Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Comments
Michaelis,Jessica From: Nicole DeGregorio <nika_d@yahoo.com> �.. _.. . Sent: Sunday,August 4,2024 1:22 PM AUG o 5 2024 is,Jessica Subject: SPAM]I-Orchards subdivision ..... 6 ' i"06 �i''. J w �o n Planning Board As a full time resident of Orient,I am appalled at the latest development. I am completely opposed to the planned Orchards subdivision. Sincerely, L. Nicole DeGregorio ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Peter Marren and Margaret Newman 2610 Orchard St, PO Box 532 Orient, NY 11957 pm@marrenandnewman.com 5 August 2024 RECEIVED To: Southold Town Planning Board �A"LlG— 2,0Z4 Re: Steven A. Martocello Property Address: 2595 Orchard Street,Orient Planning Board aid Tow SCTM:1000-27.-l-3 _ .... .- Dear Members of the Board My wife and I live directly across the street from the proposed'25 FT PRIVATE RIGHT-OF-WAY'. We would like this opportunity to state our position in this matter. First of all,to be honest,it would be great if it WAS NOT happening". We enjoy the undeveloped open space. However,we acknowledge the right of the property owner to develop the site. However,when we initially heard about this,we understood the owner would be developing all the sites and therefore assumed would be controlling the construction work in an orderly fashion. The latest rumors are he is selling it? Or at least separately selling off all the 4 smaller lots(z,3,4&5) Our initial concerns were that ALL access(every truck,roaring concrete delivery and every z x 4 supplied...) to those 4 lots would be through that single private right-of-way, directly across from our house. We do accept, after the 4 houses were built,the day-to-day traffic/activity presumably would be modest and tolerable. Again,the presumption was the developer would be building those 4 houses, more-or-less at the same time, and therefore all the inevitable disruptions would only be really loud and messy for maybe one year;once and done. If,as we suspect,those 4 lots are sold separately then it is certainly within the realm of possibility that 4 different owners with 4 different contractors and 4 separate schedules could very well work without any coordination or cooperation. Therefore,the process of building 4 separate houses could involve 4 separate YEARS (or more...) of continuous noise and inconvenience. AGAIN,ALL ACCESSED SOLELY FROM THAT ONE SINGLE RIGHT-OF-WAY. That doesn't seem reasonable or fair...it will be 4 years of chaos. We therefore hereby request that ACCESS DURING CONSTRUCTION be`shared'with at least another(could be temporary)path from Halyoake Ave and possibly also from the large Lot#1. This would create a much fairer distribution of dealing with the burden of trucks,noise,dust and all the rest that is inherent during the construction process. We trust that you can understand and appreciate our position in this important matter. SincfCi.ely Peter Marren AIA August 2, 2024RECEIVED Heather M Lanza, Planning Director AUG 0 5....._w_�w_.... Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director down 54375 State Road 25 Planning ward Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Orchards Subdivision SCTM #1000-21-7-3 Final Plat approval Dear Ms. Lanza and Mr. Terry, I live at 3585 Orchard Street, on the corner of Orchard and Halyoke Avenue, directly facing Halyoke and this clustered subdivision. I have several concerns about the plan being considered for Final Plat of Clustered Subdivision of The Orchards revised 2/15/2024 and the "Subdivision of Property - 'The Orchards"' last revised 10/02/2023. There are issues that are not appropriate for this property and need to be considered before any approval is granted. "The property is located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the northeast side of Orchard Street , approximately 17' northwest of Platt Road, in Orient." I am unclear on the exact meaning of"approximately 17' northwest of Platt Road, in Orient", especially in relation to the right of way and the street. I am also concerned about the setbacks set forth in the current plan. According to the Town Code, Chapter 280 - Attachment 6 Schedule for Open Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans, the set back is 30 'with a 20 'buffer. In the current plan the setback is 20 'and no buffer. With regard to the buffer. On this plan, there are two 50 'strips; one along Orchard Street and one at the end of the property line on Halyoke Avenue. There is no vegetative buffer on Halyoke Avenue for 170'in-between those two strips. Halyoke Avenue is a small one lane street, approximately 12'wide. The property line is 5'from the street. So as it stands, the houses will be built close to the tiny street, without any buffer. It seems to me that this was designed without thorough knowledge as to where the road is in relation to the property line, and needs to be accurately assessed by the planning board before any final approval. This has been going on for 11 years and I have been on record many times opposing this subdivision. During this time, this subdivision has gone through many reiterations, from being billed as a family compound with a farm, to a main house for the owner and 4 clustered houses and now, 5 building lots and a random road. This does not make any sense and is certainly not right for Orient. Our property is the first five acre lot on the corner of Halyoke and Orchard Street, directly across the street from the subdivision, "The Orchards". Our property is land from the former Hallock Farm and subdivision "Settlers at Oysterponds", which was subdivided and zoned for 5 acres. The map was approved on 5/4/1984; File #7729. I have been here for almost 30 years. We purchased our land and purposely built our home to compliment the unique and historic hamlet of Orient. Absolutely everything about"The Orchards" proposed subdivision is out of character with the neighborhood. Considering this is one of the few open spaces in the hamlet of Orient, that property can support two, possibly three houses at most. This could satisfy the open space feel, help preserve community character and address environmental issues as well. The Southold Town Planning Board has the responsibility of maintaining and preserving the integrity of Orient. Approving this subdivision as is will truly spoil Orient's quaint character. In light of the many, many issues relating to this property over the past 10+ years, I urge you to revisit this subdivision and strongly consider setbacks, zoning and clustering requirements for this property. Sincerely, Nancy Ferraris Michaelis,Jessica From: Nancy Ferraris<nancyferraris@me.com> Sent: Monday,August 5,2024 1:10 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: Re:The Orchards Subdivision SUM#1000-21-7-3 Final Plat approval Download full resolution images Available until Sep 4, 2024 Click to Download The Orchards letter 8:5:24.docx 10 KB r _ a ' The Orchards Property Line-5'from Halyoke Avenue 1 The Orchards property where there is no vegetative buffer in the plan. r My home, on 5 acres, set far back away from the road. r- • s The house adjacent to The Orchards, on Halyoke Ave,set far back away from the road. z Halyoke Avenue. 12"wide. My property on the left and The Orchards on the right. Nancy Ferraris Nancy's Nourishing Kitchen LLC nancyferraris@me.com 516.375.8149 www.nancysnourishingkitchen.com Instagram: @nourishing.nancy Facebook: Nancy's Nourishing Kitchen 3 s„wc From: Jim Haag <jhaag@verdura.com> Sent: Wednesday,July 31,2024 9:54 AM r To: Michaelis,Jessica RECEIVED Cc: Yahoo Oamesfhaag@yahoo.com) Subject: Orient Orchards Proposal lV Dear Jessica, Planning Board This is Jim Haag, a long-time resident of Orient and north fork lover. I financially support all initiatives to improve the quality of life in our communities. I am deeply concerned and very emotional about this huge mistake that is about to be made with the Orchards subdivision in orient. I cannot believe the Board has actually allowed this get this far. A few notes to you and your Board members. Please read these in the spirit of not allowing our world to disappear. ? This property is in the center of our hamlet. You are going to allow a subdivision to be placed in the center of one of the most beautiful and unique communities in New York State. This property is steps from the town's historic center and right in the backyard of one of the most revered artists in America—Bob Birks.Why are you allowing this? ? The large lot has a "deal"with almost 8 acres of open space. A corn field is not open space. Open space to me is nature:trees to breath oxygen into the community, not corn that will offers nothing like that and will bring fertilizers and pesticides into our ground water. You are allowing them to ruin the only chance to maintain some sense of rural attitude in this central area. Why? It's bad enough they will be creating a mini Massapequa here, but please don't let them grow corn instead of allowing nature to camouflage some of the damage to the area. ? Please see the definition of open space here:An open space reserve(also called open space preserve, open space reservation, and green space)is an area of protected or conserved land or water on which development is indefinitely set aside. The purpose of an open space reserve may include the preservation or conservation of a community or region's rural natural or historic character,the conservation or preservation of a land or water area. Can you please change the working of Open Space