HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03 NP&V Preliminary Review Memo - 9025 Main-Cardinale
NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS, LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING CONSULTING
www.nelsonpopevoorhis.com
CORPORATE OFFICE HUDSON VALLEY OFFICE 572 WALT WHITMAN ROAD, MELVILLE, NY 11747-2188 156 Route 59, Suite C6, SUFFERN, NY 10901
PHONE: (631) 427-5665 FAX: (631) 427-5620 PHONE: (845) 368-1472 FAX: (845) 368-1572
MEMORANDUM
To: Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: William Goggins, Goggins & Associates
From: Carrie O’Farrell, AICP, Senior Partner, Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC
Date: March 20, 2020
Re: 9025 Main Road Special Exception Use Permit
Preliminary Application Completeness and Environmental Review
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC (“NP&V”) has been retained by the Town of Southold to assist the
Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) with its review of the proposed Special Exception Use Permit
Application of “9025 Main Road, LLC,” including consideration of project compliance to
applicable zoning and special exception use standards, and completion of an environmental
assessment pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (“SEQRA”). The purpose of
the current review is to assist the ZBA, as Lead Agency, in its initial examination of submitted
materials, and to provide preliminary input regarding the content, adequacy, and accuracy or
“completeness” of these materials for commencing application review. NP&V has examined the
application, Long Environmental Assessment Form (“LEAF”) Part 1 dated November 1, 2018,
property survey, site plan, floor plans, preliminary sanitary system layout plan and other
application materials relative to applicable standards and procedures set forth by the Southold
Town Code and 6 NYCRR Part 617 (SEQRA) and offer the following for your consideration.
Background Information
Location
The subject property is located on the north side of Main Road, east of Hobson Drive, west of
Sigsbee Road, and directly north of the intersection of Main Road (SR 25) and Old Main Road.
The property address is 9025 Main Road, Mattituck and the tax map number for this property is
Suffolk County Tax Map District 1000, Section 122, Block 6, Lot 22.1. The property is 7.467
acres (325,273 SF), is zoned “General Business (B),” and contains an existing vacant one-story
building and parking lot that was originally developed as a shopping center, was later used as bank
office, and is now vacant.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 2 of 10
Proposed Action
The proposed action under consideration does not include a detailed narrative detailing what is
proposed and the application materials and supporting information are often unclear or
contradictory. Based on the sanitary system layout plan and floor plans, it appears that the project
involves the redevelopment and reuse of the subject property as follows:
121 hotel rooms and four (4) guest suites with kitchenettes for a total of 125 guest units.
300-seat restaurant with bar.
300-seat catering facility.
840 SF hotel office space.
1,500 SF spa.
10,000 SF of retail space.
Swimming pool; and
Children’s play area.
An on-site Nitrex sewage treatment facility is proposed on the south side of the site to serve the
project’s waste disposal needs and provide a higher level of wastewater treatment. Based on the
preliminary layout plan for this system, the proposed project would have a total estimated
wastewater flow of 31,400 gpd for the 125-room hotel, catering facility, restaurant, retail space
and other listed accessory uses. Treated effluent would be discharged to a system of subsurface
leaching pools for on-site disposal.
Application Review
A Special Exception Use Permit is required from the ZBA for the hotel use and Site Plan review
is required by the Town Planning Board. Based on NP&V’s initial review, it appears that the
project must either be revised to include only 81 guest rooms or a variance from Section 280-35
B(4) is required and should be noted in the application submission. Review of the Part 1 EAF,
proposed plans, and other submitted application materials indicate that additional information and
revisions and/or clarifications are necessary to appropriately evaluate the special use permit
application; determine whether any zoning variances are required, how many variances are
required, and the magnitude of the relief being sought; and to identify any potential environmental
impacts of the proposed project and appropriate means to prevent or suitably alleviate such
impacts. Based on NP&V’s initial review of the submitted materials, it is our recommendation
that the following issues be addressed prior to deeming the application “complete” and proceeding
with the review of this application. Once the necessary baseline materials have been submitted
and the content, clarity, uniformity, and accuracy of those materials have been determined to be
suitable, the formal zoning, special permit review, and environmental assessment can proceed.
Site Plan/Special Permit/Zoning
1. The cover letter dated February 7, 2020 states that “…in order to avoid a variance for
additional guest units, [the applicant] will proceed with the 125 guest units, as of right.”
