient Historic District boundaries. However,a digital
copy of the NRHP form, which includes both a map, and a metes-and-bounds description for the Orient
Historic District was,and is,available on the New York OPRHP website through OPRHP's Cultural Information
System (CRIS). A GIS-based scalable map showing the Orient Historic District boundaries on a variety of map
and aerial photo bases,was,and is,also available.
As noted above,the Applicant made no attempt to identify State/National Register"eligible" properties
that might be affected,nor does the DEIS address"eligible"properties.
On January 13, 2015 the Planning Board Office notified the Applicant of the resolution adopted by the
Board classifying the Project as a Type I action under SEQRA. The resolution reads,in part:
"WHEREAS, pursuant to 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(b)(9), another Type 1 Action is " any
Unlisted Action(unless the action is designed for the preservation of the facility or site)
occurring wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to, any building,
structure, facility, site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register
of Historic Places ; or that has been proposed by the New York State Beard on Historic
Preservation for a recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer for
nomination for inclusion in the National Register, or that is listed on the State Register of
Historic Places (the National Register of Historic Places is established by 66 Code of
Federal Regulations(CFR)Parts 60 and 63, 1994 [see 617.17]", and
WHEREAS, this proposed subdivision is located substantially contiguous to the Orient
National Historic District located to the east of the South Dyer property; and" . .
Y
[therefore this is a Type I action].
The resolution references a version of 6 NYCRR Part 617.4(b)(9)that had been superseded at the time it
was cited.The correct version reads:
4
"(9)any Unlisted action(unless the action is designed for the preservation of the facility
or site), that exceeds 25 percent of any threshold established in this section, occurring
wholly or partially within,or substantially contiguous to,any historic building, structure,
facility, site or district or prehistoric site that is listed on the National Register of Historic
Places (voltune 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 60 and 63, which is
incorporated by reference pursuant to section 617.17 of this Part), or that is listed on the
State Register of Historic Places or that has been determined by the Commissioner of the
Office of Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State
Register of Historic Places pursuant to sections 14.07 or 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation `
and Historic Preservation Law;"
The differences are significant because;
1) they makes clear that "eligible" properties are also covered. Eligible properties include all historic
pro
perties that in the opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO-the FIP
e OPR
C:ommissioner)3 satisfy the eligibility criteria for the State or National Register of Historic Places. In
reviewing the potential effects of a project on historic properties, all potentially eligible properties—
including those not previously identified—must be considered. That is why historic architectural surveys
of what is known as a project's Area of Potential Effect(APE)are necessary. In the case of above-ground
historic structures the APE is generally considered to be the viewshed associated with a historic structures
setting; and
3 The Commissioner of the New York State Office of Park, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) is
also the New York State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). OPRHP's Division for Historic Preservation
sei ves ds the SHPO staff. The acronyms OPRHP and SHPO arc used here interchangeably.
2) because Section 14.09 of the Parks,Recreation and Historic Preservation Law is cited. Section 14.09
requires all state agencies, prior to issuing permits (such as the DEC Article 25 permit that will be
required for the Tuthill Subdivision)to obtain SHPO comments on the potential effects of an undertaking
on historic properties, and to determine if prudent and feasible project alternatives that could eliminate or
minimize any adverse effects.
OPRI P's Cultural Information System (CRIS) indicates that there are at least ten unevaluated historic
homes or structures within 300 feet of the North and South Dyer parcels, and an additional nine within
300 feet of the North and South Brown parcels. Most of these are located along Route 25, and many of
them will have views of the proposed house lots on the South Dyer parcel. Although these properties are
classified as"unevaluated"by OPRNP, all but five of the nineteen are included in in the 1987 Society for
the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities (SPLIA 4) survey, sponsored by the Southold Town
Community Preservation Office, and the 2013 Historic Building/Places Inventory sponsored by the
Southold Landmarks Preservation Commission. Complete sets of both inventories are posted on the
Town of Southold website. Neither appears to have ever been consulted by either the Applicant or his
visual assessment consultant. DEIS does not mention these properties, or consider if or how they might
be affected.
Prior to its January 13, 2015 resolution, on October 8, 2014, the Planning Department submitted a
completed Project Review Checklist to OPRHP "seeking information on potential cultural resources that
could be impacted on or near each parcel for SEQR purposes."The Checklist calls for"maps locating the
project in the community[which] clearly show street and road names surrounding the project area as well
as the location of all portions of the project. Appropriate maps include tax maps,Sanborn Insurance maps,
and/or USGS quadrangle maps."The Planning Department checked the box indicating such maps were
attached. In fact, what are attached to the Checklist are aerial photographs with only a few street or road
names, and with the four project parcels (one per photo) identified only by arrows. No boundaries or
limits of the four parcels are indicated.
On January 26,2015 OPRHP responded via the CRIS system:
"the project is adjacent to properties that have been determined to be potentially eligible
as part of an historic district along NY Route 25.In addition to the Phase 1B [archeology]
report, please document any adjacent properly 50 Years of age or older.Documentation
should include original photos of each exterior elevation, construction date if known,
current address, and comments about current condition. A brief history of each property
would also be appreciated. If you have any questions, please contact Lorraine Weiss in
the Survey Unit at 518-268-2129. .."
This request for additional information necessary for OPRHP to render an opinion regarding possible
impacts of the Project on historic properties was not responded to, in spite of a subsequent request from
OPRHP for additional information (see below) The DEIS makes no mention of the fact that OPRHP,
acting in its capacity as the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), was consulted, that OPRHP had
requested additional information,and that the requested information was never provideds.
SPLIA is now known as Preservanon Long Island.
s The Phase IA archeological study,discussed below,does contain limited information on five standing
structures on or adjacent to the Project
Although the Planning Department contacted OPRHP to seek that office's comments, neither the
Planning Department nor the Applicant has ever consulted the Southold Historic Preservation
Commission. This was pointed out by the Commission Chairman at the Marchl1, 2019 Public Hearing.
This remains a significant error.The DEIS states:
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, Iialianate, 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 harmonizc 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.
There is no "Orient Historic District website." What is being referred to is a commercially sponsored
website called Living Places, from which four pages have been extracted and inserted into the DEIS.This
website appears to be the sole source of information used to establish the context for evaluating impacts
to the historic district. Determining if future homes would "harmonize" with existing homes in the -
historic district is not a decision that can be made by either the Applicant or the Board. Stating that
houses would be built"in accordance with any standards set by the Zoning or Building Departments"is
not sufficient,and does not eliminate,mitigate,or even address,potential impacts to the historic district.
The DEIS fails to consider or note that any homes constructed on the five proposed South Dyer lots ;
Iocated within the limits of the Orient Historic District would have to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Southold Historic Preservation Commission. It is the Commission, not the
Applicant,the Planning Department,the Building Department,or the Zoning Board of Appeals, that will
determine what is architecturally appropriate for a new home in the historic district.
Finally, the Planning Board's July 6, 2015 Positive Declaration states that"the following [SEQRA EAF
questions]must be addressed: . . .
ii.The proposed action may result in the alteration of the[historic]property's setting or integrity.
iii. The proposed action may result in the introduction of visual elements which are out of
character with the[historic)site or property,or may alter its setting.
The DEIS does not adequately address these issues.
In summary, in regard to historic(non-archeological)resources the DEIS:
incorrectly notes that the Project is adjacent to,rather than partially within,the Orient Historic District;
makes no mention of historic (non-archeological) properties, other than the Orient Historic District,
that could be visually(or otherwise)impacted by the project;
• makes no mention of previously inventoried individual historic structures located outside the Orient
Historic District;
• bases its assessment of aesthetic and visual impacts to historic properties on a visual impact
assessment that was designed only to address aesthetic impacts to a portion of the Route 25 Scenic
Byway;
• does not address visual impacts to the Orient Historic District;
• bases its limited visual impact assessment upon photosimulations which may not accurately represent
post-construction views;
makes no mention of the fact that OPRHP, acting in its capacity as the State Historic Preservation
Office (SETO), was consulted, that OPRHP had requested additional information, and that the
requested information was never provided;
* fails to take into account possible, because they were never solicited, comments from the Southold t
Historic Preservation Commission;
o incorrectly implies that it is the Applicant who will decide whether future homes "harmonize' with
existing landmark structures within the Orient Historic District;and
fails to consider that Certificates of Appropriateness from the Southold Historic Preservation
Commission will be required for proposed homes within the limits of the Orient Historic District.
Impacts to Archeological Resources
In 2011 the Applicant had prepared what is known as a Phase IA cultural resources assessment for the
Project. This is a desktop study to identify previously known and recorded historic structures and
archeological sites that could be affected.The report was prepared by Tracker Archaeology Services,Inc.
The Town of Southold received the Phase lA report on July 3, 2014, and at some point submitted it to
OPRHP for comment, because in response to the Planning Department's October 8, 2014 information
request to OPRHP(see above), OPRHP responded via CRiS on January 26, 2015, and again in writing
on March 12,2015,as follows:
"We have reviewed the report entitled "Phase IA Archaeological Documentary Study for the Proposed
Tuthill Subdivision, Orient,Town of Southold, Suffolk County,New York"(dated March 2011). OPRHP
concurs with the report recommendation,that a Phase I136 archaeological investigation is warranted,prior
to any proposed development that will involve ground disturbance."
The Phase IA is relatively brief.It concluded that"the entire study area is seen as having a high to higher
than average potential for the recovery of prehistoric sites" [and] "the entire study area was seen as
having a high to above average potential for nineteenth century [archeological] sites and a higher than
average potential for encountering historic aboriginal sites." These conclusions were the basis for
recommending that a Phase 1B field investigation be conducted_
In conformance with OPRHP's 2005 Phase 1 Archaeological Report Format Requirements,the Phase 1 A
report includes,in tabular form,the results of a search of OPRHP's archeological site file for information
on previously recorded archeological sites within one mile of the Project. Eight sites are listed in the
6,,A Phase 1B investigation consists of a systematic, on-site Geld inspection designed to assess archaeologically
sensitive areas and environmental characteristics relevant to site locations and formation processes. Such
investigations include, but are not limited to systematic surface survey, subsurface shovel testing, and remote
sensing studies . . Field-testing procedures for Phase IB Field Investigations should verify site locations provided
by informants,confirm site locations suggested by the literature search,and discover previously unknown sites.The
areas to be subjected to a field survey are selected on the basis of the data gathered during the Phase IA evaluation
and all probable locations of project construction, staging areas, or any other areas of potential impact." (From:
Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation ofArchaeological Collections in New York State).
I,
table. Under the table heading"Distance from APE'ft(m)"two sites are identified as"on property" and
one as"adjacent":
NYSHPO Site 10310.008 is listed as "on property (So. Brown)." Under the heading"Site Description"
the report says"5 Acres Indian Village:area of several camp[sic]about 600 years prior to Euro-American
settlement, relics found, shell midden (Late woodland[sic]?" The Phase lA report omits significant
information: OPRHP's Archeological Site Inventory form for Five Acre Indian Village Site notes that the
Oyster Ponds Histprical Society had erected a.plaque at;the lodations,tb6f=excavations 63.=R.-Latham, R.
Wi;gins had taken p1ace in 1925 and l 968,and'that"Tabor&Sons cxhausted'the area many years ago.i'
The site form lists as references the Southold Bicentennial Map and R.Latham 1978.
NYSHPO Site 10310.0254 is listed in the Phase IA report as "on property (South Dyer)." Under the
heading"Site Description"the report says"Major Banks [site] (form unfilled),no info."Information not
included in the Phase 1A report is that OPRHP's Archeological Site Inventory form for the Major Banks
Site gives its location as "North Bank of Orient Harbor," and that the"Source of Information"about the
site is listed as the Museum at Southold,presumably the Southold Indian Museum.