to Green Space and make sure it is in keeping with the town's character. No crops please. I know this has gone far and I have already written earlier—I don't know if these letters hold any power. But we are the community and if the community matters they would overwhelmingly object to this misguided project. At the very least„ please do not allow a corn field to be substituted for natural green space. Thanks for reading this far. This really matters—it is not just another vote. Thanks for considering these comments. Warm regards, Jim Haag Orient 631-902-6452 i 7:25 0 1 I .e=� 4D Summer Newsletter 2024... LAND PRESERVA IO /SUSDIVISIONS The Orchards subdivision Conditional Final Plat Public Hearing is on the agenda for the Monday, August 5th Planning Board fleeting which starts at 5:00. This proposal is for a Clustered Standard Subdivision to subdivide a 13.3-acre parcel into five lots where Lot 1 = 9.33 acres including a 1 .35 acre building envelope and 7.98 acres of Open Space (planted with corn), and Lots 2 through 5 are each +/- 1 acre in the R-80 Zoning District. The property is located at 2595 Orchard Street, on the northeast side of Orchard Street. Information can be found here h tp://24.38.28.228 ebLinl /Rrowse.asp ` id=1 035797&dbid=O&re po=TownOfSouthold This will probably be the last opportunity to weigh in on this proposal. It is not necessary to attend this hearing to participate. written r,nmmcnte rnr-cixiarl nrinr #n thn ni ihlie- hnnrinrr 2 From: Jane Lear<janelear@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday,July 30,2024 5:48 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: null I'm a resident of Orient Point and I see with great dismay that this part of the world is turning into the suburbs, complete with light pollution,water-quality degradation, and either monster houses,typically with little architectural merit, or cookie-cutter "modern farmhouses" a la Joanna Gaines's "Magnolia Home"franchise. Regarding the Orchard Street subdivision,there are just so many red flags—and out-and-out inaccuracies--it makes my heart sink. A lot could, and probably will, go wrong. 5%,bF Jane Lear P6, N�' P.O. Box 148 RECEIVED Orient,NY 11957 _...... ,........._...... ... 917.365.0235 ianclear@gmail.com Planning Board Z-7• - 1 - 3 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 1 Barbara Friedman-PO Box 11-Orient NY, 11957 July 21, 2024 S to b-P Heather M. Lanza, Planning Director 1_14 L.. M,.,, .,, Mark Terry, Assistant Town Planning Director RECEIVED 54375 State Road 25,Southold, NY 11971 �..-.....w� ...M �� .��• ....w.._..,__..� Re:The Orchards Subdivision JUL 2 SCTM#1000-21-7-3 !'66tfi6kj..." own Planning Board Dear Ms. Lanza and Mr.Terry, I believe that the Final Plat is being considered for final approval on August 5th. I am confused by a few things regarding the Final Road and Drainage Plan for the Final Plat of Clustered Subdivision of the Orchards revised 2/15/2024 and the "Subdivision of Property- 'The Orchards"' last revised 10/02/2023. If this is the final plat plan,shouldn't it include the streets and setback dimensions?The original survey in the file shows the streets pretty well-"Subdivision of Property- 'The Orchards"'dated June 15, 2013. This survey doesn't indicate what the 17.12' refers to-it is the width on a diagonal of the strip of property belonging to the adjacent parcel (SCTM#1000-27.-1-5). It is NOT the distance to the street. In measured perpendicular to the street/property line this dimension is about 15 feet, 10 of which is paved roadway. In other words the street is only five feet away,and zero feet away as it intersects with Orchard Street. The ROW lines as indicated correctly on this plan for"Platt Road" (actually Halyoake Ave.)do not coincide with the actual roadbed as they would typically. Curiously every subsequent version of this site plan shows completely inaccurate representations of the paved street lines, and there is no updated plan in Laserfiche showing the actual street lines. If this plan did include the streets,the Planning Board members would see that there are some issues with the setbacks and vegetated buffers on the corner of Orchard Street and Halyoake Avenue. • Halyoake Avenue is a one-lane road approximately thirteen feet wide.The paved edge is less than five feet away from the property markers.This means that with a 20'setback on lots 3 and 5,there could be a structure less than 25' away from Halyoake Avenue. Reducing the setback from 30' in the Chapter 280-Attachment 6 Schedule for Open Space, Buffers and Setbacks for Residential Site Plans to 20' at this property line is completely out of character with the neighborhood.The average setback from the paved street on the north side of Halyoake Avenue is approximately 135'. This property is not, and never has been 17'from Platt Road (or Halyoake Avenue for that matter) as per the Property Description in the Public Notices. • Between the two 50' buffers along Orchard and the western property lines there is no vegetated buffer shown in the remaining 170' parallel to Halyoake Avenue on lots 3 and 5. This is the one area of the site that has some mature trees that would be worth saving and with the minimal setback mentioned above, new construction has the potential to be extremely close to the road and completely unscreened. • At the corner of Halyoake and Orchard,the property line actually touches the street edge. This means that the proposed 50 foot vegetated buffer comes to the street edge. Having the vegetated buffer come all the way up to the street edge seems both impractical and extremely dangerous. Since Halyoake is a one lane road,cars turning onto or off of Orchard Street are using the same lane. Currently the vegetation is cut way back at the corner, and this corner will be especially treacherous if sight lines are not maintained. Due to its history, Halyoake Avenue is a quirky street that maintains a rural character. I realize that this project has been in the works for a long time, but the details of the actual existing site conditions and context at its southeast perimeter have seemingly not been fully documented and vetted. The Planning Board should have the opportunity to vet a fully documented site plan before making any final decisions. Sincerely, Barbara Friedman From: Michaelis,Jessica Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 1:02 PM To: Burke,John; Mia Jealous Dank; Cerezo, Mara; Cummings, Brian A.; Don Wilcenski home (dwilski78@gmail.com);James H Rich Qhrichiii.stpb@gmail.com); Lanza, Heather; Rafferty, Pierce; Sidor, Martin H;Terry, Mark;Wilcenski, Donald J Cc: Palmeri, Allison Subject: incoming mail: S Martocello re The Orchards Finding Statement Attachments: Letter to the Plan.Board -wrt SEQR Findings- Orchards 12-2-2022.pdf; seqrhandbook pg 137 supplemental EIS regs.pdf RECEI m �. , . Thank you, � ' � 6ufh d�®wn Jessica Michaelis, Senior Office Assistant Planning Board Southold Town Planning Department 54375 NYS Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Phone: 631-765-1938 Email:JessicaMksoutholdtownny.gov From:Steven Martocello<samartocello@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 2, 2022 12:25 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica <jessica.michaelis@town.southold.ny.us> Cc: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us>; Donald Wilcenski (dwilski78@gmail.com) <dwilski78@gmail.com>;Terry, Mark<mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us>;Alex Martocello<alex@theubigroup.com> Subject:The Orchards Finding Statement Attached is a letter wrt The Orchards Findings Statement. We want to thank the Southold Planning Board/Department for its time working with us to resolve elements of The Orchards SEQRA Findings Statement. Mark-we did receive the email that you sent over earlier this morning, but had the letter ready to go. We are hoping the letter offers some clarity to our earlier discussions. Again Thank you. Steven A. Martocello 917-502-0101 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. Steven A. Martocello East End Holding,LLC PO Box 336 Mount Sinai,NY, 11766 Donald J Wilcenski 12/2/2022 Chairman, Planning Board Southold Town Hall Annex 51375 State Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold,New York, 11970-0959 Ms. Heather Lanza,AiCP Town Planning Director Southold Town Planning 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold,New York, 11971 Re: The Orchards SEQRA Findings Statement Mr. Wilcenski, We want to thank the Southold Planning Board/Department for its time working with us to resolve the below regarding The Orchards. We are requesting the Southold Town Planning Board,as lead agency, amend and correct the SEQR Findings Statement associated with the FEIS adopted on 9/12/2022 without requiring a supplemental DEIS or FEIS. The two specific findings statements of concern relate to limitations placed on the size of the proposed homes. The statements are: • Impacts on Aesthetic Resources: On page 15,letter `d' —"A maximum footprint of 1,750 sq. ft. for each single-family residence(principal structure)is required as evaluated in the DEIS(emphasis added)" • Consistency with Community Character: On page 18, item `iv' —The size and location of each individual proposed single-family residence is governed and restricted by the Town Code regulations. It may be necessary, however,to further mitigate the visual impacts of future homes if(emphasis added)the Planning Board finds they have not been mitigated to the greatest extent feasible. This mitigation includes reducing single-family structure size by setting a cap on the footprint square footage. A maximum footprint of 1,750 sq. ft. for each single- i Page 2 The Orchards SEQRA Findings Statement. 