The project site is located in the General Business (B) zoning district. Hotels are allowed
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 3 of 10
in the B zone by Special Exception Use Permit pursuant to § 280-48 B(2) of the Southold
Town Code when they are designed in accordance with the requirements of the Resort
Residential (“RR”) Zoning District (§ 280-35 B(4))1, which states that:
“The maximum number of guest units shall be:
[1] One unit per 6,000 square feet of land without public water or sewer.
[2] One unit per 4,000 square feet of land with public water and sewer.”
Since the project will connect to a public water supply and an on-site sewage treatment
facility will be installed to conform to SCDHS density flow requirements, no more than
one guest room per 4,000 SF of land is permitted. Based on a total lot area of 7.467 acres,2
the total number of guest units that are permitted on the subject property is determined as
follows:
7.467 acres x 43,560 SF/acre = 325,273 SF/4,000 SF/unit = 81.3 or 81 units.
Therefore, the maximum number of guest rooms that is permitted on the lot without
variance relief is not 125 but is 81 or 44 fewer than the number indicated in the February
7, 2020 cover letter.
2. The building footprint shown on the Site Plan appears to be that of the existing structure
(and existing parking lot) rather than the proposed structure based on the proposed floor
plans and parking lot based on the Ground Floor Plan. At the same time statements in the
application seem to suggest that the proposed building footprint is the same as the existing
building footprint. A site plan depicting the footprint of the proposed building must be
submitted. The Site Plan and Floor Plans must be shown at a designated scale, and major
uses and features of the building must be labeled to provide greater clarification to facilitate
review. Building elevations would also be very helpful for this application.
3. The proposed floor plans depict 4 guest rooms on the Ground Floor Plan and identifies 86
guest rooms on the Second Floor Plan, but the First Floor Plan does not number or label
the rooms and does not indicate the total number of rooms. Based on our count, there
appears to be 34 guest rooms bringing the total to 124 not 125, plus an additional 16 spaces
that are unspecified as to use, potentially bringing the total number of guest rooms on the
second floor to 50, and the total number of rooms in the building to 140. The First Floor
Plan is incomplete and must therefore be revised by numbering each room and providing
the total number of guest rooms on this floor on the floor plan. The proposed use or uses
of the remaining 16 rooms or spaces must also be indicated.
4. Section 280-35 B(4) (c) requires that: No music, entertainment or loudspeaker system shall
be audible from beyond the property line. The project narrative responds to this standard
by stating that “…no music or loudspeaker system [will be] audible from beyond the
property lines.” It is unclear from this response whether this means there will be no music
or loudspeaker system on the property or whether there will, but it has been determined
1 It should be noted as clarification that the application narrative incorrectly references this section as 280-35 A (4)
rather than 280-35 B (4).
2 See also issue regarding several lot area discrepancies.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 4 of 10
based on anticipated sound levels and mitigation that sound would not be audible beyond
the property line. The use and types of events anticipated in the catering hall and any
outdoor or unenclosed areas should be indicated and whether amplified music or the use of
a loudspeaker system can be expected. If amplified music or a loudspeaker system will
generate sound on-site, please verify whether these activities and/or systems will be inside,
outside, or both, and provide information to support any conclusions regarding anticipated
sound levels at the property line and any noise abatement techniques that will be
implemented to prevent this from occurring. Also, it is unclear but appears that the pool
area may be an “open air” recreational space. Is this the case? Will amplified music or
loudspeakers be provided in this area?
5. Section 280-35 B(4)(d) requires that: The maximum size of a guest unit shall be 600 square
feet. Based on the dimensions of the “Type-(A) Floor Plan” and the “Type-(B) Floor Plan”
shown on the Second Floor Plan, the guest rooms would not exceed 600 SF in area;
however, the floor area indicated for each room (372 SF and 532 SF, respectively), appear
to be incorrect based on the dimensions provided, and therefore, the plans must be revised
to correct this discrepancy or there should be elaboration explaining why there is a
discrepancy. In addition, there is no indication as to the size or dimensions of the 4 suites
with kitchenettes which must also comply with the 600 SF restriction and the floor plan is
not to scale. Information must be provided to demonstrate compliance with 280-35
B(4)(d).