NYSM [New York State Museum] Site 697 is listed as "adjacent(No_ Brown).Under the heading"Site
Description" the report says "no info." The Phase lA is particularly deficient in regards to NYSM 697. ;
NYSM 697 is identified in OPRHP files as the Orient No.l Site. This site is part of the Orient Burial
Complex. It is arguably the most important site ever studied on Long Island, and is one of the most
significant sites in northeastern United States.
No mention of the Phase IA study or its results can be found anywhere in the DEIS.
On March 12, 2015 the PIanning Department notified the Applicant that it accepted OPRHP's
recommendation that a Phase 1B archeological investigation be undertaken,and referred the Applicant to
OPRHP's 2005 Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements. On March 24,2015 the Applicant
advised the Planning Department that Tracker Archeological Services, Inc. had been retained to conduct
the Phase 1B investigation. The Phase 113 investigation was conducted in the summer of 2015 and a
report of that work, dated December 2015 was prepared.The report does not incorporate or consider the
results of the Phase 1 A investigation.
The Board's July 6, 2016 Positive Declaration states "The action is located within an Arebeo-sensitive
Area. The New York Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation is requiring a Phase I
Cultural Assessment for all areas to be developed.The assessment must include the results of the study.
It is unclear when the Phase 1B report was submitted to OPRHP. However, on June 11, 2018 Dr.
Timothy Lloyd of OPRHP's Archaeology Unit advised the Planning Department via CRIS as follows: "I
have reviewed the report of the archeological survey of the. . . project area. The area surveyed does not
correspond with the area of potential effect that was initially submitted for this project.I would like to see
project plans to determine of the area surveyed was sufficient. Please review the specific information
7 APE refers to the "Area of Potential Effect" which in this case refers to areas of Project-related ground
disturbance.
8 The Town Historian has advised that the plaque was removed to deter looters
q The site is far from exhausted as evidenced by the results of the Phase 1B arrheningiral survey,SPr hrinw)
t
request (s) below and click the Process button to respond to each request." The specific information
request reads:"Please provide project plans."
As of last week, OPRHP has advised me(T.Lloyd,personal communication)that they have not received
the requested information. OPRHP has not commented on the results of the Phase 1 B investigation or on
how the Tuttle Subdivision project could affect archeological resources.
With a few exceptions the Phase 1B fieldwork seems to have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.
However,Phase 113 report has some significant failings.
OPRHP's Phase I Archaeological Report Format Requirements specifically call for Phase 113 reports to ,
include "Estimated site size (horizontal and vertical)based on artifact distribution, topography, etc. Site
boundaries must illustrate maximum possible boundaries until closer interval testing is conducted.Please
note that the site boundaries for each site identified must be included on the project map so that the ;
relationship of the site to the APE is clear." Although at least one aboriginal archeological site was x
located during the Phase 1B investigation on the South Brown parcel building lot, no information is
provided regarding the boundaries of the site as determined through the surface collection of artifacts.No
mention is made of the fact that this area may correspond with the reported location of the Five Acre
Indian Village Site(even though this was noted in the Phase IA report).
No photographs of the artifacts recovered,nor any detailed artifact descriptions are included in the report.
On the North Dyer parcel the report states that"The remains of an early twentieth century building(brick
and lumber), about 20 feet by 35 feet, destroyed by a hurricane of 1938 was also encountered, mostly
buried_According to the property owner,this was the remains of the"House of 7 Gables",from Orient.A
single course stone foundation base was found in the vicinity of the house rubble. According to the
property owner,this may have been a foundation for either 1 of the outbuildings of the House of 7 Gables
or the old school house." It is unclear from the report exactly where on the North Dyer parcel this historic
period archeological site is located. There is no mention or discussion of this site in the DEIS
The text of the DEIS limits its discussion of possible impacts to archeological resources to four sentences:
"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 I1 intensive
testing is recommended."
The three pages of the Phase 1 B report text are incorporated into the DEIS, but the 53 pages of maps and
data appendices have been omitted.
The "white quartzite fragments" referred to are, in fact, 51 prehistoric artifacts from the South Brown
parcel, 9 of which were classified as tools, at least some of which should be amenable to style dating.The
remainder was mostly stone tool manufacturing debris known as debitage. As noted above, it seems
likely that this is one of the previously known Native American sites reported in the Phase 1A report. I
would add that the number of artifacts, and the ratio of tools to chipping debris, especially given the
history of prior artifact collecting on the property, is suggestive of a major Native American habitation
site.
Again, as noted above, no attempt was made to delineate the boundaries of this site within the South
Brown parcel. Although OPRHP calls for this to be done during Phase 1 B investigations,it may not have
been done because the investigator recommended a Phase II intensive testing investigation to collect more
information.
However, he made a serious error when he states that this need not be done until "prior to ground
breaking or construction which threatens site information". While this type of recommendation is
appropriate in many cases, it not appropriate here for several reasons. First, in the absence of a specific
condition in any future site plan approval, the Applicant(or any future owner of the affected lot)cannot
be required to conduct any additional archeological investigation. Second, the discovery of a significant
archeological site, especially one which might contain human remains, on a given parcel either before or
during construction could render the parcel unusable, or usable only after a costly archeological data
recovery project.
r
Requiring the Phase 11 investigation as part of the DEIS process would have had two benefits: 1)it would
eliminate the potential problem of a discovery being made on an approved building lot, by allowing a
relocation the proposed lot outside the limits of the archeological site, and 2) it would provide for the
permanent preservation of the archeological site within the conservation subdivision.
The DEIS makes no mention of the fact that although comments on the project were,solicited from
OPRHP, no final response was received because information OPRHP requested so that they could
complete their review of the Phase 1B archeological study was never provided.As a result, and because
the Board made no attempt to seek independent expert advice concerning archeological issues,it has been G
forced to rely solely on the information provided by the Applicant. As a result, it is my belief that the
Board failed to take a"hard look"at the potential impacts of the Project on archeological resources.
t
Irregularities in the State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA)Processlo
In addition to the DEIS' problems relating to archeology and historic resources I also want to comment on
the how the SEQRA process for this project was handled.
No formal scoping was done for this projectll. Although scoping was not required under the DEC
SEQRA regulations in force at the time the EAF was being prepared,DEC guidance highly recommended
that it be done for all projects_ The crucial importance of scoping was formalized on January 1 when the
SEQRA regulations were amended to now require scoping for all Type I and Unlisted actions. Had
scoping been done the problems with the work scopes for both the visual impact study and the
archeological investigations might have been avoided.For example, on January 16,2015,the President of
the Orient Association advised the Planning Board that "A narrowly-scoped DEIS could be carefully
tailored to refine and resolve the visual impact aspects of this application that have already been identified
during the early stages of review."
Io In addition to the issues discussed below, the DEIS also suffers from several other deficiencies. SEQRA
regulations at 6 CRR-NY 617.9b3 state that an EIS must be preceded by a cover sheet that identifies"the date
of its acceptance by the lead agency; and in the case of a draft EIS, the date by which comments must be
submitted." Both dates are missing from the DEIS cover sheet for the Project.While not significant In itself,
this speaks to the entire lack of care with which the entire DEIS was prepared and made available for public
review.
IIThe Board's July 6,2015 Positive Declaration notes that no scoping was done for the Project.
The record for the Tuttle Subdivision project contains no explanation, especially given the well-
recognized concerns about the Project, as to why the Planning Board determined that no scoping would
be necessary. More than a dozen Draft Environmental Impact Statements can be found in various
locations on the Town of Southold's website. In all but one of these cases, some form of pre-DEIS
scoping seems to have been conducted. Why was no scoping required in this case?
A second issue that needs to be mentioned is the manner in which the DEIS has been made available to
the public for review.When the Board voted to declare the DEIS complete,the legally required notice of
that, and the announcement of this hearing, was published in the DEC's February 20 Environmental
Notice Bulletin. SEQRA regulations require that a DEIS be accessible electronically.The ENB notice for
this project states that"The Draft EIS is available from the Southold Town Planning Department and on
line at:
http://www.southoldtownny.gov/270/Environmental-Impact-Statements."
Almost everyone I have spoken with who has tried to access the DEIS through that link, have told me '
that when they try to access the Tuttle Subdivision DEIS through that link they get a message that says
the website is online but isn't responding.On February 28 I advised the Planning Department that the link
was not functional. Later that day the Planning Department responded, saying that the Information
Technology department had checked the link and it was working. I again informed the Planning
Department it was not, but received no further response..It's unclear why some people have been able to
access the DEIS in this way but most others cannot.
Admittedly,one can find the DEIS on the Town's website. It can be found by taking the following steps:
• Going to the Town of Southold website,then
m going to the"How do I"tab,then
® going to the Public Records link,then
• going to the Planning Department Folder,then
• going to the Applications folder(not the SEQRA documents folder),then
• going to the Conservation Subdivision folder,then
• going to the Pending folder,then
m going to the Tuttle Conservation Subdivision folder,then
• going to the DEIS Received 9-14-2018 folder.
One can then attempt to download DEIS through Laserfiche. The document at that location is the final
version of the DEIS. However, the metadata for the site indicates that it was not posted until March 4,
2019.Prior to that date while all of the text and attachments to the DEIS were available on line,they were
seemingly randomly located throughout a more than 400 page document simply labeled Tuttle
Conservation Subdivision.
The inability of the public to easily access the DEIS runs contrary to both the intent of the State
Environmental Quality Review Act and general principles of open government.
Finally, I want to raise one other procedural issue. On February 12, 2419 the Board issued its formal
Determination of Adequacy for the Tuttle Conservation Subdivision DEIS. On February 25,2019,almost
two weeks later, I attended a Planning Board Work Session at which the principal agenda item was a
review of the Tuttle Conservation Subdivision "Visual Impact Study in DEIS." At the work session
individuals from the Planning Department made a presentation to the Board which included a display of
some of the photosimulations from the visual impact study At the conclusion of the work session I
observed members of the Board being given binders which appeared to be copies of the Visual Impact
Study. Why did the Planning Board vote to deem the DEIS adequate when it had not yet reviewed the
results of the study dealing with what is perhaps the most consequential environmental issue associated
with the Project?
All of the issues I have raised here could have been addressed had the Board,once it was made aware of
their general nature at the Public Hearing, called for either a Supplemental DEIS to be prepared, or
minimally kept the Public Hearing open so that the Applicant and the Board could have additional time to
consider the issues of concern. Instead, without any discussion, the Board voted to close the Public
Hearing.
f
Given the limited time within which a Final EIS must be prepared,I find it hard to believe that all of the
issues raised here can be adequately addressed in that document.The Board has left itself in the position
of having to deal with most of them as part of the Site Plan approval process. This will be particularly
problematic since the most likely way to deal with most of the issue raised here will be through relocating
proposed building lots. That, in turn, could necessitate the need for additional visual and archeological
studies to assess changing impacts.
Sincerely,
J
Joel I.Klein,PhR,RPA
S
From: Bufk!ns, Erica
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:40 AM
To: Terry, Mark;Michaelis,Jessica;Lanza, Heather, Palmeri,Allison
Subject: FW:Tuthill Subdivision North Brown Parcel
FYI! _' ECEIVED
From: david backus fmailto:dmbackus ime.conil h 1�
Sent:Tuesday, March 19, 2019 9:13 AM _
To: Bufkins, Erica
soisthof�'T�w�i,
Subject: Tuthill Subdivision North Brown Parcel Planning Board
Dear Southold Town Planning Board,
I am a Iong time Brown Hills resident and I am shocked that a plan to divide farm
fields would be brought before your board.The North Brown Farm field will
continue to be farmed and is adjacent to two more farm fields creating the
uninterrupted farm vistas favored in conservation subdivision.