11/30/22 family residence (principal structure)is required,as evaluated in the DEIS (emphasis added)" Both findings' statements cite the DEIS evaluation as the basis for imposing the condition of approval. Upon review of the DEIS you will find the only discussion in the DEIS where the house footprint size is projected to be 1,750 sq. ft. appears on page 2-8, which pertains to estimating construction cost. The discussion of aesthetic resources and community character in the DEIS,which is what the findings statement indicates is the basis for imposing the house size restriction,does not mention any specific size proposed home. To the contrary,the following two statements are made in the DEIS section 4.4 titled "Aesthetic and Open Space": • On page 4-10 "The specific size, location and characteristics of the proposed dwellings has not been determined. However,each dwelling shall be constructed in conformity with the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts as contained within the Town Zoning Code,as may be modified by the Town Planning Board for cluster development." • On page 4-12 "The size of the proposed homes shall comply with the limitations of the Town of Southold Schedule of Bulk Regulations for Residential Districts,as may be modified by the Town Planning Board." The DEIS does not provide a basis for imposing a restriction on home size,other than to say the home size will comply with the Town Code. The FEIS addresses the issue of home size in section 4.4.2,the sum and substance of which is that the proposed homes will comply with the Town Code. The FEIS also provided Appendices GG and JJ which illustrate the home sizes that were submitted to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Wastewater Management Unit.The plans are to scale and, for lots 2 through 5,illustrate homes with a footprint of 2,796 sq.ft.The home on lot one has an even larger footprint. The FEIS provides both actual and constructive notice of the minimum proposed home size footprints. After the FEIS had been adopted by the Planning Board, ,the Town Board enacted significant changes in the Town Code to drastically reduce and restrict the size of buildable houses (Chapter 280 of the Code of the Town of Southold-Local Law 10 of the year 2022). Enactment of the new Code was the result of a lengthy process consisting of studies and public hearings to determine what the appropriate house size limitations should be based on the property lot size. The house size limitations set forth in the new Town Code provisions are consistent with the Town's adopted Master Plan. However, the findings statement adopted by the Planning Board disregards what the Town Board has determined to be the appropriate maximum size homes based on property lot size without any basis in the DEIS or FEIS for doing so. Page 3 The Orchards SEQRA Findings Statement. 11/30/22 Based on the foregoing, we request that the house size restriction be removed from the findings statement or be replaced indicating the size of the homes will comply with section 280-207 of the Town Code,as was indicated in the DEIS and FEIS. With regard to the issue of requiring a supplemental DEIS or FEIS,the New York State SEQRA Handbook,page 137(see attached),provides guidance with regard to Supplemental EIS requirements. The threshold for requiring a supplemental EIS is tied to "genuinely new"information that"the lead agency would have had no reasonable means of knowing that information sooner". In the Applicant's opinion,the threshold for requiring a supplemental EIS has not been met as actual and constructive notice of the proposed home sizes was provided in the FEIS. [See Coalition Against Lincoln,W. Inc. v Weinshall ,21 AD3d 215,223 (1st Dept 2005)] In the Orchards application,the requested amendment and correction of the adopted FEIS,does not identify any significant impacts not identified or considered in the original FEIS.No"genuinely new" information exists. The statements made in the DEIS, and FEIS already concede the proposed home sizes will conform to the Town Code. The Applicant is only seeking to construct home sizes that the Town Board,by enacting Code section 280-207,has determined to be the appropriate maximum home sizes for the proposed parcels of land. We ask the Town Planning Board, as lead agency,to consider the above and amend and correct its findings statement so that it is consistent with the adopted FEIS. If submission of a Supplemental EIS is required, please notify us as such in writing and provide the legal basis for requiring same. We ask that we continue our discussion prior to the adoption of the Findings Statement to address the issues raised, and consent to the additional time to hold such open conversation with the Board at its Work Session. Sincerely, Steven A. Martocello CC: Patricia Moore, Esq 3. Are there criteria for determining 5. How does a lead agency if newly discovered information determine that a supplemental warrants preparation of a EIS is required? Supplemental EIS? When a lead agency is evaluating whether to Yes.The lead agency is directed to consider: prepare a supplement, it should examine if changes in the project, newly discovered The importance and relevance of the information, or a change in circumstance have information,and the potential to result in any new, previously undisclosed, or unevaluated impacts that may � The present state of the information or may not have a significant adverse impact. provided in the original EIS. DEC's EAF workbooks provide guidance for The information must be relevant to the determining the magnitude, importance, and discussion of significant adverse environmental significance of an impact.This evaluation may impacts, and important for the accuracy of the take the form of a comparative memorandum. assessment of those impacts. The information For more complex changes, DEC recommends should be genuinely new;that is, the lead the evaluation be further supported by use of a agency would have had no reasonable means revised EAF when making this determination. of knowing that information sooner.The lead Should the lead agency determine that a agency should evaluate the existing EISsupplemental EIS is required, it must then follow considering the new information to be certain full SEQR procedures, including completion that relevant issues have not already been of a7eb As Stated in � reviou letter y Ip covered in encu h detail. Furthermore the � flhe h�alydy the IhOuse size extent of the supplemental EIS should be limited s. iscussio�n rias Ilius ited -to to a reassessment of the relevant significant �InS'tIru fiOI c�Sf alnallysisa eve adverse environmental impacts based on the dllsellosed the actual house new information identified. Sues mere urnikrnOImy arnd the A le4. What constitutes a change inat aacl;umuall house font footprints welre circumstances" as applied to example, the lead. Shown in thetwo appendices. a supplemental EIS? on comments re Therefore, 'the Ilead agency Ihad PP the public,to regq the information and made their A"change in circumstances"means any change preparing a final E f'Indings. AS Ipelr the SIE II in the physical setting of, orregulatory standards sponsor proposes handbook, -this doses not wanralrn't applicable to,the proposed project. Forcould chan g SDI IIS or SF IIS,. If is not r a the example, if nearby land useshave changed and assessment c information. This provision gives since the original site assessment was environmental lmthe IRoard a clean way of conducted,or the municipality has enacted new be required after ti utlllizirng 'the sulbmi'hed land use rules, and these changes are relevant thefinal EIS and is information (ie-folliow code, as to significant adverse environmental impacts, For generic EISs, oirilginalllly submited ) in Ilieu of then a supplemental EIS may bewarranted. typical. Potential r reguiriirg a suppllemenfai reporrt. project-specific a concept of genericElSs, 138 THE SEQR HANDBOOK,4T"EDITION I CHAPTER 5:ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS " , Barbara Friedman PO Box 11 RECEIVED Orient NY d ? u hold Torn Planning Board March 26, 2022 Ms. Heather Lanza Mr. Mark Terry Planning Department Town of Southold via email Re: Final Environmental Impact Statement "The Orchards" SUM#100-27.-1-3 Dear Mr.Terry, Ms. Lanza and Members of the Planning Board: Please accept the attached comments regarding the recent FEIS submission for"the Orchards" subdivision in Orient. Recently, I have become involved in the Orient Association's interest in getting a comprehensive picture of the water resources in Orient. In researching the issues, I believe that I have become more informed about some of the threats posed by the proposed project. The Orient Association is about to hire a consultant to write a report similar to this one for Shelter Island htt s: staticl,s uares ace.com static 5a08cOd490badef b44lal84 f 5fl8c38bcfc54b2b8b6el7c4 l5 5458446710 Water+M. mt+Plan+Final+3-3-20. df. This FEIS relies on data that is not necessarily specific to Orient, and less so for the Subject Property. Perhaps it would be prudent to wait until the Orient Association completes its study before any action is considered. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Friedman March 24,2022 The following are comments based on sections of the HIS prepared for the Orchards Subdivision at 2595 Orchard Street in Orient, NY dated February 2022. 