6. The February 7, 2020 cover letter states that a previously proposed third floor has been
eliminated in order to avoid the need for a variance but the floor plans that accompanied
this cover page include a: 1) ground floor, 2) first floor, and 3) second floor. The Southold
Town Code defines “story” as:
That part of any building, exclusive of cellars but inclusive of basements, comprised
between the level of one finished floor and the level of the next higher finished floor or, if
there is no higher finished floor, then that part of the building comprised between the level
of the highest finished floor and the top of the roof beams.
Based on this definition, it appears that the building has three stories and therefore does
not comply with zoning in terms of the number of stories permitted.
7. The Nitrex layout plan indicates that there will be 10,000 SF of retail space but there is no
indication on the Floor Plans where this space is. Please make sure that important
information such as this is provided.
8. The site plan on record labels the building as a three-story hotel containing 200 rooms. The
site plan and EAF need to be revised to accurately reflect the currently proposed plan.
9. A zoning compliance table should be provided on the site plan to demonstrate conformance
to all applicable dimensional zoning requirements (minimum lot area, minimum yard
setbacks, maximum building height, maximum number of stories, maximum building
coverage, maximum number of guest rooms per § 280-35 B(4)(b)(2), etc.). If the project
does not fully comply with zoning, please indicate this and if a variance(s) is/are being
requested, please identify all required zoning nonconformities.
10. Parking calculations indicating the total number of parking spaces required for the
proposed use(s) and total number of spaces provided are needed to assess conformance
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 5 of 10
with zoning, special permit standards, and to ensure that significant adverse impacts will
not occur. Parking calculations must also indicate conformance to required Americans
with Disabilities (“ADA”) spaces and truck loading space requirements. The dimensions
of any new parking spaces, truck loading spaces, parking lot aisles, and the access cul-de-
sac depicted on the Ground Floor Plan should be labeled to ensure that the plan is code
compliant and does not result in adverse impacts such as overflow parking, insufficient
emergency vehicle access, etc.
11. Hobson Drive appears to be partially located on the subject property and partially located
on adjacent residential properties to the west. Hobson Drive does not appear to be a public
right-of-way. If an access easement or covenants and restrictions from a previous site plan
or subdivision exists, it should be submitted so that the access location, width, ownership,
maintenance responsibilities, and other pertinent information can be fully understood, and
potential impacts evaluated.
12. As per § 280-133 B(1)(f), please indicate the widths of all rights-of-way within 500 feet of
property lines.
13. The ZBA will be reviewing the project for conformance to zoning requirements and special
permit standards and is also reviewing the application for potential environmental impacts.
To do this, it will be necessary to know more about what is proposed in terms of controlling
stormwater runoff since existing conditions will be modified and insufficient drainage may
impact adjacent properties or streets. A drainage plan would be required for site plan review
and should be prepared to show the locations of drainage structures, including existing
structures to remain (or be removed) and proposed structures. Drainage calculations should
also be included to demonstrate that drainage structures will have sufficient capacity for
capturing, accommodating, and recharging runoff from the requisite design storm event for
the specific project design.
14. In preparing and revising the plans and EAF, please be cognizant of adjacent land uses and
any potential impacts that may result and incorporate methods for impact prevention or
mitigation into the plans to ensure that these sensitive land uses are not adversely impacted.
15. The preliminary layout plan for the Nitrex system is difficult to read. NP&V recommends
that the plan use lines of different weights, dashed lines, cross hatching, a legend or other
methods to make the plan more legible. This plan should be shown on the actual site plan
for the project rather than overlaying some of the proposed features (proposed building
footprint) on the existing site plan. The distance between the subject property and the
wetlands to the west must be determined.
16. The Nitrex layout plan considers two land use scenarios: one which includes 175 rooms
(171 hotel rooms and 4 suites with kitchenettes) and restaurant, catering facility, retail
space, hotel office, spa; and one that includes 125 guest rooms (121 hotel rooms and 4
suites with kitchenettes), and the same accessory uses listed above. There is no mention
of a proposed 175-room hotel in the application materials; therefore, it is unclear why it is
presented here. It should be noted that the permitted number of guest rooms on this
property is 81 which already requires a substantial variance for the additional 44 rooms. A
175-room plan is more than twice the permitted number of rooms on the site.