I would also like to note that a road now exists on the west border of the North
Brown Tuthill parcel.No road exists on the east border. Trees and bushes which
are natural animal habitats do exist.
t
3n�4..'x Lip r'.":` r•l!'a',pprr �r # n# c�':i.:A``'"�`"L,Y t" w'^'.t�_�,
�M.., •,.X' ��p�" -. .,:s'•7�;;L" e �, •c.]�'`,�y:t";4; �.:.�..>.,.�>T'd-:fir'.."` F' i1..�'
' 'r:,'F£• .i ..1;. ..,-`--..�. �`��' ,.S'�C=q�+ 7k fr.-: b" s< �,� �.d. '""15�'.,,"i•.�-,.�,1''�. '!.
a:e'.rg^:"'>r€v:. "°4°. `r,,>i x �•: 1'+ 5'....yy33;.y,._ P.i r' Q'#,«' :t..�b+.\ r'7' 1, i#,
• -+,k�;,k�e;,`p ^' ":�o` <.����. .i� ...�•,.'3y?t;��",f•'�`�:�;'s„',''?.�f;r #n s.�,�F”'>K1' 1 ° .
.t•r:`js ,u: �'�:y#. �,;,,8:�^%�" -!"�. ?:2� "��s''!�'�'v'r fm'�,-..za.,,...s;�.":r",p �� � y 4. 1
^ e'" > . .'��° ;<a;?:$.�"""".fir€.,�:� w �r ti 8.Q v.'�e;r$�'� a 3>•�, IM•.i 1'. L,d�-^ �^c }• ,_
" °• � ul:e• .,...{PE�:'a '�xA a f <. t` Y.�•.t,�.�j'� 'i.�'R: i f°" »•� 2t
< _�b,�;w,,,;�c'ukf't,_•`�;:,.sz•=�:.. � �'i :i b*g�.7"i' �;"� •,;,,1c..� d '��c''�."••;
;. .,.-r:• �l.r .,,,.:fit°'°'. a� sem- t x q 'x'�•,t'Yi�"a f� •al�< x--''.°f�C et
., M✓.^.((^5Y �' , e %. �+"i�.•°'Y,4 PJ��$d»� °S A�" ��, � .i .
' f�.I,'° `'� a•. ^}"•i...,-,.ti,Y-, 7 YtiA. ,�'i,`*�-# •• $SY;#'.a�';p{ssy l>'t; • !a
{ice- •M+._W w'S+MP �•�Y't..••,n<' v R`l°4��^���} f'f
�{`p^��4� 3� .,� elalr '• �..r;�.7`a �1'f'°`.)r�1. Ykl�:��`°I Q .qK'�"•'i��e°5 >
':°°'i'y°``H`y'gii g '�"'r�• °'
set
t�+S'�/+ F� 5`. � {}.# l••,"•" #�1. ,Y
'Y4S C,p aP a"� ° it 'a. -,Y45 t ° "�. g •b° F of ") '
<'�
s - y�..�,i r ,,r`;ti'+'i •'��v'�''� t$ci g;,•, {{. '"'�" y s '' t
ro S3• `, , a § ,°:rye` �1: rA
,t,r• '�,. �, , *a'� nsE fir.,,x �+ e n �,�
��•• �.. ;�, 'gyp `� ;. ��•t�* a -+�, _Y ;�
> .`d.,rq.:.�,k.;�#7.=.-:• �-C$.r.< ,�,.,F€4tt�,�3��°,. `'.'�+,!,Y+�.f'°�.L.�,„'P'��a}+P: 3y,,$$`` Fi#'t 'r`° .a�t,. ''` f .
- -< '.. s'{�{�"�,5,'•'i�`�,`� 4< `f#1 =4�uw'a"'" �$�i 'g�R�j7 � �',�i °�3 j � dfi{'��, en .l�y •
,. ��> °f;>•vf fsgffT'#.��b�;° '�'��r+',;�-���3�<w.a� tyh`-yg'y.ea»Tk'�:,ti�r,�.T;'r $r�)}�•:}Y eH,.d`'' '''y{*�`.� gk � F` "Fya,4 °�' �^�
>< <'°a,.,�;��,..-a"�,q°•'p ya:Sg,'.3�:+.e'a;< (1� 1t `"d^*, � flrt� °y J'�.$�t��,� �" r' � "�
MYk ;�£�`»�'�{{y:.,„,(�?�°.°.-r."_ma'o€.g p�s`"„'�;sK?�~•�°;� ✓,�-4�' R j�'����� °�' }��4
�r .;;�:�h+ y'.'=e'•,t„,'�r.9j,'' .,Gs;.iy_�.-.. `'m�`."aro`" t°4e,,+�,v¢.i�j fs' a�. �,���t,'a'Ap. �` �u� '"' j�.t•,�5+'J •
s�,�k�.�'Z$� ,3 .'°�w.;°,..f'w;.°^��,s'.;sp.;r:;.?:: ��:yjy,,.,s»i�''sL °� r"• re°y''f4' a�v.g"'F'.: .J >lv°'q• 'fr'fi +'
��`?-:.^,�'.o': .e r.,;;i..:,i':e« ".-S`:.' ,n,�.;•� t� <^y,¢U.'",.?'>j., ��aY�' '��� i nl
`'.°rvi
>.�x«::�';A.:.,. ed a�it'•'y_ y�'A'd y;' y�JefAS"f y. A�>n-aa; .:.`>'x"�"!+�w$�f.'%#.�✓.w:.y,�t�Ta
"•"d�2Lt,•Y•« 'Jt.Ma•.� }k:Y".��°t.'�'-Y•fIM ) . ,l '
1 -.�`•°'y`...i�t}`r«:J"+ A�t�';cr"�'•'s':^?"e`f ``�T`,• �-::•-a ��; €fit��• � 1 ;�' i '
'Y"f�a•t'��`!.'�ll.Y 3.;n'°aa�•'<� s .S'v�ta Fb.,••tr L'�®,? «�l.` Y:r.y4^
��$;�r ii��.s: `y+1„Ya,>a-+r,:"yh^ X;;- +.tics°`r:°�,n a�•�'. F°•�„.A.3�� « s . a
'iii+ZY�,,<:R�,4�`":;5`,'9�}:e ...�T;.`���G-,:i'`'A.'.;"."r.'. .tom,?.:r. Er=,-.Y;�;'-sr r + r •
_"�As?�•-�,.,�. '��w ,��, � � ;:�.'y•,e<w' _--�.reF_�,° v Y gid,, � x "
ga'�&',.{4:'•.'ar^=3rCfi�<a� .:Y4`if'1�e4.'.,"i��. »;o. '"�g n":.�.;°,i �'�.,. �b�,. 'R « ���r§.• -� t•5 �; »^6 }
iw�� .,��:. ��t+C;ro+.s' <."c ' •P r., ti:�v,„;-^s�#.i�Fa•: a!'.°�.{:.r`-# �� ' r d•��,rti3. �
n.$a<, ' r. '°�>� R ;Pad S-s`x�'. 4'iJ":t;.>"r' „�r'7 tf ,�'y' �.+ •x,. '°'
"�+�.�"+y, ..�,�;%�°,r•t< , rs:'., "r.,• ” g �:;knp`,/., r ( ,y' ri
,
��rtS-.a'i" 6'� 4: `•f'ka„ '•tE• !.f:�G 9'1!"[,'),i"`;.`...�•S.re.�al f `"y_S`r }y .F� �+. �
� r r: _ rix:�° �: 7°'r_41��•i'>`r?',�ie. 'sc{`3fY°. s .r•L{l�P's<„_ y,a
shj >e°ofi.C':=;�FA e«F.�jrr•R'�v •;�."'. `>:.seia::-1,;,. :�. gj t �� 'r =..� i���,y'«;��r'J �1!„<
' +.�P.-. ”' .e,.`�t<.i '.jogs r.,p+ z'..:'',":. y .,} ` (.- irr ` cAi Y,%•$�it'�t,T°
�:� ,�, ,:::,,,- ,: �t.>f two,:;;>'-�•': . *7.w +v t fs`'•�", '>„t t,r-`.'t;.;,...yr !4a- S bs a•r
8..��°" °:``'f:i=",:*.: ��•:�s',�:: . eats`;;'i:ro '>.- �:.=..`?Laa� '��1� .?�.&?,r�a`*iy�c�;.'.0
2
E,sa+ieC. ��K�i:•.$' �.ff Q...'`-ts`n - .r d.y � 6�"rr.•x,t `��5r `ed (r
,,,�£,� >';,r",�,�.;MAR
�};a7� �SYr+ 3: V'*Ss�.,•'4 i�, c j,.. `.,°°k t+ �'•a °f:'.,
- ,�.S�""=g rs'': -°`1 - +, Ps' >s,,� �s c=_ •:; ^�$ »' !A "t.r'c.:.rKk ,- E4�,
r,h � "tori. ' }S`,• "t`t�a,fit - # It°s � f•, E rt' ii•
�.3;�' ?_,>.`�' Yr "iex 3tQ `»,`4, .,c4_�'>. .,,,'M�R;s..i°t F*p.,' t ^., py,D>'�� o-`j
y R s .> 3W T;d `sl ' :,
`F'y'A, 1�,�A� '�7•>e..,[rb����� '�§
g:;i��?a��a`•«.j"`za'4`o{°°.3,.R�„#-,t.,.;':,7��,�. ;•ir'°d a�°�?m��,�£�4�.�. x.'.y_� $,�-+ r,,*c`l ��1t�`pq 5 +x
.r. r&�.., 3f',�"Y✓��T':l?;;i�°9' � .'('.°A��..R ;3 f•�,''a£ brY }i4 ,q����c1�°'for t,4.s'('-�7^'.t�El�j�� ��F'R.f
�,�§
�,',� ';�±F�y" p
:?i i��3s;�t°�.'?§��^xY �'.a'r,; 3`'-ae,f���>`��'}',r '�r��i's;z`AI�, ..>� f�.�,'�•'�t:^�%;,� � �yr,`���'�i r
E r- p
f;. ,.tt re.•� „..�.:"�'£�' ' �.�t .. .:� a ,,���{�;y�.r.};::1^�:=�J. "s5e s'rs�''��-'�'f`ebvti'ksi' `rr.',lYf"�`,1C ,q
."��A"Se4 �f�T��R1 '�1\r �j •se:�s;' *,! j` Y.; �`
1.' i 'Z /g„e :�{j'?::•.$ 5r 3 I` "i 5.L 't.l°i
p a�i. '>-'r'i°a,v8�:� •-,...�i."�.i �S $9
3 ,' ikia fi F> -k gy`,i "'s- ;,§;'r Sip tN;q ss`�.�-i#�_<" w.y;°
%t'> a `s.:E ?e•` 4 i * t1fi=t'.� txy <t�5{ ast=, *��tog �s. G ,^'a'
� ,cz�+ {}i;: `�,#; rs-�'�;,�'•,.`., t ,� Zvi x. �`;�.�M=>.. � �;.{fr`:',-..r�.. �:
' It .r[..";• 1 �, `L �}}�fh 3 F,,•`` •stti. ,$ V�h�:r ;p"r, �'
:��s; E � `e�'j��°: {,an.,x:. gf'Fa'�lka"� •ats°:�:` 5,;..,�"I y f�-e j`N;+,'.,#4ia Y �1' it:;cL$
U Via•.F,. 'tf y ``x.r.` :r 8 s'. dyz _k.�«?a i r�;,$bs.s
-y.;.w,}#,'tz°c�ti... 3�,��e•,.;«��r,��''�l .€ �,«F ,� �'' a�. y,�gi�t ''+'�� z. S.4.n ,
.j+,',�?Y 4 rr.`C: f. R •�r..~'�,:°-1J �°� .A T7�t ="•9"°Y`:. °� 5�§�'"`ta•
�� �; L �4«R,3, It>.,«°•,.,,(c1 4, r*=.y«.is��tR'�E _ fi�✓}�. �fi ✓. yA�t• '•4'+:Pe�tt3:°
•a,;. �, °^p,?F_,). '• sYia.Y¢Yx` .••',''^':°.sSr ,J r:•:::'r:a°g£�•
..,."' .'. ti
&� «Sy.;g.•ufLv .�Y 4,rv,t..sjy .s' :, � t=•:,...r+s• t.r!i"•y ,a.sY#„�,C ,i' -, gg ,/
t`.'t�1`.�-" (4Y,< 5•
y °
a-.,?i;5 1,',;� b`sY>i., :. �.dt�° 'ti `'� e•.^':- t;.�,71 ,.':, p«f(y«w, p..
x 41
���V"�•E�,w>'�:�> ;._ta i a 1F''•" �{ •"�„>i a"�,,�• ~:}s> u•&°: 3`j pe tr”'�t (z'��`a y°'°-3"-a' �,,: 1��"r"
f`�; zA' tiQj_ \�i�i°'..N3.•••'^x,Q§�lry}� r •�ti`a4,�, $$!!{ �+,r(µ? .'3,.,��r f},t,. 3�♦;`�{,,,:�} .