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Sections 1-3 Nitrates and Nitrogen Loads:The applicant insists that they intend to and will be permitted to use standard septic systems. An obvious opportunity to mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed action is bein circumvented'. Nitrate levels in the ground water are already exceedingly high.Although the official MCL is set at 10 mg/I,according to the Shelter Island Water Management Plan, links to thyroid and bladder cancer have been associated with levels above 5 mg/I. Below is well test data from SCDHS dating from 1998 to 2009 for homes on Orchard Street that had values exceeding 5 mg/I: ........ ....... ... _._. FIELD NO YEAR SAMPLE RESULTS(NITRATES)05 1 6544680114 2001 7.2 mg/I ......... ......... _ . 2 129428080604 2008 7.3 mg/I ._...... 3 446459980922 1998 8.2 mg/I 4 419459980709 1998 8.6 mg/I .www. 5 831431980506 1998 12.2 mg/I 6 604468000705 2000 2.9 m /I _................... 7 115428040121 2004 11.1 mg/I ... .. ........ ......... 8 664468011022 200110.6 mg/I 9 746711021118 2002 _ 6.8 mg/I 10 102428090105 2009 9.8 mg/I 11 003740070906 2007 8.3 mg/I with carbon filter . _ ..... ......... ._..... _. 12 114428080903 2008 14.2 mg/I test well _. _._.__..... .................. 13 003740070507 2007 14 mg/I with carbon filter 14 114428040121 2004 10.9 mg/1 with granular activated filter 15 103428030602 2003 8.5 mg/I w_ 16111428001011 20. ... 17 102428991129 1999 11.4 mg/I test well 18 101428991129 1999 9.3 mg/I test well 19 124481010613 2001 8.8 mg/I with acid neutralizer ........ ......... �_ ..... _._. _ 20 850431990125 1999 10.4 mg/I ....._ 21 112428001011 2000 11.4 mg/I test well A total of 7 wells on Orchard Street had nitrate levels at or below 5 mg/I in the data provided by SCDHS. Given the already elevated levels of Nitrates in the drinking water of neighboring properties,this action seriously threatens the health and safety of nearby residents. While the proposed development may have a lower nitrogen load than the"as of right" use of all farming, it certainly doesn't have a lower nitrogen load than the existing use as fallow land.According to the Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan (SCCWRMP) ES-31 "Agriculture remains a major source of nitrate contamination, particularly on the North Fork; nitrogen loadings are crop specific."Of all the crops commonly grown on the North Fork, corn requires one of the highest, if not the highest level of nitrogen fertilization. "Nitrogen is public enemy#1, as nitrate contamination from unsewered housing and fertilizer use poses a threat to both the drinking water supplies and coastal marine habitat and resources" (SCCWRMP ES-2) While Article XXI section 280-97 Farmland Bill of Rights is repeatedly quoted ad nauseum throughout this FEIS, section 280-99 states "Farmers shall have the right to undertake farm practices... including... the use of legal agricultural chemicals (including herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers...Such activities do not constitute a nuisance unless the activity has substantial adverse effect on the public health,safety and welfare." Isn't poisoning the potable water in the neighborhood considered an adverse effect to public health,safety and welfare? The nitrogen load would be reduced if a)the principle crop was not corn and b)advanced septic systems were proposed. Enhanced mitigation would be achieved by reducing the number of building lots and planting native plant species in the open area. Items 5 & : Irrigation Well This section of the HIS addresses the possibility of up-coning in the irrigation well. First of all the footnotes refer to the Hydrologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York. The document is called the_Hydrogeologic-Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island NY. The argument that this document proves that up-coning is"statistically improbable"(page 37)does not appear to be supported by the document cited. It refers to Plate 1E of this document which is a cross section taken through the North Fork in an East West direction. It is taken at least a half mile away from the Subject Property. The Glacial Lake Clay layer that is being considered a guarantee against up-coning varies in location and composition throughout the North Fork. Page 18 of the same Hydrogeologic Framework states: "The relative magnitudes of the hydraulic conductivity given in Table 2 for aquifers and confining units on the North Fork indicates that the fresh round water in the a er la6al and Magothy aquifers couldbe confined locafly b the upper and lower confir in units where these units are sufficiently thitlk.The upper confining unit probably confines freshwater locall where it is thickest at least 25'thick near the western end of the North Fork near Mattituck and James Creek,and near Hashomomuck Pond (pls 1(E)and 3(C)).The relative abundance of fine sand in the upperconfining unit. indicates however,that this unit probabl does not substantial Iv confine freshwater in other parts of the North Fork where it is only a few feet thick." underlining added for emphasis) A more thorough analysis of the thickness and composition of the confining layer at the site specific location of the proposed irrigation well should be performed before up-coning can be deemed "statistically impossible". In addition,the effects of climate change on the possibility of up-coning should be assessed. If up-coning should occur, restoration of potable water can take years. PROJECT RELATED COMMENTS ANIS RESPONSES 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 The list of other flag lots in the area seems superfluous. Many of these flag lots pre-date the current code and ALL of the access driveways cited serve only one house, not four.The real answer is that an access road would diminish the lot sizes such that five lots would not be accommodated on the site see original comment C-3j In addition,the assumption that"dedication of the roadway to the Town would most likely occur" is presumptuous as the Town is not obligated to accept dedication of private roads. In addition,these lots still do not meet the following code requirements: • 240-45 B.(15) requiring a street • 240-45 C. (2) maximum lots using a common driveway. • 240-45 D.for flag lots to be"generally larger than usual lots" 2.4.1 See Significant Developments sections 1-3 above. 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 b. Regarding 3585 Orchard Street: how does the fact that this 5 acre parcel has 14,185 sf lot coverage out of an allowable 43,560 sf lot coverage(20%of total lot area) "directly contradict"the potential for a full 20%build out on a 40,000 sf lot on the Subject Property? This response by the Applicant and the inclusion of Appendix N in this HIS is gratuitous sniping and not at all relevant to the EIS. The likelihood of a full build-out on a one acre parcel is far greater than on a 5 acre parcel. A review of 50 ZBA applications for setback or lot coverage variances revealed 7 properties in the 40,000 sf range. There were zero 5 acre properties requesting variances for setbacks or lot coverage. 3.2.1 See Above 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Sections 1-3. The septic system on Lot 5,where the base of the leaching pool is at elevation 5.79,gives a highest expected groundwater level of 2.0. What is this highest expected groundwater level based on? It appears to be the current seasonal level, not the projected level based on the effects of sea level rise. 6 NYCRR State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(i) "where relevant and significant" and EIS must discuss"measures to avoid or reduce both an actions impacts on climate change and associated impacts due to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise and flooding." The DEIS does not address the impact of elevated groundwater and sea level on the proposed septic systems,well depths or depth of aquifer. 3.2.4 See Above 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Sections 1-3. 3.2.5 The request for a comparison of IA/OWTS systems vs.conventional septic systems is not outside the scope of an FEIS since the Environmental Impact Statement should address alternatives that will mitigate adverse impacts of the proposed action. 3.2.9 See Above 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Items 5 &6: Irrigation 3.2.11 See Above 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Sections 1-3 Also of note, climate change is expected to shrink the depth of the aquifer while also limiting its overall size, reducing the availability of fresh water. 6 NYCRR State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(i) "where relevant and significant"and EIS must discuss "measures to avoid or reduce both an actions impacts on climate change and associated impacts due to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise and flooding." 