17. Please provide a written narrative describing the Nitrex system.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 6 of 10
18. Based on the Ground Floor Plan, it appears that a number of trees and other landscaping
(particularly within the islands of the parking lot), some new trees will be planted, and
there will be large landscaped area at the south end of the site. It is recommended that
native vegetation or appropriate ornamental species be used, and that no invasive species
be planted. Plants and grasses that have limited fertilizer and irrigation demand are always
recommended.
EAF Part 1
19. The EAF Part 1 requires substantial revisions and amendments and must be updated to
reflect the current proposal and the details of the proposed plans. The Long EAF Part 1 has
been modified by NYSDEC since the initial submission, and since significant changes are
necessary, the new (2019) Long EAF Part 1 should be used.
20. Page 2, Section B of the EAF Part 1 requires the applicant to identify involved agencies
and the permits and/or approvals required from these agencies. Agencies are listed but the
types of permits and approvals that are required are not. There are other agencies that may
also be involved and may need to approve or issue a permit for the project such as
NYSDEC for a SPDES wastewater permit and/or SPDES general permit for disturbance
of more than an acre of land, NYSDOT for a new or relocated curb cut along Main Road
(SR 25) if the access locations are changing (See easterly access depicted on ground floor
plan versus existing easterly access shown on the existing conditions plan). It is difficult
to determine which permits are required due to the incompleteness and inaccuracies of the
plans and application package.
21. Page 2, Section B.i. indicates that the property is not within a Coastal Area or the waterfront
area of a Designated Inland Waterway. This is incorrect and must be checked “yes”. Please
consult the New York Geographic Information Gateway website or use NYSDEC’s EAF
Mapper to assist in completing the EAF Part I.
22. Page 2, Section C.1 states that a variance is required for the previously proposed 200-room
hotel but the February 7, 2020 cover letter, which accompanied the recently submitted floor
plans, states that 200 hotel units are no longer proposed and instead 125 units are proposed
in order to avoid having to get a variance. This appears to be incorrect as the maximum
number of rooms that are permitted on the property under zoning is 81. Moreover, as
previously indicated, the actual number of rooms that are now proposed is unclear. The
EAF must be updated to accurately reflect the currently proposed plan and consider
whether a variance will be requested.
23. Page 2, Section C.2a asks whether there are any municipally adopted comprehensive land
use plans that include the project site and the response provided is “no”. The Town of
Southold has a comprehensive plan (1985) and is in the final stages of updating this
comprehensive plan (2019 final draft ). Although the update has not yet been adopted, the
Town does have an existing comprehensive plan in place. For the above reasons, NP&V
recommends that this question be answered “yes,” and that the applicant review the
existing and proposed comprehensive plans to determine if there are any relevant policies
or recommendations.
24. Page 2, Section C.2b asks if the project is located within any local or regional special
planning districts and responds by saying “no.” The subject property is located within the:
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 7 of 10
Town’s Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (“LWRP”) boundary and is
therefore subject to applicable policies established by this LWRP.
The project is also located in the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection
Area (“SGPA”) (North) Critical Environmental Area.
The property is also located within New York State’s “Long Island North Shore
Heritage Area.”
Please consult applicable resources and databases for more information.
25. Page 3, Section D.1.b.a and b state that the property is 8.03 acres. This conflicts with the
acreage indicated on the survey and site plan which say that the property is 7.467 acres,
which is 24,525+/- SF or 0.56-acre smaller. All plans and application materials must have
the correct acreage. All information and application materials should be consistent.
26. Page 3, Section D.1.b.c should indicate the acreage of the project site plus the acreage of
any contiguous properties that are owned or controlled by the applicant or project sponsor.
If adjacent land is not owned by the applicant or project sponsor, the response would be
the acreage of the subject parcel by itself (i.e., the same number as provided in Sections
D.1.b. a and b, rather than “0.00”).
27. Page 4, Section D.1.g, which asks if the proposed action includes new non-residential
construction including any expansions, should have been answered “yes” rather than “no”
due to the commercial nature of the hotel, hotel office, restaurant, bar, catering facility, and
10,000 SF retail space, and the fact that the proposed project consists of three levels and
appears to be larger in terms of gross floor area. (Information should be submitted to
determine this.). Items i., ii, and iii that follow this question and ask about the number of
structures, the dimensions of the building, and the square footage of the area of the building
to be heated and cooled should also be answered.