}'h-<s .� :Y.Sida;s•;.-'" .i�- t.Lyr Y , `�7�f �£ •SST}{�f lea.
' •.h ..',-. � ,i,,'iY.°�.`� :u.:�'Y;f'�{"'QQ Sir° x �i(e �r �1.y7 �.:
' �.a /F,k .deal ff.'�t •�'�k��j:=•t� �r �h i i e`3�rH'"F 4t'sw�,"� >
Y'Ri # ';• A-"`ems .�.,%� "'�'+ItjSin'�� � [P`L'»"-?�°`>
•�4w s�Y���-€ ��������g;�>, axs 3 a't�' 'ui',�?��.�r,'�?' ,'�`•i�� � .L�iy"�'� i r<cf�=f.'�•''
� ��r�`�a,'�>yU���i`��Vsyi�.s�> ���f�aiT�'F§�'P 4s' �i�;.'`'� 47t? ,s,. 'i�.•��y?..,fir
K' xL $� s � �•s l]] i
�Cp 4"�:L"Ge',K,s*x,',�; � a .,[r�.T„fl�e,♦a tda">iPs9'# _'"°f p.\` a� ?g �`
kY. -a✓ r� f. tµ.>4,tr D�� €,9`�,dµ{���aygt rA`�� ���! }�� ♦ f \�}(�• ��
#:,�.`L:`:-:`;S°"re dig rft+,.4t•,4-,x#�: 18�+�i3 '� 7 �R ,i, �"'s Yr'''Q:i `
,S - {,e`.a,: ls�;�e�„rd;'C},;��i,�A'�.�.2�aS'.s'�. �Sz'�, a ♦>'+� �.°d'�^+E'.
'r �`r,=; ����'{si • '�'�� '�c}»w}n,��{����2���:,,,�. ' a #��'' i�'Y7p(r�` �' ;vy�' .k�'f�+tt,�_{}.��,�, y�� i t,y��;�yi� ,�y�r; }
”r':,„
"-gal
•$
;fir t.• [ •�` �-,� �(�
{1' T 1[���t���:Q�ie',+�.Sj v�rsaY?�;.G�, �4/��"'..'{{,��t�'4�; `S� ',,0. �✓t-4 '"x�'�.1. ',r, S
ISSE
r �4s�� ',�'t,.7��" { a, r t¢ •S`'"syt`+w`:apy t9°,^�'r • s ,.j7"�1r�
'r n?J"ri���'d °` �. `.:.a`s+ �d”'aY``,s' r:.'•r ~r.rl•"}^b-q�''P's;1}�sr.Z.{; :.31 .!,t",stfr{ .
3` dP sr•;+sE>. �. M :t^,rs, :r.. `uxs^`•a.`a, i rs.,f«36Y::yras{'' '�1'":-.
s,_ Q_ fir+ -r d 1. } �..,t ,:+•� ` ,,�+}�h?3 �'��` rel�, �Pd'�. ��X�t r,��Tit`J'�s��`�;��'�t.. •r yt: r - �ej�•
•,.1°�r-,(.,..,�v.4• �'tsisfa`y`�:.u€%,�`b�^�k<`,'���:�:w:;,r.t. =.�< .�`i;-e: ,4 L::,`_.€%. }:`:�"�' r„_ -.
View from south to north of east border of North Brown parcel of Tuthill property-
3
4
tom" '^ ^" 1# it P:;-• ^. kA p2Eib 'rr is 'x�t"Aa c'_.,• ,@
$E'r <@+ »'•s' r d 3x', sfr;s*S Axa Ira,. n, :v g .F ..,?t=om rn--"•'.fr t
¢ <. s,s{. ^nas.a-<;s,.<.•aas,�r' y... „Y;,.
�>z sa:£,' �";•' �3:,'i` ,4`;.«�6ai}: t,�,^
:�,✓„afff
• pe.';FJ $ �r A <7R w*+.xT '{SCr `e....nai"h"":'F
"o „,. >'fas..�,a.{T '*•#u ..r ,
'r �i?wt'e:�,s>S$,� ,`�;8��1�e.�i��•3z. £• <k�;r .9. �. fix'"'i',.a
. ,?"' �SrP.• e ?• ,i�r%"g'K.„e, ra,r;"_ " f
'S _.,,`l. F,.�««gg
;r�., F`.a7<m!A,
k t,'xt'`� ^E pp +S'3�?':•' {a fpm
d' F''� I• tv't, �tt"y,,�
aa;- -<. ;<F"�•'-:'.y,a`s�{t ig�i?^`; ,r"?."<'
46,5°., {�,
t=z
- •e t t:, ?,- .`r{'$,� �°�" a�.s="?Paa3Y i i`tt?°' < ,�L€:;ir,,,,�•.:.S r�' ,<aYit•
"+�i,' �•!Y��; ..:#.'YY:-•' � �:`'',£..,...:.; .�5<',niY` •J'.a Ass` �r ;F�r-,
�. ,r . Z�,�..'....<.<a•t ,a.-;;. sP:a'p'se � r' £ r' r - > `° r
( i 3:,<3�7(° ,t`�'<Y�g„il .,-�f=>.ri:: L:ii e�L ,,�t�,,.. •Si(-:is•.,y s•.:
� `,t .f< ,?:a:�'.:r�.may ti.' :1-s:•fx.a=...' s� r+r > 'a,
No
/ 'is iyj�� i�aa�-°s-`4 Y,d3�..<r �.°a. ., •
a 9
,�y��2.s°7ytj;a7°s 1..iec`sa-t 7 5:•�`.<a«••s^�'#{. ,{;.:,.s"
' r,�< q�T��`y��„ 4✓' g��+^i��y'3'a+BA,q�N%£�wFe'.k;.
,i.,• •s'y�•.3. ::t tet':' '•Wr 1we ld1>.+..E )>'� F
IV, w. °"'+"`<.<;,a¢rix`.`.rom4Xivi? °..'+^':i.�yyr•.".'A>i ti•��.r<'�i r -.,r.�l "�"1` > - . '+�'��•r:lm .£N,<sa�y�,+,-a '
v.M'r'" 134n.-iw.:m' ,T.'r'�<4:�'ten»,•fib' "�^R"< a S
�y`:e*„effi» �•'•` ::.:3r i•r•<i-.n ?
i'� ' « �1::6`:s�y���.�: �.x� ^*,.., ^a'jr §^+`.' '>.. 3'3':E,i;«i+�<5•°a:e°+B.u;"°,rte
��: ,'' .� ,:.�.,:rl>,s,`,]ir:�i„��'{.k � `in <`''R t•(t y]q#2„ <r?• s
�: '+r�,�a `�'y�x�:•'`+.r"�a9• ' �¢+•..4_»,�;;, a:n.«' .Y"�,.:�°.�b''�� %cn.-� `a a ;
g'i { i.d°r'.c<'•. Y r •E,,,a ::n.,�pa•'6�yr"• �`"h 's n'}%i'mm>}y"j.
' 73 �,.� �'i°�. '=;7, fix'.,�v'rf�;����so �;•q„�.��8•-.>+�-<�` ��� � <s
., a�.}°� ir�'ss?•!4a�, °g;�Jl"°e'4`Z'„�ire;�i7%t-'. e 9 a< a .:�E
y'')";k'„i,< +y* 3'%!�;`'er.. F :s:�a:' �t B,F:,'P.• a.. �.'*�si vrke k�..,." - �`�, ' {; °'r1.
�>.., s.tr' a+�.�r'f 4' v "r 'r•*°,<"+" 4',0. e'•.,« z.°y' »i.
-°F
1 ..Y.`.F r t ?.-'�•' ,r '!"mss �, 'G,. w
-y�-�'y t, Yiy' ','}�;•__,?} ?.>`y?i.!,,., , •'E '+ -b`• �'c3" `'b': :1
..t?`trt�"z?'��',,.✓,.Lxr.g�Gk:�-z�yr��s`�.r�,'ea`x:?�.r�°' �'`��7",:•„Syj =�.,.f;+�"ti�� ��"ti=°" ee ,.ti! •
k
'a Yd FX:r�.ti, ti s P �'• ♦�-G�-..:$,e'3 �t`,�';t,;,?a .xK:�; '� h->. >
SM$
$'. .�t•s, r���� T�. K�d �+° ^�'F'r'������„ 'n-'^t4_�4�p���"`�� i first r$'v'�4��
m'`sfs°°P' -�s.`':•�d�`�..`'af'��s�.;;�d�t+��� �a �����.-. .��-�a4�ts�.'�.rP.'s9ue2= %','��+a:•i� �,2'+...'„_= °�-'-�°iis�i
View from soutl Pto north fwest border of North Brown'Iutlull parcel.
Note the evsting dirt road on property.
This long standing access to this parcel should continue to limit the impact of
development.
There are an amazing number of cov1s, loons^ wild tutkevs and osprey that live 3n
the woods of this property-
`1 here ate also a number of people that live alone the proposed ro£t(1\�a) Millen
those homes were built they had to be a number of feet i\\,ay from their side and
back lot lines Rather ironic that no tiles apply to a lau-ge subMslon toad on the
same lot line.
is thus ind) your hest Conseivatton QvIrownentnl Impact flan?
naN td BackLIS
-t
From: Alix Pearlstein <alixpearlstein@gmail.com> ��
Sent: Monday, March 18,2019 9:21 AM '+�, "Ci'
To: Michaelis,Jessica RECEIVED
Cc: Bill Adams
Subject: Tuthill Subdivision- North Brown
Attachments: Tuthill-N. Brown_Letter.docx
.�Soutnoid ToNn
Planning Board ,
3/14/2019
Dear Southold Town Board Members,
We are writing regarding several serious concerns in relation to the Tuthill Subdivision-North Brown Site. We
live in Brown's Hills Estates on North View Drive.
Driving home from the town hall meeting on Monday night, a deer ran across the road right in front of our car
just before we were to turn left onto Brown's Hills Road. Cars racing to the ferry were right behind us, it was a
very close call.
We think it is crucial to locate the access road to the subdivision on the western edge of the site. It is currently
drawn on the eastern side,which is problematic for numerous reasons—chief amongst them is that is would
further congest this dangerous traffic apron.And,there are already two parallel dirt roads on the western edge,
one of which could easily become the Tuthill access road.