3.2.18 See Above 1.3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS Items 5&6: Irrigation 3.2.24 b.Additional nitrates in the ground or surface waters would be considered an adverse impact. The proposed action does not mitigate this impact. Increasing the likelihood of salt water intrusion through pumping is another adverse impact that has not been adequately addressed by the EIS. c.The statement water usage is"related to house size"is NOT"INCORRECT". Design criteria is not the same thing as reality. Septic Systems which are directly related to household water usage,are sized based on the number of bedrooms,which is related to house size. Please provide SCWA data on water usage proving that it is unrelated to house size. 3.5.3 Response section a. is a justification for a deer fence,while response section c. says in response to comment C-33 "the comment is speculative as to whether or not a deer fence will be erected, and how deer will behave." It is stated plainly on page 4-11 of the FEIS that the intention is to build a deer fence so obviously the comment is not speculative,and the fact that deer will be forced out of this area onto adjacent properties is also not speculative. North Fork Deer Alliance has a brochure with the following quote regarding deer fences on agricultural properties"fencing not only concentrates deer on everyone else's property but also alters the traditional North Fork aesthetic of open farmland". The increase in deer related car accidents in the Town of Southold was 65%between 2000 and 2015. While agricultural fences are not entirely to blame for deer related problems,they do have an adverse impact. 4.4.3 b. Refer to response to comment 2.4.3.The argument that because existing homes do not max out the 20%lot coverage the same will be true for the Subject Property makes absolulgi no sense. Nowhere in the DEIS or the FEIS is there mention of the fact that the footprint of the house on Lot#1(as shown in Appendix JJ) is over 4,500 square feet,which is over three times the size of the average abutting homes. Has Table 1 of the DEIS-the total area of buildings stated as.2927 acres been updated to reflect the 4,500 sf+footprint of the house on Lot#1? 4.4.5 The point of the original comment that the proposed barn was on axis with Old Farm Road, had to do with an unspoiled vista. Although Old Farm Road is relatively new,as are the homes along it,this view is presently a stand of trees abutting and shielding 2605 Orchard Street with open fields beyond. For the record,the location of the barn on Appendix EE is not the same as the location of the barn on Appendix GG-Subdivision Map. 4.4.11 a. It is absolutely not true that the Applicant had "no,choice" but to cluster four houses on the corner of Orchard and Halyoake. There is nothing in Southold Town Code that r wires a develo er to maximize the yield of a subdivision. b. Regarding average parcel sizes-the average of the four clustered parcels is.99 acres.When combined with the existing house at 2605 Orchard Street the average is.89 acres.The density is more than twice the 1.72 acre average of abutting properties. The perceived density is not one house per 2.66 acres, but one house per.89 acres. Moreover the average lot coverage of abutting homes is 2%. Even if the "modest" homes posited for Lots 2-5 are limited to 1,750 sf footprints,the lot coverage is twice the average of the abutting homes. Appendix AA documents another aspect of this project that is in contrast to Community Character, house size. While the totally hypothetical 1,750 sf footprint on lots 2-5 is only about 20%larger than the average neighborhood home,the proposed footprint of the house being built on Lot 1 by the Applicant for personal is over 4,500 sf(Appendix JJ),or three times as large as the neighborhood average. Ultimately, unless there are covenants,the four houses clustered together will be controlled by the Town's inadequately restrictive code (see Southold Comprehensive Plan Goal 1.7 (3)),this oversized house on Lot 1 is being built by the Applicant. 6.2.2 a. It is not true that no individual has offered to buy the property for the purpose of preserving it. An individual expressed interest and was rebuffed. This property is on the Town's list of properties eligible for CPF funding, and should be considered for preservation. Missing Information: Perhaps this is not part of a SEQRA review, but Town Code calls for and Affordable Housing component for any subdivision of five or more houses. How is Town Code provision 240-10 B(2) (c) Affordable Housing requirement being met? Assessing Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Environmental Impact Statements-no energy conservation measures beyond minimum required have been identified. The effects of Climate Change have not been adequately addressed. 6 NYCRR State Environmental Quality Review Act 617.9(b)(5)(iii)(i) "where relevant and significant"and EIS must discuss"measures to avoid or reduce both an actions impacts on climate change and associated impacts due to the effects of climate change such as sea level rise and flooding." While the Southold Comprehensive Plan is addressed in the FEIS,the response to many of the Town's Goals seems to be that current code does not yet reflect these Goals and the applicant will abide by current code. In other words,the proposal does not reflect many of the Goals of the Comprehensive Plan. From: Barbara Cohen <bjcohen@att.net> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2021 2:28 PM To: Lanza, Heather Cc: Michaelis,Jessica;Terry, Mark; Nancy Ferraris Subject: The Orchards- Draft EIS - Supplemental Submission-Jan 11 2021 Attachments: Ferraris-Orchard St EIS - Supplemental Letter Jan 11 2021.pdf Dear Ms. Lanza, am writing on behalf of Nancy and Mark Ferraris to submit their supplemental letter focusing directly on water quality and quantity, informed by professionals in the field. b� Attached is the document for the record. ��° E C E.1\/E j J/,, a , Please confirm receipt. ,Q; ;ovv , tf ii i rd �............ . �. —— ...... ... ...._... Thanks very much. Barbara J. Cohen BJC Associates, Inc. PO Box 391 Peconic NY 11958 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. t Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3585 Orchard Street ♦ Orient NY 11957 nancyferraris@me.com ♦ 516.375.8149 January 11, 2021 Ms. Heather Lanza, Director Town Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building - 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Via Email: heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us Re: Draft EIS for Subdivision Approval of "The Orchards" - Dated August 2020 Proposed "Cluster" Subdivision" 2595 Orchard Street, Orient NY SCTM # 1000-27- 1-3 Dear Director Lanza and Board Members.- The embers:The following is a supplement to our November 23, 2020 submission. Since the last public hearing on December 7, 2020, we engaged an environmental consulting firm, Equity Environmental Engineering LLC, to provide a preliminary review of the water quality and quantity issues presented in the Draft EIS.' The preliminary findings and outstanding concerns are as follows: Water Quality: Groundwater Test Results in DEIS 1. Groundwater samples from 11/17/2015 a. Wells #1 and #2 were installed to a total depth of 42 feet below grade. b. Neither Well #1 nor Well #2 showed exceedances of the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) of any compounds. 'Equity Environmental Engineering LLC specializes in the identification and resolution of environmental problems relating to property site selection and condition assessment, environmental assessment reviews on the state and local level, geologic/hydrogeologic investigation and remediation of sites known or suspected to be contaminated by hazardous materials, as well as engineering design, environmental permitting, discharge prevention plans, and litigation support. Nancy and Mark Ferraris I 2. Groundwater samples from 8/17/2017 a. Wells #1 and # 2 were installed to a total depth of 65 feet below grade, b. Well #1 had nitrate concentrations in excess of the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/L, but below the MCL of 10 mg/L. c. Well #2 had nitrate concentrations in excess of the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/L and in excess of the MCL of 10 mg/L (11.2 mg/L). d. Well # 2 had an exceedance of the MCL (2.0 ug/L) of aldicarb sulfone (4.2 ug/L) and an aldicarb sulfoxide (6.0 ug/L) exceedance of the MCL of 4.0 ug/L. e. Well #2 had a concentration of 1,2-dibromoethane that equaled the MCL of 0.05 ug/L. Outstanding Concerns: • The DEIS proposes to treat the water by using a Point of Entry Treatment System at the main water line that will require monitoring, and change out of treatment units on a continuing basis. What will ensure that monitoring and appropriate action will take place on a regular basis? • Although some of the contaminant concentrations in the August 2017 sampling event exceeded the Suffolk County Test Well Standard, most of them were below the National Drinking Water Standard. However, with an increase in pumping to accommodate the residential demand for the development, would higher concentrations of contaminants be drawn into the wells? Water Quantity: North Fork Aquifer Profile 1. USGS Reports Information on North Fork Groundwater Quantity 2 a.. "Fresh ground water on the North Fork is contained within a series of four hydraulically isolated freshwater flow systems that extend through the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers. These freshwater flow systems are bounded laterally by saltwater (in areas near the shore), and at depth by saline ground water. The movement of fresh ground water in this area is controlled by the z Hydrogeologic Framework of the North Fork and Surrounding Areas, Long Island, New York Water- Resources- Investigations Report 02-4284 prepared by USGS in cooperation with the Suffolk County Water Authority (2004); Hydrogeologic-Setting Classification for Suffolk County, Long Island, New York With