28. Page 5, Section D.2.c. which asks whether the proposed action will create a new demand
for water should be answered “yes” because the proposed project, including 125 rooms,
catering facility, restaurant, bar, retail space, spa, hotel office space, swimming pool, and
what appear to be hot tubs but are unlabeled, is expected to have a higher demand for water
than the current vacant building and previous office use. Once this is answered yes, the
remaining questions in Section D.2.c must be answered. Based on the Ground Floor Plan,
the proposed plan will include a large vegetated area that is likely grass which may require
frequent watering during the summer months. Please also indicate what the average
projected volume of water needed for any landscape irrigation systems per day on average
during the irrigation period and note that low demand grasses and plantings are
recommended and if irrigation is to be installed, a water conserving system should be
installed.
29. Page 5, Section D.2.d. indicates that the anticipated liquid waste generation per day is
“unknown” as it “depends on the # of rooms allowed.” The projection of the volume of
wastewater that is expected to be generated per day and the required environmental
assessment must be based on what the applicant is proposing. Please check the sanitary
calculations indicated on the Nitrex layout plan for the proposed development scenario and
if this is correct, the number for the proposed scenario must be provided in units of gallons
per day. Page 6, Sections D.2.d.iv., v., and vi. which are follow up questions on wastewater
generation must also be answered.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 8 of 10
30. Page 6, Section D.2.e. addresses the issue of stormwater management. Although the project
is proposed on a previously disturbed and developed site, it appears that there will be
significant changes to the site such as removal of some if not all the existing pavement,
removal of portions of, if not all of the existing building, installation of the proposed Nitrex
system, construction of a access cul-de-sac and other site disturbances that will affect more
than one acre of the 7.467-acre site during redevelopment. Even if there is ultimately less
impervious surface on the site, there appears that more than one acre of land will be
disturbed by this project. If the impervious footprint of the site is going to change or new
drainage structures are going to be installed, then this question should be answered “yes”
and the remainder of the questions in D.2.e. should be responded to accordingly.
31. Page 7, Section D.2.j. provides a response of “no” to the question of whether the proposed
action will “result in a substantial increase in traffic above present levels…” Currently the
7.467-acre site does not generate any traffic and peak trip generation times and factors for
the previous office use will be much different from the proposed use. Also, the proposed
use may generate a significant number of trips within a short period of time and numerous
on and off-site turning movements when the catering hall with a seating capacity of 300,
which will presumably host events such as wedding receptions, is in use―depending on
whether attendees live locally or are from outside the area and will be staying at the hotel.
For a project like this, the response would typically be “yes,” and the remainder of the
questions would be answered.
32. Page 7, Section D.2.k. asks whether the proposed hotel/catering hall/restaurant/retail
space/office space/and spa will generate new additional demand for energy and the
response is “no”. Unlike the currently vacant building and the previous office use that
occupied the site, the three-level hotel will be functioning 24 hours per day and seven days
per week and will likely have a greater energy demand which should be accounted for.
33. Page 8, Section D.2.m asks whether the proposed action will produce noise that will exceed
existing ambient noise levels during construction and the question is answered “no”. The
standard response for this question is “yes” as the operation of heavy equipment, whether
it be for the removal of pavement, demolition of the existing concrete structure, or soil
excavation to install the sanitary system and drainage structures, will generate noise at
higher than ambient levels. It is understood that construction noise is unavoidable to some
extent but an adequate response in the follow up question would be that construction will
take place during permissible hours according to the restrictions outlined in §187-A.(2)
(“Noise Prevention,” “exceptions”) of the Southold Town Code.
34. Page 8, Section D.2.n asks whether outdoor lighting will be provided, and the question is
answered “yes, same as currently exists.” Based on the modifications to the site indicated
on the Ground Floor Plan it appears that there would have to be some changes to the
outdoor lighting plan. Any outdoor lighting would have to be designed in accordance with
applicable standards set forth in § 280-117, “Lighting Restrictions,” of the Southold Town
Code to ensure that issues associated with glare, light trespass, impacts on views of the
night sky, and excess energy use do not occur.