Also of critical importance is the close proximity of six houses on the eastern side,while there are only two on
the western side—and these have much larger setbacks.There is much mature vegetation and animal habitat
along this eastern border that would be destroyed to make way for the road,along with the disruption of utilities
and cables—and increasing risk of runoff as this western end is at a higher elevation than the eastern.
These concerns for safety of both current and future residents and anyone entering these roads to visit or work,
along with concerns for the preservation of the beauty of this site suggest that it would be a much easier and all
around positive solution to locate the road on the western side.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.
Alix Pearlstein and Bili Adams
1060 N. View Drive,
PO Box 112, Orient,NY 11957
917-817-7486/646-673-4531
3/14/20'19
Dear Southold Town Board Members,
We are writing regarding several serious concerns in relation to the Tuthill
Subdivision - North Brown Site. We live in Brown's Hills Estates on North View
Drive.
Driving home from the town hall meeting on Monday night, a deer ran across the
road right in front of our car just before we were to turn left onto Brown's Hills
Road. Cars racing to the ferry were right behind us, it was a very close call.
We think it is crucial to locate the access road to the subdivision on the western
edge of the'�site. It is currently drawn on the-easfem side, which is problematic for
numerous re4ons—chief amongst them is that is-would further congest this
dangerous traffic apron. And, there are already two parallel dirt roads on the
western edge, one of which could easily become the Tuthill access road.
Also of critical importance is the close proximity of six houses on the eastern
side, while there are only two on the western side— and these have much larger
setbacks. There is much mature vegetation and animal habitat along this eastern
border that would be destroyed to make way for the road, along with the
disruption of utilities and cables —and increasing risk of runoff as this western
end is at a higher elevation than the eastern.
These concerns for safety of both current and future residents and anyone
entering these roads to visit or work, along with concerns for the preservation of
the beauty of this site suggest that it would be a much easier and all around
positive solution to locate the road on the western side.
Thank you so much for your thoughtful consideration.
Alix Pearlstein and Bill Adams
1060 N. View Drive,
PO Box 112, Orient, NY 11957
917-817-7486/ 646-673-4531
RECEIVED
is
MAR 1 S 2019
From: Jo Ann Constantino <joann6337@aol.com, I : opt o d Town ,
Planning Board
Sent: Monday, March 18,2019 9:24 AM
To: Michaelis,Jessica
Cc: Edward Constantino
Subject: [SPAM] -Tuthill Proposed road on Eastern border of Browns Hills Community
To The Southold Planning Board:
My name is Jo Ann Constantino and I reside at the Browns Hills Community. I bought my home 15 years ago and was
immediately drawn to this community because of he peaceful atmosphere. What a pleasure to wake up to hearing birds
sing especially since I live in Brooklyn. My house is on the side of Browns Hills where a road is proposed to go by the
Tuthill family. This is very disturbing to me since my house is the closest to the proposed road. Imagine waking up now
to cars going by my home and seeing a road on the other side of my fence while I'm having coffee in the morning sitting
out on my patio. I am also worried about the water run off on my gardens which I care for with lots of love.
I urge the board to rethink the approval of the placement of the road from the Easterly border to the Western border. I `
am not adverse to building houses but I am very concerned about a road next to my property which is also my back yard.
I ask why can't this proposed road be moved to the Western border? Why is the Tuthill family not opened to hearing
our issues?
I sincerely request that the planning board consider this letter when deciding on the issue of road placement.
I love Orient and would not want to move because of this problem.
Thank You,Jo Ann Constantino,SouthView Drive.
Sent from my iPad
i
J�t�
REICEIVED
Attn: Brian Cummings (iia„ 18 71119
Town Of Southold NY -
S—
ourhofd'fawn
Re: Tuthill Conservation Subdivision Planning Board
18 March 2019
Comments submitted by Kenneth W.Terry,former resident of Orient
Background: My name is Kenneth Terry and I currently live in South Carolina. I lived in Orient from birth
till moving away at age 21. Although I once did, I no longer can claim ownership to any property in
Orient. However,I have 4 siblings who continue to own some form of real estate in the Hamlet. We are
10`h generation descendants of some of the original settlers of Southold Town,including Richard and
Thomas Terry. One of the original settlers of Southold was John Tuthill,who was the progenitor of the
Tuthills who currently own the land in question,and who also was my 7`h Great Grandfather. Along with
said John Tuthill, I have tracked my ancestry to the Town's founding families of Hortons,Wells,
Conklin(es), Budds and Young(s). I graduated both Orient and Greenport Union Free School Districts,
and from Worcester Polytechnic Institute,as did at least two of my Terry and Tuthill ancestors. learned
a degree in Mechanical Engineering, and have worked in a number of capacities over my career in the
Environmental, Health and Safety field.
Even though I can claim no direct personal gain or loss due to the ultimate final decision regarding the
Tuthill Subdivision in question, I continue to have keen emotional interests in Orient's history,residents
and survival. My concerns regarding the continued approval of subdivisions in Orient in general are as
follows:
1. The continued increase in tapping into the aquifers that feed fresh groundwater to the eastern
part of Long Island can have a detrimental effect on this fragile supply. As there is no current
municipal supply of water to Orient, all homes require wells to be connected to the aquifers to
obtain usable water_These aquifers are then the sole supply of water to the area and the sole
makeup of said aquifers is due to precipitation. However, periods of drought have been
experienced throughout the history of this area,and studies have shown that migration of the
rain to the aquifers can take from 25 to 1000 years depending on the depth of the aquifer
(There are 4 aquifers on Long Island located at different depths).
2. Historically,there have been episodes of surface contamination to these aquifers caused by
either chemical or environmental contaminants Two such episodes of note were the 1,4–
dioxane leakage issue which involved numerous areas of Long Island as well as the rest of the
Country. This chemical is used to stabilize trichloroethylene from eroding their containers.
Trichloroethylene is used as an industrial degreaser in many manufacturing processes.
Numerous studies(almost 1000 on Long Island alone)have been done by the United States
Geological Survey and published in their USGS Publications. The Environmental Protection
Agency has classified 1,4-dioxane as likely carcinogenic to humans. Due to the nature of this
substance, it is extremely costly to remove and resists natural degradation. The second episode
closer to Orient was the 1974-79 use of Aldicarb, a highly toxic oxine-carbonate pesticide used
by farmers to control potato beetles and golden nerndlodes Fresh wdler wells in 01ienL were
found contaminated by this pesticide, and the use of Aldicarb on Long Island was eventually
banned as an approved pesticide. Union Carbide, maker ofTemik,which contained the aldicarb,
was forced to provide carbon filters on over 1000 wells in residences, including Orient,for a
number of years.
3. My opinion is that an environmental impact assessment is fine so long as a hydrogeology impact
on the supply of fresh water is included.The real question is how long can we collectively draw
from the fragile fresh water supply before the scale balance tips irretrievably toward salt
intrusion. Historically,there have been episodes of salt intrusion in driven wells in Orient,which
has caused the requirement to move the location of the well. I would suggest that the mean
elevation of Orient is around 14 feet above the mean sea level.These means however are
changing due to the global warming effect,which is causing a definitive rise in the mean sea
level.We have all seen the results of the sea level rise in relation to Orient by the effects of the
sound bank erosion,the encroaching water at the Island end at Plum Gut,and how far the sea
water comes up at Pete's Neck and around the Yacht Club during storms. Irrespective as to the
viability of whether this is due to global warming or not,the fact remains that sea levels are
rising and the risks of salt intrusion into the fresh water supply increase along with that rise.
i
I have presented the above as my personal concerns and opinions regarding the continued subdivision
allowance/approval within Orient. Historically,a number of such developments have already taken
place such as Willow Terrace, Brown's Hill, King's Farms, Ryder Farms, Douglass Properties,etc.
Historically,the sale of development rights on various open farmland plots in Orient has helped to
control further land development.
Respectfully submitted,
Kenneth W.Terry
229 Colfax Dr
Boiling Springs,SC 29316
Subs
;;N LL,rvCi-
EIVC�
JERIE R. NEWMAN I MAR I S 2019
922 Youngs Road—PO Box 327 3
Orient, NY 11957 Q6'0 �oJ0,t&vn
Planning Board
March 14,2019
Members of the Planning Board:
RE:TUTHILL CONSERVATION SUBDIVISION—SOUTH DYER
I was in attendance at the Planning Board meeting on March 11 and spoke briefly
regarding the South Dyer portion of the Tuthill Conservation Subdivision. As I said, I
consider the Tuthills' as friends. That goes way back to our ancestors in the 1600's
when Samuel King,John Tuthill, and Richard Brown were among the first settlers in
Orient, and every piece of information I have found,stated they were best friends.
The Tuthills' are subdividing their properties as a "family plan"for their children and
grandchildren so each will be able to have a home in Orient. My late husband, Kenneth,
and I also have a "family plan"which is just as important to us.
A little history
In 1938, Harry and Helen Newman, Kenneth's parents, purchased an 18th century house
(an original Rackett home)that was on the property now owned by Florence Horton on
Rt. 25 (across from the Latham farmstand). The person who purchased the property did
not want the house,so she sold it to the Newmans for$100, but they had to move it
from the property. The Newmans' purchased the lot, now known as 790 Oysterpond ;
Lane and had the 181h century house moved to that spot where it still remains. At that
time there were no homes on Oysterpond Lane. It was all farmland. The house passed
to Kenneth Newman and upon his death,to me. We have a trust that we did a number
of years ago for our four children. The house on Oysterpond Lane will go to our third
child.
As I said at the hearing, Helen Newman loved her historic house.She loved the vista
which she called her million-dollar view. She spent many hours on the porch playing
solitaire and entertaining friends. She requested that on her death she wanted to be
cremated and her ashes spread in Long Island Sound and Gardner's Bay(the million-
dollar view she had from her porch). Kenneth honored her wishes.
When the house passes to our daughter, she will not have that million-dollar view. Her
view will be the back of a very large house. Imagine our 18th century but small Cape Cod
house with an 8,000 sq. ft. mansion behind it! In our opinion,this devalues the
property at 790 Oysterpond Lane that we wanted OUR daughter to have so she could
live in Orient. This is very disappointing.
sincerely,
fti,•� ;�� / LLL/
March 10,2019 —rte' L
(��' F
Southold Town Panning Board *�ETVED ,
Mr.Don Wilcenski �
Mr. Pierce Rafferty 'VAR 1 1 2019
Ms.Mary Eisenstein
Mr.James Rich
Mr.Martin Sidor SOu lofd 7"own`�
ning Board
RE:Tuthill Subdivision:Access Road to North Brown Subdivision Plan
Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Planning Board Members,
My husband,Tom Morgan,and I,have been living year round at 855 S.View Drive, Brown's Hill,Orient,for 18 years.We have witnessed the
intense lncrease,ln-Jraffic to and fmrn the ferry on Route 25,as well as the increase in bike riders,joggers,and dog walkers, etc.
I am writing to request that you consider requiring the access road to the Tuthill Subdivision north of Route 25, North Brown,be placed on the
east side of the property,whej'e there-is already-an access road.
In our view,the fewer access roads to Route 25,the safer is our community.
An event last summer frighi&riid us: Tntn Wavddving„i yeas the passenger We stopped,atthe end of Brown's Hill Road,looking both ways,
ready.to drive'onto Rte 25. tom�rnade one last iodlctckh led,a4started to accelerate when I saw out of the corner of my eye two_joggers
fast approaching us.from the•right,,tuririing against jraffic--9-n.tlto wrong side of the roadl
I yelped,Tom braked,and:'We neatly hit the first runner,who banging his fist on our car. The woman jogger behind him stopped. My heart was
in my throat We were,both shaken:
Children and young,people bike and run up and down;Rte'25,all summer;long, Cars•race for the ferry all year long,especially m summer.