Results of Selected Aquifer-Test Analyses by Richard A. Cartwright (1997); USGS Open File Report 96-457 Nancy and Mark Ferraris hydraulic properties and boundary conditions of the freshwater flow systems, and by the distribution of hydraulic head within and adjacent to them." b. "The extent of fresh ground water on the North Fork is limited by the natural hydrologic boundaries of the freshwater flow systems and, therefore, by the hydraulic stresses that control the rate at which freshwater enters and exits the system. Freshwater is separated from denser saltwater by a zone of diffusion at the freshwater-saltwater interface, which acts as a relatively impermeable boundary that moves gradually in response to changes in the balance between recharge and discharge. The absence of any hydraulic connection to the Greenport flow system or the Orient flow system indicates that freshwater within these two flow systems can be replenished only through recharge from precipitation. Freshwater above the lower confining unit is hydraulically connected to freshwater beneath this unit in three areas—near Mattituck Creek, southwest of James Creek, and near the northwestern shore of Flanders Bay— where the lower confining unit is absent." c. Freshwater-Salt Water Interface "This hydrogeologic setting is restricted to the eastern forks of Long Island and represents freshwater lenses that are bounded laterally and below by saltwater, The freshwater lenses are isolated from the rest of Long Island's fresh groundwater system and, therefore, have no adjacent freshwater source that could provide recharge." "The North Fork contains a series of freshwater lenses, that generally decrease in thickness eastward. Thicknesses range from about 550 ft (Bohn-Buxton and others, 1996) at the western end of the North Fork to about 90 ft (McNew and Arav, 1995) near the eastern end and approach zero close to the shore." "Under natural (non-pumping) conditions, the position of the freshwater/saltwater interface represents a relatively static balance of fluid pressures of the freshwater and the denser, underlying saltwater. The position of this interface can shift in response to changes in pumping and other hydrologic stresses." "Movement of the freshwater/saltwater interface results in a zone of diffusion, and excessive withdrawals from public-supply wells can cause upconing of saltwater and move the interface far enough inland to cause contamination of the freshwater supply. The other major source of groundwater degradation in this hydrogeologic setting is surface contaminants, especially pesticides and fertilizers used on the many farms in this area; Soren and Stelz (1984) cited widespread contamination by the highly toxic carbamate pesticide, aldicarb (trademark TEMIK, Union Carbide Corp. 1) on the North and South Forks." As is well known and documented, the hydrogeologic setting of the North Fork is most vulnerable. With maximum water pumping from below ground, evidence of salt water has begun to intrude into the aquifer. This situation is exacerbated by the permanent water level shifts and global warming trends, as local ground water tables are trending toward dropping permanently. Changing sea levels Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3 due to global warming can be expected to affect coastal drinking water wells by raising the level of salty water. Based on the above information, determining the availability of groundwater in the area through hydraulic testing is needed. Outstanding Concerns • The Draft EIS rovides no evidence that hydraulic testing has been or is scheduled to be performed. The purpose of the test is to determine the ability of the aquifer to support the proposed pumping and to design the pump system that is appropriate for the local conditions. The location of test should be on the subject property in question. • If the pump test shows that the available flow rate is less than that needed for the development as proposed, restriction on the scope of the proposed development will required and the proposed plan modified. 2. Agricultural Irrigation 3 The Draft EIS provides a NYS DEC letter dated July 30, 2018 provides for an Irrigation Permit that allows pumping of groundwater from the surficial aquifer for irrigation use. It states that: "Installation and operation of one (1) 6-inch diameter irrigation well to a depth of 45 feet and equipped with a pumping capacity of 175 gallons per minute (gpm)". It also states that he Annual Pumpage is limited to 4 million gallons per calendar year. Since there is no mention of conservation efforts in neither the SCHDS nor the NYSDEC, it is undetermined as to whether these conditions are appropriate for this subject site and the larger Orient and North Fork community. Outstanding Concerns: • Although the permit authorizes the capacity of 175 gpm, the Draft EIS does not provide pump Losfing evidence that this capacity can be supported by the groundwater supply, particularly with full build-out of the proposed plan combined with aggressive, unrestricted, agricultural use of the open space designated as part of Lot 1. • Typically, irrigation pumping rates are higher than residential pumping rates, putting greater stress on the aquifer, and potentially increasing the lowering of the water table and saltwater intrusion. Furthermore, a dry season can make it worse. NYS DEC Permit ID 1-4738-04435/00001- Modification# 1 Expiration Date 6/28/2027 Nancy and Mark Fen-aris 4 • The adjacent residential development proposed on the subject site as well as the nearby homes will be negatively impacted for years to come if proper testing is not required and if Open Space Conservation Easement does not provide restrictions for use/activities, crop limitations, and the water-related issues. Highlighting the shortcomings of the Draft EIS as it relates to water quality and quantity is of the utmost importance. The Planning Board's evaluation of the Open Space Conservation Easement will also be critical as it needs to address many issues that will guide the subdivision and its impact on the community well into the future This priority, along with the many other factors detailed in our November 23rd submission, clearly supports the need for the Planning Board to demand better from the Applicant. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, -Iyc.0,-V,Al-4� Nancy and Mark Ferraris Nancy and Mark Ferrans 5 From: Jim Braddock <Braddock@mitchellgiurgola.com> Sent: Monday,January 11, 2021 2:24 PM .- To: Michaelis,Jessica Cc: Barbara Friedman Subject: The Orchard's Subdivision ;� � '�1 (, Attachments: COMMUNITY SIGNATURE FORM - 011121.P df Hi Jessica, Here is my community signature form related to The Orchard's Subdivision in support of the thoughtful and eloquent comments made by Barbara Friedman. Thank you very much. Best regards, Jim James R. Braddock, FAIA Partner pp Giurgldla Mitchell Giurgola Architects LLP 630 Ninth Avenue,Suite 711 New York,NY 10036 212.663.4000 s�i�t°�Imenlgl��r �9 .rs2r�°i ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. 1 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT E ° PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM �,�,��,� r,< <", 2I,0 Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the i ..... ... ... .. ..._....... ...m,._. Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. Also, Barbara's 1/6 letter. I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: James R. Braddock Sign FuII Name Property Owner ;`,µY„es No Local Address: 45 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: I agree with the Group for the East End 12/6 letter that house size should be studied and restricted by covenant to assure consistency with surroundings. From: Lanza, Heather Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:19 AM '� s H'o To: Michaelis, Jessicai i �r` y iS o �i �D Cc: Terry, Mark Subject: FW:The Orchards Subdivision in Orient { ,z(19'{ I j Orchards DEIS Comment for the recordt`� From: Drianne Benner [mailto:driannebenner@att.net] Sent: Monday,January 11, 20217:41 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject:The Orchards Subdivision in Orient Hello Heather, Happy 2021. I hope you and your family had a safe and happy one. Barbara Friedan`s letter of January 6th presents a succinct view of the issues and concerns of the community of neighbors near the proposed sub-division. Many of these concerns have been the focus of the Orient Association for years, such as house size and water conservation. My question to you is whether the review of the DEIS would incorporate all of these concerns. This is a process question. What is within scope of the DEIS and what is outside of the scope of the DEIS? Regardless, the issues concerning water use, quality, and availability are all properly part of a DEIS. My question is then is what are the water monitoring systems and tools in place that are used to assess the adequacy of the proposed development in an area that is part of a larger fragile ecosystem, one that will increasingly be prone to floods, saltwater intrusion, and higher groundwater elevations that come with sea level rise? Thank you and best regards, rianne Benner Orient Association ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i SLAD L�. �.