35. Page 8, Section D.2.o, please indicate whether the proposed sanitary system will be
underground (assumed) and if it will be or needs to be equipped with odor control. As noted
previously, a narrative description of the Nitrex system should be submitted.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 9 of 10
36. Page 8, Section D.2.p asks whether there will be any bulk storage of petroleum with a
combined capacity of over 1,100 gallons. A hotel of this size will likely have a backup
generator(s) to provide energy during a power outage. Please verify if a generator(s) is
proposed, and if so, how it will be fueled? If one or more generators are proposed and it is
to be powered by fuel oil/diesel, please determine the number of gallons of on-site storage
that is necessary and revisit the question, if this number has a combined volume that
exceeds 1,100 gallons of storage. Also, it is assumed that fuel oil is not proposed for
heating the hotel but please consider the method of heating before answering this question.
Storage tank registration or a permit may be required depending on the amount of storage
needed.
37. Page 8, Section D.2.r asks whether the project requires the management or disposal of solid
waste (excluding hazardous materials) and the question is answered “no.” The project is
considered a commercial use (hotel with catering hall, restaurant, bar 10,000 SF of retail
space) and solid waste is expected during both the demolition/construction and operational
stages of the hotel use. Projections of construction and demolition debris (“C&D”) and
solid waste/garbage during operations must be provided. Examples of C&D can include
any pavement, concrete, wood, scrap building materials, soil, or other debris that must be
removed from the site during construction.
38. Page 9, Section E.1.a. asks what types of land uses are near or adjoining the site and
responds by indicating that commercial uses are the only uses. This must be revised to
reflect the fact that there are also single-family residences, a railroad, existing or potential
utility (SCWA-owned land), open space/recreational land, agricultural land, and vacant
land that either abuts the property, is directly across the street, or is very close to the subject
property.
39. Page 9, Section E.1.b. the land use cover types table needs to be revised to indicate the
correct acreage of the site (8.03 acres or 7.467 acres as indicated on the survey). This
section should also indicate what the before and after area of forested land is (which is
limited but does exist on the site, in the northwest corner of the property) and total
landscaped area, which should be listed in the bottom row which is labeled “other.”
40. Page 11, Section E.2.c.: The predominant soil type is typically listed according to the
United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) Natural Resource Conservation
Service’s soil classification system as indicated in the NYSDEC’s EAF Workbook. These
data can be found at the website provided below or by reviewing the USDA’s 1975 “Soil
Survey of Suffolk County, New York.” The soil types that have been identified at the site
by NP&V’s review include: “Plymouth loam sand, 0 to 3% slopes” (94.9% of the property)
and “Cut and fill, gently sloping” (5.1% of the property).
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
41. Page 11, E.2.h.i and E.2.h.ii. has to do with the presence of wetlands adjoining the site. It
should be noted that there are two NYSDEC regulated wetlands near the property. One is
located west of the southwest corner of the lot adjacent to Main Road and in proximity to
the proposed Nitrex system, and the other wetland is located northwest of the northwest
corner of the property. These wetlands appear to be relatively close to the site and the
distances of these wetlands from the subject property should be determined.
9025 Main Road, Mattituck
Special Exception Use Permit &
Preliminary SEQRA Review
Page 10 of 10
42. Page 11, Section E.2.l. asks if the site is located over or immediately adjoining, a primary,
principal or sole source aquifer. The question is answered “no,” but the subject property,
like all land in Nassau and Suffolk County, is located over the “Nassau-Suffolk Sole Source
Aquifer,” and therefore should have been answered “yes.” Section E.2.l.i should state the
name of the sole source aquifer (“Nassau-Suffolk Sole Source Aquifer.”). See NYSDEC’s
EAF mapper if you have any questions.
43. Page 12, Section E.3.d. asks if the project site is located in or whether it adjoins a State-
listed Critical Environmental Area (“CEA”) and the response is listed as “no”. This is
incorrect. The property is within the Central Suffolk Special Groundwater Protection Area
(“SGPA”) (North) CEA. Please consult the 1992 Long Island Comprehensive Special
Groundwater Protection Area Plan, page 3-79 which provides the best map for identifying
the subject property which is on near the southeast corner of this SGPA. Also, please
review the NYSDEC’s Suffolk County CEA webpage and complete Sections E.3.d.i, ii,
and iii, accordingly.