Entaring onto Rte25;is extremely,dangerous;and requires alert attentiah;and awarenes"s of;people and cars that could be approaching from
almost any direction— especially,'sp'eedir`g'Ors,passing oars,and;ignorant of the law bikers and joggers.
The fewer curb cuts the better. Please consider our safety.
Thank you very much,
Mary McfMorgan <mcfm.morgan@gmail.com>
RECEIVED
March 11,2019 +` r'-` -y—-!"1� nn'�
E Pl1nR �. 1 2U IJ
TO:Southold Planning Board
FR:James Haag,Orient
RE: Hearing on Tuthill Conservation Subdivision March 11,2019 Planning Board '
Dear Don and Planning Board Members:
I have lived in Orient for 22 years and have enjoyed the quality of life and the character of this historic
hamlet. Every day when I drive over the causeway from East Marian, I am amazed by the vista of the
harbor framed by steeples of the churches and the historic homes.And I was attracted to the town
because of the passion of the residents to maintain the character and beauty of this preserved
community.Corcoran real estate begins its website with the following words:
...But what gives you butterflies when you enter Orient by the causeway is its heart-stopping
view of the Long Island Sound and Gardiner's Bay. Look out farther and you can see the Orient
Beach State Park, a barrier island that is a summer playground of infinite pleasures.
I cannot imagine anyone wanting to place a subdivision of 17 homes in this vista. Over the
years, I have been impressed with the Planning Board's awareness of maintaining Southold
Town character. No matter what the party affiliation, members of the Planning Board seem to
s
be in agreement that what is special about the North Fork must be maintained—or we have
nothing.
I think most people would agree that there is no finer example of the Fork's essential character
than the East Marian/Orient causeway. Please will you seriously consider what is about to
happen here? I realize there is a generous acreage being preserved, but a subdivision of 17
houses clustered together in the midst of this? How can we be doing this?
People fell in love and moved their lives to this district because of its character.Tourists flock to the
causeway and pull over their cars when they first see this breathtaking view. It is not right to alter this.
Once we begin to compromise the district, it loses its character—and we all lose.
Thank you for your consideration. I have learned the people's opinions mean something in Southold,
and I love our town for that.Thanks for considering mine.
Best regards,
James Haag
4725 Orchard Street
Orient, NY
6319026452
From: Barry George Bergdoll <bgbl@columbia.edu>
RECEIVED
Sent: Monday, March 11,2019 9:29 AM I----
To: Michaelis,Jessica; Bill Ryall MAR 1 1 2019
Subject: [SPAM] - Re: Re Tuthill Subdivision/Orient 1
.I
��uchtr7dl'Town •
Planning Board
Dear Southold Town Board members, Here is a corrected version of my letter sent yesterday relative to tonight's
consideration of the Tuthill property in Orient:
Dear Southold Town Board Members,
We are writing to second the letter submitted by our Browns' Hills Estates neighbor Deborah Marland. We
strongly endorse the idea of requiring the subdivision to locate its access road at the western edge of the
site. There are already two parallel roads there providing access to houses on the bluff and the Tuthill estate
could take advantage of one of them or add width to an existing road. Since the town professes to want to
maintain as much as possible large tracts of open land as natural assets rather than subdividing such natural
parcels by roads it seems only logical to consider the following:
The eastern edge --where the Tuthill plan filed proposes to cut a new road--is currently occupied by a mature
hedgerow that appears to straddle the Tuthill property and property of the late Stewart Johnson. The former
Johnson property has a conservation easement and it the center of what will be three adjacent preserved fields if
the Tuthill field bordering the road is also preserved. Relocating the Tuthill access road to the west to join or
parallel existing un-paved roads would keep the beautiful sequence of three fields intended to be preserved as a
single landscape uninterrupted by utility poles and wires,preserve mature trees and shrubs, and concentrate
access to the main road at one point rather than multiplying points of access to the often busy Main Road with
its notorious ferry traffic. It seems like a much happier solution both for current and future residents.
Sincerly yours,
Barry Bergdoll
William Ryall
915 Southview Drive, Orient, 11957
tel+ 1 646 379 4055
On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 3.33 PM BaiTy Georgc Bergdoll <b"2h l.u-columbra edu>wrote:
Dear Southout Town Board Members.
We are writing to second the Ietter submitted by our Browns' HilIs Estates neighbor Deborah Marland_ We
strongly endorse the idea of requiring the subdivision to locate its access road at the western edge of the
site. There are already two parallel roads there providing access to houses on the bluff and the Tuthill estate
could take advantage of one of them or add width to an existing road.
The eastern edge -- where the Tuthill plan filed proposes to cut a new road -- is currently occupied by a mature
hedgerow that appears to straddle the Tuthill property and property of the late StewartJohnson. The former
.lohnson property has a conservation easement and it the center of what will be three adjacent preserved fields
if the Tuthill field bordering the road is also preserved Relocating the Tuthill access road to the west to join or
parallel existing un-paved roads would keep the beautiful sequence of three fields intended to be preserved as a
single landscape uninterrupted by utility pools and wires,preserve mature trees and shrubs, and concentrate
access to the main road at one point rather than multiplying points of access to the often busy Main Road with
its notorious ferry traffic. It seems like a much happier solution both for current and future residents.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barry Bergdoll and William Ryall
915 Southview Drive, Orient
PO Box 57, Orient,NY 11957
tel 646 379 4055
r
2
From: Deborah Marland <debmarland@yahoo.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2019 3:31 PM kE EIVED
To: Michaelis,Jessica !J
Subject: Tuthill Subdivision 1�AR J S 2019
oUtnr�i rown
Dear Southold Town Board Members, 9 Board
I am writing you ahead of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Conservation Subdivision Town Hall'M.ee,ting
on March lith 2019.
Many members of Brown's Hills Estates are concerned about the close proximity to our homes of an access road to the
proposed Tuthill Subdivision.
Please look at the goggle earth photo in your folder of existing homes along the eastern border of Tuthill Property a
compared to the western border.There are 6 homes on the eastern border as opposed to only two on the western
border.Those two are set back further from the property line with two parallel dirt roads side by side.So no mature
vegetation to clear or animal habitat to displace. On the eastern side all houses are very close with one extremely close
to border where the proposed road is on the property line.
I am proposing that this access road be moved from east to west border.This has other advantages to the town with just
one curb cut on route 25 to maintain the apron of. Organizing the entrance and exits of three roads into one instead of
three separate ones.Certainly this will lessen the chance of accidents into ferry traffic. Or out of ferry traffic on opposite
side.
There is another advantage that the developers may appreciate as there is a much lower elevation of the western
border making road construction easier with less runoff.
Thank you for your consideration. ;
Deborah Marland
Sent from my Whone
A�P � � Dox e
Chairman Wilcenski: 6:02 p.m. - Tuthill Conservation Subdivision Sketch Plan
and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) —This proposal is for an 80/60
Conservation Subdivision of four parcels SCTM#'s 1000-17-4-16, 1000-17-6-14.2,
1000-18-3-30.3 and 1000-18-6-17.3 (total area=112 acres) into 17 residential lots, with
94 acres to be preserved. This project proposes the transfer of yield pursuant to §240-
42G of the Southold Town Code.
Chairman Wilcenski: Before we open the floor, I would just like to make a couple of
comments. The purpose of this meeting tonight is to continue the adjourned public
hearing on the sketch plan and the hold a new hearing on the DEIS which is the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Comment period on the DEIS and the Sketch plan for
written comments will remain open for another 10 days closing on March 21, 2019. We
have received several emails and letters of concern about this project in the Planning
Department as of today. Is there someone here from the family and would like to
speak? Yes. I'd like to first have a representative from the Tuthill family speak and give
a basic background to everyone and then we'll open up the floor to other speakers.
Thank you. Yes. Please state your name and write your name for the record. And again,
just as a reminder to everyone in the forum, the process of the DEIS here is any
questions or concerns that anybody has are being recorded and the Planning Staff—we
will do all the research to have all those questions answered and will be printed and
made public again during the Final EIS.
Lyle Tuthill: My name is Lyle Tuthill, I'm the son of John Tuthill who is a long-term
resident and, as a matter-of-fact, had a genealogy that goes back to 1640...
Chairman Wilcenski: Excuse me, Lyle; you'll have to address the Board. ;
Lyle Tuthill: Ok, I'm sorry. And so, we asked, John wanted, as he got older to do
things that could get his children to come back to Orient and to also maintain as much
of a hamlet atmosphere as he could. And I think you could remember, John had his
license plate, he loved old west Orient. So he then inherited from his mother that John
H. Brown property and from his uncle, the other property, so at his death, we ended up
with a lot of property that —we're wondering what we could do in order to meet what
John wanted to do and, INAUDIBLE, and that was to keep the land as open as we can,
but also allow his children to come to Orient and stay there. Through our discussions
with my family, Rich Tuthill and his wife, Ruth, we felt that a conservation subdivision
approach would probably be the best we could do, in that, it would keep land as open
as possible, we could develop lots that basically, fit our size that we can transfer down
to our children and let them use that property and use those lots to have summer
homes/full-time homes, whatever to encourage that return. And, in fact, that's kind of
where we ended up working with Mark and Heather over the years and going through
the other requests that have come through, and the DEIS, and various searches to
come up with this approach So that's kind of where it is and it's really something the
Tuthill's are trying to do to keep it in their family Thank you
Southold Town Planning Board Page 12 March 11, 2019
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, would anybody else like to address.the Board?
Pease write your name, state your name and address the Board Thank you.
Edward Webb: My name is Edward Webb. I'm the Chairman of the Southold Town
Historic Preservation Commission and I just want to state, not for the record, but I've
known the Tuthill family for many years. My ancestry only goes back to the 1720's so
you got me beat on that, but I've known his mother all my life. We grew up across the
street from each other, summer kids in the hamlet of Orient. However, with that, I'll
share the following information with you: As I've said, I'm the Chairman of the Southold
Town Historic Preservation Commission. Several items have been brought to our
attention regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement provided for the proposed
Tuthill Conservation Subdivision in Orient. To this date, the Historical Preservation
Commission has not been consulted by the applicant, its consultant, or the Town staff to
obtain our input. This is important because the proposed South Dyer parcel includes 3
plots within the boundaries of the Orient Historic District. In fact, the DEIS incorrectly
states that the subdivision properties are adjacent to the Historic District. Any
construction on these plots, therefore, would be required to come before the
F
Commission for approval. There's nothing in the DEIS to show how the visual setting of
the Orient Historic District would be affected. The DEIS does not mention individually
listed town landmarks within the Orient Historic District that are adjacent to or in close
proximity to proposed building plots on the South Dyer parcel. Stating that the new
South Dyer parcel houses will be compatible with the existing styles of homes in the
Orient Historic District is not sufficient. The DEIS implies that it will be the applicant who
will determine what is appropriate. Determining of the proposed home in the Orient
Historic District is architecturally compatible with the Orient Historic District is the
responsibility of the Historic Preservation Commission and not the applicant. Given
these issues, which have not been addressed in the DEIS, it is the sense of the Historic
Preservation Commission that supplemental and environmental impact statement that
addresses these issues should be required. Thank you.
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, Mr. Webb. We will definitely be reaching out to you
through this process for your input. Would anybody else like to addresses the Board on
Tuthill Conservation Subdivision?
Joel Klein: Good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Joel Klein,
I live in Mattituck and I'm a registered professional archeologist I want to stay historic
by saying that I'm not advocating for or against the project, my concerns are with the
adequacy of the information in the DEIS pertaining to historic and archeological
properties and with what I believe to be irregularities in how the SEQRA process had
been handled. I second the Commission's concerns that potential impacts to the Orient
Historic District have not been adequately considered. Over the course of the review of
this project, there were numerous calls for a Visual Impact Study and a View Shed
analysis. The terms seem to have been used interchangeably, yet they are not the
same thing. View Shed Analysis is usually a preuuisur to a Visual Irnpact Analysis It
defines the geographic area, sometimes called the "Zone of Visual Influence" from
within which the proposed project will be visible It is the basis of determining where
Southold Town Planning Board Page 13 March 11, 2019
visual impacts must be considered. No View Shed Analysis was carried out with this
project. The Visual Impact Study that was performed for the project was a study of the
aesthetic impact of the project on the Routh 25 scenic byway. It did not specifically
address visual impacts to historical properties, most significantly, the Orient Historic
District. It also failed to consider possible impacts of numerous historic structures along
Route 25 located outside the Historic District. Only the three page text of the visual
assessment is included in the DEIS. Fifty-four pages of photographs and photo
simulations - although they can be found on the town website - have not been included
in the DEIS. The DEIS table of contents incorrectly states that 36 pages of photo
simulations are included. The DEIS is also deficient in how it deals with potential
impacts to archeological sites. In 2011, the applicant had prepared what is known as a
"Phase 1-A Cultural Resource Assessment" of the project. This is a desktop study to
identify previously known and recorded historic structures and archeological sites that
could be affected. The 1-A report identified three prehistoric Native American sites as
being on or adjacent to the project parcels but only provided the Estate Historic
Preservation office file numbers. The SHBO is their informational division for Historic
Preservation in the New York State office in Park Recreation and Historic Preservation.
Phase 1-A report also noted the presence of six historic structures on or adjacent to the
parcels. These two findings were the basis for the report's author recommending a
Phase 1-B field investigation, which would be limited to those areas which would be
affected by proposed building lots and associated infrastructure. At some point, the
town of Southold submitted the 1-A report, which is not referenced or included in the
DEIS for the State Historic Preservation office for comment and on January 26, 2015,
the SHBO concurred with the recommendations for a 1-B study. The 1-B field
investigation report was completed in December 2015. It makes no mention of any of
the previously reported archeological sites or historic structures mentioned in the 1-A
report. It notes that field investigations did locate remains of historic structure on the
North Dyer parcel. The Field Investigation recovered 51 prehistoric artifacts from the
South Brown parcel, 9 of which were classified as tools. The remainder were mostly
stone-tool manufacturing debris known as "Debitage." It seems likely that this is one of
the previously known Native American Sites. I would add that the number of artifacts
and ratio of soles, tools to tripping debris is suggestive of a major habitation site. No
attempt was made to delineate boundaries of this site within the South Brown parcel,
apparently, because the investigator recommended a Phase Two intensive testing
investigation to collect more information However, he also states that this need not be
done until prior to groundbreaking or construction. This was a serious error for several
reasons One, the absence of a specific condition in the site plan approval, the applicant
cannot be required to conduct any archeological investigations And two, the discovery
of a significant archeological site on a given parcel either before or during construction
could render the parcel unusable or usable only after the expenditure of considerable
sums to salvage any discovered remains, which could include human remains in this
case Requiring the Phase Two investigation as part of the DEIS process would have
had two benefits One, it would eliminate the potential problem of a discovery being
made on an approved building lot by allowing the relocatiori of [lie proposed lot outside
the limits of the archeological site And two, it would provide more permanent
preservation of the archeological site within the conservation subdivision The SHBO
Southold Town Planning Board Page 14 March 11, 2019
has never commented on the Phase 1-B report or concurred with its recommendations,
although it was submitted to the SHBO sometime prior to the spring of 2018. The
reason for this is that on June 11, 2018, the SHBO requested that the Planning
Department provide updated project plans because the areas investigated during the
Phase 1-B study: "...do not correspond with the area of potential INAUDIBLE that was
initially submitted for this project." As of last week, the SHBO comments on the Phase
1-B report were still pending because they have not received the requested information
from the Planning Department. In spite of the fact that the SHBO comments have not
been received, and in spite of the fact that the one of the principal reasons for DEIS
being required in the first place, was because of the projects potential to affect historic
and archeological sites INAUDIBLE on the recommendation of the Planning Department
voted on the DEIS complete. The final DEIS contains only a single page of original text
dealing with historic resources including archeological sites. Only four sentences deal
with archeology. One of the sentences reads: "No historic artifacts were found." This is
potentially misleading. What is should have said was that "No artifacts dating to the
historic period, as opposed to the prehistoric period, were found." It addresses the
prehistoric site found on the South Brown parcel by noting that only that white quartzite
fragments were found. The final sentence indicates that Phase two investigation on
South Brown is "recommended if we want to proceed with this SE lot." A
recommendation by an applicant to conduct additional studies is not a requirement, has
no enforceability and is not an assessment of project impact. The DEIS also includes
the three page text of the Phase 1-B report, but the 50 pages of maps, photos and data
appendices have been redacted, it is unclear why this was done. In addition to the DEIS
problems relating to archeology and historic preservation, I also want to comment on
how the SEQRA process of this project was handled. First, no formal scoping was done
for this project. Although scoping was not required under DEC SEQRA regulations, the
DEC highly recommends it. Had scoping been done, the problem with the work scopes
with both the visual impact study and the archeological investigations might have been
avoided. I also want to add that as of January 1St, scoping is no longer really
recommended under SEQRA regulations, it is now required The second issue I wanted
to talk about is the manner in which the DEIS has been made available to the public for
review. When the board voted to declare the DEIS complete, the legally required notice
of that and the announcement of this hearing was published in DEC's February's
environmental notice forum. SEQRA regulations require that a DEIS be accessible
electronically. The environmental notice forum notices that this project states that "the
draft DEIS is available from the Southold Town Planning Department and online at
www.southoldtownny.gov1270/environmental impact statements. I had spoken to many
individuals who have told me that when they accessed the Tuthill Subdivision DEIS
through that link, they get a message that says the website is online but it's not
responding. On February 28t", I advised the Planning Department that the link was not
functional. Later that day, they responded by saying that the information technology
department had checked the link and it was working. I again informed the Planning
Department it was not. It's unclear why some people have been able to access the
DEIS in this way but not others. One can find where the DEIS is luc;ated ur, rnoie
accurately, buried, on the Town's website. It can be found by taking the following steps:
Going to the Town of Southold's website, going to the "How do I" tab, then going to the
Southold Town Planning Board Page 15 March 11, 2019
"Public Records" link, then going to the "Planning Department"folder, then going to the
"Applications" folder— not the SEQRA documents folder—which is different. Then going
to the "Conservation Subdivision" folder, then going to the "Pending" folder, then going
to the "Tuthill Conservation Subdivision" folder, then going to the "DEIS Received
9/14/2018" folder. One can then attempt to download the DEIS through Laserfiche. The
document that is located is the final version of the DEIS, it was not posted until March
4th, prior to that date—while all of the text and the captions to the DEIS were available
online —they were seemingly randomly located throughout more than 400 page
document simply labeled "Tuthill Conservation Subdivision."Within all of the problems
with the DEIS, I wanted to request that the Planning Board find that a supplemental
DEIS is required and failing that that this public hearing be kept open until such time
that the applicant has addressed all of the issues that have been raised here. Thank
you.
,Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you Would anybody else like to address the Board? Yes?
Suzanne Horton: Hi, my name is Suzanne Horton. And again, my family's been here
since 1640 so, and I have extended relations to Lyle Tuthill as well. I've known John
Tuthill a long time. I think he really... Lyle did a wonderful job in summing up what his
intent for the vision of the property was. They really want to encourage, you know,
they're trying to preserve such an iconic view to enter into Orient which is iconic and
nobody wants that disturbed, but they do want some lots for their children to be able to
build upon them in the future. I think, for clarity, for, probably everybody, so that we
understand it a little bit better, what would be helpful to everyone is to understand with
the open spaces, that land bank preservation, what are the guarantees associated with
that land never being built upon in the future? And secondly, it is R-80 zoning, which
usually you have two acre lots Is that part of a deal to give up that conservation land
from preservation so that they can get smaller lots in that area for their family? I think,
those would be helpful if those questions could be answered in the process. Thank you.
Chairman Wilcenski: Okay, Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the
Board?
Venetia Hands: Good evening.
Chairman Wilcenski: Good Evening.
Venetia Hands: I'm Venetia Hands and I live on Brown's Hills in Orient and I'm also a
member of the Board of the Orient Association, which, many of you have heard of I'm
actually here today in that capacity, to speak on behalf of the Board and its members on
continuing the conversation that we've had previously about this project. I can say a lot
of really wonderful things about how great this is and how much I appreciate and how
much I esteem about the Tuthill's, how much we're glad it's an 80-20 conservation and
so on and so forth. But you would know that there's a "but" coming And so I think I'll
just get to the "but." And so the "but" is some questions and here's my number one
question. I want to know what size the houses shown in the Visual Impact Study on
Southold Town Planning Board Page 16 March 11, 2019
South Dyer are, what is the actual square footage of those houses being represented
there? Nowhere is that stated. We are told that we are looking at a worst case scenario
full build there. We are told that the building area maximum size is 8,000 square feet.
Driving here today, I suddenly realized 8,000 - 9,000 square feet happens to be the
same size as a certain barn being built a little further down the road on 35 acres. So
we're talking about an 8,000 square foot footprint on four, less than 1 acre plots here
and it doesn't tell me this but it does show it in the pages and I know that I can build a
two-story house there. So I've got now a 16,000 square foot house. I also know that if I
get permission, I can put another half story on my house, which gives me a 20,000
square foot house. But let's not push that one, because we've got to cover pools and
tennis courts and patios and other things so, let's say the houses - in the worst case
scenario - are 16,000 square foot. Those are huge houses! I've seen those houses on
the south fork, they look nothing like these. Nothing! So my question is: what is the size
of those houses that we're looking at? And I guess, reading between the lines, I'm
saying, I and others are not sure we're really being showing maximum build out there.
Now, we are told that their designed to fit into Orient in style and size and we're told —
and I appreciate this- that the goal is to bring Tuthill family members back to have it be
they who build houses. They probably won't do it very quickly, they probably won't do it ;
all at the same time, and we're told that when they do do it, it's like our hope and
intention that whey will build in a size and design appropriate to Orient. But where are
the regulations or rules or restrictions to make sure that happens? We are told by the
Visual Impact Study that there are lots of houses in Orient that are at least 40,000
square feet. Yeah, has anyone seen one of those? Would you tell me where they are so
we can go look at them please? And would you tell us what size lot they're on? Are they
on an acre? And how visible they are from Route 25? Don't just assert there are lots of
40,000 square foot houses in Orient. We're not going to just allow that. So to come back
to the family's plans to build — have these houses be for the members of the family—
which is great- and if a family member sells to somebody not in the family to have the
Tuthill trust or whatever it is- have the right for first refusal — these things are wonderful,
wonderful , wonderful, but how can you make sure it works out in that way without, in
practice, without having some kind of implementation, restriction, plan, whatever. Is
there some way the family can specify a limit on house size? Something less than
maximum build out? And what might that limit be? You know, this whole project got us
thinking about house size in Southold and it's now being looked"at by the Mattituck Civic
Group, the —what else is there- all the civic groups* East Marion, and so on, because
we've got creep coming up from the south fork. 1 remember, my friend , Bill Riles,
standing here saying "Who in their right mind would want to build a 20,000 share foot
house" indeed. But they do. And they're coming. So let's look at what some of the other
towns are doing Riverhead has maximum size on 1 acre of 12,000. Southampton
Village — and we're talking about village- has maximum 6,300. East Hampton Village
has maximum 5,000 square feet. Sag Harbor has maximum 5,200 Shellshore Layland
brought a maximum — on any size piece of land — of 8,000 square feet and then they
took a look at that and said. "Oh no! That's much too big!" and brought it down to 6,000
square feet and — believe me- that's still very big I'm wondering if there's a way that the
Tuthill family, and you, can set a limit of 6,000 square feet then to the hoiisPs that can
be built there "It's still too big" I hear behind me in chatter and they're doing it at 3,000
Southold Town Planning Board Page 17 March 11, 2019
too. But, you know, I'm not going to say what the right size is. But that's my question,
my priority question, we don't know what size those houses are that have been taken
photographs of and we're having a very hard time, based on other things we've seen,
believing that they are 16,000 square feet. Sorry about that, I have three other
questions.
Chairman Wilcenski: I'd like to just make a comment; I don't want to spend a lot of
time answering questions here because that's just part of the procedure. But I believe
those houses that were shown on the Visual Impact Study were 8,000 square feet, and
that was the maximum. I don't know where you're getting 16,000 feet from.
Venetia Hands: Well they're two stories, Sir:
Chairman Wilcenski:. No, that includes all of the square footage. That's not of the
footprint, that's the total square footage. They were assimilated at 8,000 square feet. So
that's all I'm going to say. Keep asking questions and we'll get them answered for you.
Venetia Hands: Okay. So what I'm going to say to that is that is not a worst-case
scenario. If those houses are 8,000 square feet total and they are two stories, they are
half the size of what is allowed in Southold on one acre and l would ask the Planning
Board to confirm that.
Chairman Wilcenski: We'll have those answers for you. That is not my understanding; ;
my understanding is that those assimilations were 8,000 square feet, total home size.
Venetia Hands: Alright, so let's find out.
Chairman Wilcenski: We will.
Venetia Hands: That's a huge difference. So, my next question was, does this acreage
fall within the Orient Historical Preservation District? And we've heard about that and
what does that mean? Another question is, will homeowners and builders be required to
install the most advanced wastewater systems available at the time that they build, in all
of these lands? Again, the intent is expressed in the DEIS that we want that to happen,
but how to we insure that?And I think this is what I understand is the difference
between Visual Impact and View Shed, we're looking only from Route 25. What
happens if you're standing on Skippers Lane? Or Oyster Ponds Lane? Or even in your
garden on Village Lane on the back? What happens when you're looking, when you're
out sailing? It hasn't been looked at in its totality. Were the houses up on the hill there?
So it's a very limited Shed that I think is what's being done. But that's it. But my main
question is and if you're right, that an 8,000 square foot house is that maximum that's
allowed, two stories, on one acre of property, we'll have a lot less to save. But I'm sorry
I believe it is an 8,000 footprint twice, which is 16,000. Okay? Thank you
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you, Would anyhody Plse like tn nddress the Rnard?
Yes?
Southold Town Planning Board Page 18 March 11, 2019
Nancy:KardWell:.I have two questions. My name is Nancy Kardwell. Good Evening. I
have two quick questions. One relates to the questions from the lady who was here just
asked. She had mentioned that the height. Is the height restriction of the house 30 feet?
t
Chairman Wilcenski: I think it's 35 in the town,
Nancy Kardwell: 35 in Orient?
Chairman Wilcenski: In Southold Town,
Nancy Kardwell: The whole town. Thank you. My other has to do, most of these
studies have been done over the last several years, correct? Environmental studies?
Chairman Wilcenski: Yes, and their continuing to be done.
Nancy Kardwell: They're continuing. During the last six months, I've been told that
there is a considerable problem now with the water supply, the water table in our area
and everyone needs to be very vigilant about it. And I was just curious, if the town has
looked into that and if there is any plan for moratorium on building that's in the present
or in the future. I just...
Chairman Wilcenski: We'll have that question answered for you. I can't answer that
question.
Nancy Kardwell:,Thank you. I'm very familiar with the Tuthill's, I'm very supportive of
their efforts. I understand their family concerns; I just wanted to ask this just to see them
addressed.
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Would you please be sure to sign your name for the ;
record? Would anybody else like to address the Board? Yes? You can step to this side
Again, I dust want to make a quick notation that this is not a Q & A session. We're taking
your questions and they will all be addressed. Thank you.
Jesse Gordon: Good Evening, my name's Jesse Gordon and I'm going to shift our
focus away from the village for a moment, if that's ok, to the North Brown lot. I am
speaking on behalf of multiple homeowners around the fence of Browns Hills, which,
boarders the North Brown parcel And we have one particular and specific concern and
that is the location of the road as it currently exists accessing the subdivision which is
currently to the eastern portion of the plot which is directly bordering numerous houses
in the Browns Hills community. So we believe, and I believe that that road would be
better placed, for multiple reasons, on the western end of the lot. First being, the impact
it will have on the neighborhood gaggle, which is, there are, you know, if you look at the
aerials view, which you don't have to now but I'm sure you'll see, there are several
houses along that stretch on the Brown's Hill side, whereas on the western side of the
lot, there are only two houses and those two houses are set back from the property line.
Southold Town Planning Board Page 19 March 11, 2019
Also, from a safety perspective, I mean, I think we all know there's a tremendous
amount of traffic coming down that road; people going to the ferry, people biking, people
running, and its hairy pulling out from out of those roads. As it currently exists, there is
an entrance to Brown's Hills, there's a road apron there. And then the next one is where
those three houses are currently located, so if the road were put on that side of the
property, I believe from a safety perspective it would be considerably safer because
there would be less curb cuts and less opportunity for people... I cannot tell you how
many times I've pulled out, going to drive west and I've looked at oncoming traffic and
haggled onto the traffic heading east and my biggest fear is when somebody rushing to
the ferry is going to be passing and I'm not going to see it and I'm just going to slam into
them making that right-hand turn. I think to the extent that multiple road aprons and curb
cuts can be put to place, you know, if we can reduce that by moving the road to the
western portion of the parcel, I think that would be beneficial, not only to us but to the
safety of the community in general. I also think there are some other compelling
ecological reasons that that road should be moved to the west as well. First being that
the eastern edge where the Tuthill plan proposal exists, their new road is currently
occupied by a hedge row that straddles the Tuthill property and the property that once
belonged to Stuart Johnson. That property, I don't believe this was addressed in the
DEIS, has a conservation easement on it as well. Essentially, that would be the center
of where those three adjacent parcels, that we're trying to preserve, would be. So by
putting the road through,over there would essentially breaking up those three farm fields
that we're trying to preserve as open land, whereas if the road was to the western :
portion, we wouldn't be doing that. We also would be making sure that there weren't,
you know, power lines and utility poles running through the middle of that land that's
trying to be preserved. Another issue and I can't say that I'm stating this on behalf of all
the members of the Browns Hills community but, I'm going to say this in my own
capacity, which is looking at the DEIS, I did not see any analysis of the impact that the
construction of those parcels would have on the bluff. I understand that's going to be a
hundred foot setback and that's great, but this will be a lot more open land which is
going to result in a lot more runoff and I think it's important to know that there was an
area of that bluff, let's say a half a mile away, that caved in a few years ago So I would
urge the Planning Board to insist upon an analysis of the stability of that bluff and the
impact of all he drainage from that area is going to have on that bluff. If it's in the DEIS, I
missed it but I didn't see it and I don't know if that's required by any means but I think it
should be encouraged. Really, that's all I have for right now, so thank you very much.
Thank you for your diligent work in looking at this and I appreciate your time, thank you
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Would anybody else like to address the board? You
could write your name after you finish talking, how's that?
Jerry Newman: Thank you, I'm very slow.
Chairman Wilcenski: That's okay.
Jerry Newman: My name is Jerry Newman, and we have a home on Fast Oyster Pond
Lane It's an 181h century house, not very big It was moved there in 1938. Actually it's in
Southold Town Planning Board P a g e 110 March 11, 2019
the spot where Suzanne's house is now sitting. I've been persecuted for trying to build
there, didn't want the house so my father-in-law bought it for $100 and moved it across
the fields which were all four fields at that point. Sorry, I know the Tuthill's and actually,
my family not my husband's family, but my family was also one of the first settlers in
Orient, as well as the Tuthill's and the Browns, so we've lived in Orient a long time. We
also, my husband and I, we also had a family plan and this house was to go to our
younger daughter and it's obviously going to devalue our property to be looking into the
back of an 8,000 square foot or even a 4,000 square foot- house because this is not a
big house, it's a little cape house. And my mother-in-law, I'm glad she's not alive right 5
now, I'm sorry but she would be having fits because her biggest thing was sitting on that
porch and watching the sunset at the sound and also when her desire was to be
cremated and her ashes spread where she could see from the porch, which was Long
Island Sound and Garners Bay. And now, we won't have that vista anymore. She lost
her million dollar vista because that's exactly what she thought it was. So it's a
disappointment, I've known the Tuthill's a long time, I like them, I consider them friends,
but this is a disappointment because I think it will devalue our property. Thank you, I'll
write my name now.
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. Anyone else? Would anybody else like to address
the Board or make comments to the DEIS for the Tuthill Conservation Subdivision?
Deborah Marland: Deborah Marland from Brown's Hills. It does seem that 10 days is
not quite enough to resolve all these issues and questions that have been posted. I was
just concerned.
Chairman Wilcenski: Thank you. I was just going to talk to council about that, would
you just bear with me..
Chairman Wilcenski: Okay, after discussion, what we're going to do is close the public
hearing but we'll leave the public comment hearing open for two weeks because we,
and again we have to generate all the answers for your questions so we're just going to
push things back two weeks. So that's what the Board has just decided with council.
Glynnis Berry: Excuse me. I'm sorry but you're going to be able to answer all those
questions, in what timeframe and where will we find them?
Chairman Wilcenski: Well, we actually. I'm not sure exactly about the timeframe by the
state . Mark knows better. But my answer would be, as long as it takes to answer all
your questions.
Glynnis Berry: My request would be that after they're all answered, we have "X"
amount of time to write back.
Mark Terry: This is a public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. So
what that means is that, as these comments come in, the questions that you rose here
will actually turn into the Final Environmental Impact Statement But that the Board will
Southold Town Planning Board Page 111 March 11, 2019
answer every relevant question grouped within that. And that would become that
document.
Glynnis Berry:,Okay and this is the hearing and is there another hearing then?
Mark Terry: There is no other hearing on the FEIS.
Chairman Wilcenski: No, the FEIS will be formed, the DEIS turns into the FEIS once
all these questions and concerns are answered. The staff and board will entertain and
answer all those questions.
Mark Terry: So it's important, within the next 14 days to provide any more additional
comments, in written form to the Planning Board as they are the lead agency.
Glyririis Berry: What happens if we discover that these markup houses are 4,000
square feet footprint and 8,000 square feet totality, what are you going to do?
Mark Terry: So once the FEIS is drafted, the Planning Board evaluates all of the
comments received and develops a Findings Statement. The Findings Statement is a
list of mitigation that would be required by the applicant to proceed with this application..
Glynnis Berry: I don't get that, Mark, but never mind. You'll get my concern.
_Chairman Wilcenski:,Okay, this is what I can say to answer your concern is to submit
as many and as much questions or concerns that you have in the next two weeks.
'Glyhnis Berry:.,Okay. From as many people as we can?
Chairman Wilcenski: Yes. Thank you.
James H. Rich III: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to close the hearing now but remain
open for a two week period for written comment.
Mary Eisenstein: Second.
Chairman Wilcenski: Motion made by Jim, seconded by Mary_ Any discussion?All in
favor?
Ayes.
Opposed?
None
Motion carries