�....m. ..... ....... ��' � 0 -02 Barbara Friedman `°..in u_ 01Ci 1 0 V 1- 835 Halyoke Avenue a: I I I i I+g I:y ,ai,.;l PO Box 11 _,...... _.,,,....... Orient NY, 11957 January 6, 2021 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re:The Orchards Subdivision SCTM #1000-27-1-3 This is my second letter in response to the DEIS. I have some corrections to my own letter of November 2, 2020, additional (new)comments, and responses to a letter dated December 3, 2020 by William Lahti, the Engineer for the Orchards Project. I would also like to express my support for the letter from the Group for the East End dated December 61n Yield Map: • The basis for allowing up to five house lots on this site is derived from the yield plan which should demonstrate the number of code compliant lots that can be placed on the site. Based on the "5 Lot Yield Map" dated 2.27.2013,the lot in the northwest corner does not seem to meet the criteria for lot width. The site is not 175'wide at the street nor at the 60'setback line (per definition of lot width). It is more than 100' into the diamond shaped site until the lot width reaches 175'. I do not believe that this diamond shaped lot would be acceptable as a stand- alone lot in the R-80 zone, so it should not be acceptable in the yield plan. Likewise the location of the 175' dimension indicated on the adjacent lot to the east is pretty questionable. Unless a compliant yield plan can be produced,the yield should be reduced. Houses: • 3,750 sf is not a modest house size. I agree with the letter from the Group for the East End dated December 6th that a formal house size study should be done to determine a house size that would be consistent with the neighborhood and that the house size or building footprint should be restricted by covenant accordingly. • According to 280-137 in a subdivision with five or more dwelling units-aren't the developers supposed to make some provision for Affordable Housing? Sanitary Systems: • In his December 3'd, 2020 letter Mr. Lahti insists that the conventional sanitary systems have been approved by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, and that they are adequate. According to my research,the SCDHS has NOT approved the sanitary systems. • The fact that this developer is resistant to including I/A sanitary systems in this proposal suggests a level of indifference to the stewardship of the environment. 1 Water Supply: • In his December 3`d letter Mr. Lahti states that "Approval by the SCDHS demonstrates no significant potential impact associated with the domestic water supply wells is anticipated". I don't believe that SCDHS has given full approval, it appears to me that the SCDHS has only granted a variance allowing treatment due to the contamination found in the existing groundwater. Water conservation and protection of the aquifer are primary concerns that have not been addressed by the DEIS. Flag Lots/Lot Size/Access: • Based on Code Section 240-45 (15)the two flag lots are not permitted, and without access via a new street,the number of building lots should be reduced to two. • In my previous letter I questioned the area of the flag portion of Lot#2. I stand corrected regarding the size of Lot#2. However—as stated in my letter of November 2, 2020, per 240-45 D the flag lots should be made larger than usual lots. • Lot#1 driveway: In my letter I questioned the right of way width for this Lot. I stand corrected, as this is intended to be a driveway not a road. However, if this driveway is to be permitted based on 240-45, based on 280 Attachment 6, shouldn't the driveway be setback from the property line and include a vegetated buffer? • Additional vegetated buffers that were recommended by the Planning Department have been ignored in the DEIS. "Farm": • How does this developer"farmer" intend to sustain a viable and ongoing agricultural operation? What guarantee is there that the open space will not become the developer's hedged in lawn area at a reduced tax rate? At first I saw the farm as a Trojan Horse, knowing that the Planning Board is committed to maintaining agriculture in Southold. But now I realize that, in addition, the Planning Board has in the past looked more favorably on allowing a split of the cluster for a "farmhouse". I believe that the Planning Board should exercise some skepticism in assessing this aspect of the proposal. 2 From: Gabrielle Gold <gabrielle.gold@yahoo.com> Sent: Wednesday,January6, 2021 10:29 AM To: Michaelis, Jessica Cc: barbara@weilfriedmanarchitects.com; Dane Brown Subject: [SPAM] - The Orchards Subdivision � ��,l 0 4 2 D 2 1 .orfrrrrra W VVVI N anrirq I ro(l3r<a Dear Donald Wilcenski and members of the Southold Planning Board, My sister, Arianne Gold, and I are the home owners of 2605 Orchard Street, right in the center of the proposed subdivision. I am extremely concerned as to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the orchard subdivision, which was accepted for public review on Sept. 28, 2020. We bought our home 5 years ago for the beauty and purity of Orient and we do believe that this subdivision will severely and negatively alter this beautiful village and our home. There are specific aspects of the project that appear to be out of the local code requirements: 1. "Roads, streets and rights of way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space" - which is 60%. This conservation area set aside falls below these requirements. 2. The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design standard for such lots. Based on current tax maps abutting lots should be 2.5 acres. 3. There is a major impact on surface water and ground water in Orient in the proposed plan. a. The DEIS has not adequately addressed the specific availably of groundwater use, and there is no consideration for water conservation. In Orient, salt water intrusion into our fresh water supply potentially impacts the entire area. The proposal requiring 4 million gallons per year for crop irrigation is an extraordinary number that represents the equivalent requirement for 60 to 120 homes. b. The DEIS does not fully address the potential impact of fertilizer and pesticides to the ground water, especially since the corn crop proposed requires a once a week pesticide application, which are potentially toxic to ground water and nearby well systems. I am EXTREMELY concerned about the impact to our drinking water, being right in the center of this proposed farm. I am also extremely concerned about the level of water needed to water the crops. I would also like to mention the aesthetic impact of this project. The DEIS states that a home would be built almost on our driveway. Enormous houses built on Orchard street will take away from the charm of Orient. There are no plans in place to control the price and size of these homes, I and whether or not they will look exactly alike, like a suburban apartment complex. There is no control over what type of homes will be built. Orient is a historical town with beautiful and charming old, historic homes. I do believe these expensive homes will take away from our village charm. Size and visual quality of the homes should be monitored. Thank you for your consideration of this letter. Regards, Gabrielle Brown 2605 Orchard Street Orient, NY 11957 917-721-6422 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET ' I DEC (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: htt�2 :.�_ .28.22 8:2Q40/We[Jnl(/0/doc/6I725m2l"1''a� "c1.as)X I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Robin L Mayer Sign Full Nam Property Owner Aes No Local Address: 2265 King St., Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: 1, f 1f%ifi The Orchards Subdivision 1000-27-1-3 p .."I�1�BY"lino tuv�.+��Jj r` f Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement ry mm. m impact on Surface and Groundwater -Six new wells including an irrigation well with DEC permit to pump 4 million gallons/year. -Irrigation for turf grass. The DEIS does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use. Page 3-6 of the DEIS states that"SCDHS" approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified significant impact". The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable water supply for the residents of Orient. -Five new standard ?j residential sanitary systems. -Fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides from growing corn and turf grass. The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products,VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. • The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the, impacts of pumping..The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water?The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. Impact on Agricultural Resources -Plan does not meet certain Town Code Design Standards In the present configuration Lot#1 right of way is undersized and not code compliant with 240- 42. Lots 2 and 3 do not meet the design standards for 240-45 for Flag Lots. The conserved area will not meet the 60%criteria for open space unless the plat plan is modified. -Inefficient split cluster made even less efficient by separation of barn and Lot#1 house. The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant and maintain. Why is Lot#1 separate from the other four lots and why is the designated area for the barn separate from the farmhouse? This does not seem to conform to the intent of the code. • At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that"we are not going to do spec houses" and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from selling new lots or homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. 1 Im acts on Aesthetic Resources -Potentially large homes are presented as "modest sized"homes. Page 4-10 of the DEIS states"A primary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in a manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings.Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are limited". Unfortunately this is not the case,the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule. -Introduction of deer fencing and residential fencing and hedges. On page 4-10 of the DEIS "the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" Clearly,there will need to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an "aesthetically pleasing view" of an 8 foot fence and the owner's home in the distance, is highly subjective. For the residential lots, landscaped buffers per 240-43 are not indicated and potential hedges and fences are not addressed. Additionally, the 4,000 sf barn is directly on axis with the view from Old Farm Road. -Introduction of a dense cluster of homes on a corner with rural character in close proximity to significant scenic and cultural resources. Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities.The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient.The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses. • This proposal does not"enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources" and there are no safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities of the area.We would like to see a full visual impact study showing the impact of the maximum sized homes and barn. • Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex,the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited in footprint in order to maintain the aesthetics and character of the area. This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. What is described in the DEIS as "mitigation" is only the bare minimum required by code (and sometimes not even that!) I believe it is antithetical to the goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan re: Community Character and severely detrimental to the character and sustainability of the Orient community. Sincerely, Lynne Biggar 1799 Platt Road Orient, NY 19957 2 Brian Fuhrmann Maria Marill 2620 Orchard Street Orient, New York 11957 November 12, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And Members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re: The Orchards Subdivision SUM # 1000-21-7-3 Our property is directly across from this proposed subdivision. We are concerned as to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Orchards Subdivision which was accepted for public review this past September 28, 2020. There are specific aspects to this project that seem to be out of the local code requirements. Some of which we present as follows; 1—That being that "roads, streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space"— It appears from the plan that due to including the aforementioned in the proposal, the Conservation area set aside falls below the requirements of sixty (60) percent. 2—The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design standards for such lots. Based on current tax maps abutting lots should be 2.5 acres. Further, it is clear from the DEIS that there must be assessed the; 1. Impact on Surface Water 2. Impact on Ground Water It is our understanding that the DEIS has NOT adequately addressed the specific availability of groundwater use, and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. We all are keenly aware in Orient Village that salt water intrusion into our fresh water supply potentially impacts the entire area. The proposal requiring 4 million gallons per year for crop irrigation is an extraordinary number that represents the equivalent requirement for sixty (60) to one hundred (120) homes. In addition, the DEIS does not fully address the potential impact of fertilizer and pesticides to the ground water, especially since the corn crop proposed requires a once a week pesticide application, which are potentially toxic to ground water and thus nearby well systems. Has there been any consideration for drought resistant plantings, gray water recycling, drip irrigation as options for water conservation? Has there been analysis to assess the potential impact on neighboring properties drinking water and the overall demand requirement for water in the area? Our property stands on land that was many years ago farmed. There are high levels of nitrates in our soil and thus in our well water along with other contaminant materials. All of this requires the need for substantive in home filtration systems. We are further concerned as to the aesthetic impact of the DEIS. Though the owner states that "we are not going to do spec houses", there seems to be no control in place as to what gets built on the individual lots. Orient is a community that MUST require very careful thought with respect to the how land is developed. Our concern, and that of other owners we talk to, is that the threat of developers building "McMansions" will take away from the charm and aesthetic of Orient. Recently, there has been housing development that if left unchecked will change forever that which we all appreciate so much about our village. Once precedents are established there is no going back!!! Thoughtful consideration as to the visual quality of the property is essential to protect scenic resources. Size (square footage, height) of homes, along with landscape, fencing should be part of an overall visual impact study. We strongly believe with others who have provided a tangible and comprehensive response of this proposal that it is not aligned with Southold's Town Comprehensive Plan, Orients Communities history and character, and thus must be modified going forward. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing and changing the DEIS as currently proposed. Best Regards Brian Fuhrmann Maria Marill 2620 Orchard St. 2620 Orchard St. Orient, NY 11957 Orient, NY 11957 ....... FORTHEEAS i'i Protecting the nature of the place you love December 6, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman Southold Town Planning Board 54375 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 RE: DEIS Comments - The Orchards Subdivision - 13.3 Acres at 2595 Orchard Street, Orient Dear Chairman Wilcenski: On behalf of Group for the East End, I offer the following comments and recommendations regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for "The Orchards" proposed subdivision. Summary Statement: The Town's recently adopted Southold Town Comprehensive Plan could not be clearer in its vision and goals to protect town character, its environment and aesthetic so that, "Southold retains much of its small-town charm" (Goal Five: Protect the Town Character). In order to truly fulfill this vision and achieve these goals for Southold's future, every development proposal should be met with the highest level of scrutiny and the willingness to collaboratively arrive at appropriate mitigation measures to create the best possible development outcome. Given this, we find the DEIS tol e i jat�e in a number of key sections Dertainino to chr. (�ter anm m d er resoLc ss and call on the Planning Board to ensure that both the shared visions and goals of the Town are met and that the full extent and provisions provided within SEQRA be utilized to arrive at the best possible development proposal that minimizes potential permanent impact. Impacts to Water Resources: With regard to wastewater, the DEIS summarizes that the impacts to ground and surface water quality are negligible based on the the fact that the subdivision map could provide a density of thirteen homes when only five are proposed. This reasoning completely disregards the actual impact of wastewater on water quality by relying on a circumstance of what could have been. This logic is detrimental and should be addressed within the DEIS by requiring an analysis of the actual impacts the proposed five homes will impart on water resources. It is notable that the Town of Southold, in its Positive Declaration (July 2015), specifically called out impacts of proposed sanitary systems on nearby surface waters of the greater Peconic Estuary systems, which continues to experience the deleterious effects of excess nitrogen loading emanating from standard, single-family sanitary systems. The DEIS is inadequate in addressing these impacts. Recommendations: In light of these continuing circumstances and the shared, critical importance of protecting and preserving the region's water resources, the DEIS should be amended to incorporate a comparative analysis of the impacts of the use of the proposed standard sanitary systems for the five homes versus the use of of I/A OWTS. As a point of mitigation, the DEIS explore the required use of these systems. It's important to note that on October 6, 2020, Suffolk County passed legislation modifying its Sanitary Code to require the incorporation of the alternative systems for all new construction throughout the County. The County's regulations take effect in July of 2021, but should be required for any new construction that could potentially impact water resources now. This recommendation is bolstered by the Town of Southold's recently adopted, Southold Town Comprehensive Plan recommendations: Bullet 5 - "Require the use of(/A OWTS or future technologies to achieve the highest level of effluent treatment in new construction projects" (page 15). It would be irresponsible to omit this consideration from the DEIS given the the above- mentioned circumstances. House Size and Scale The DEIS uses the term "modest" when discussing the proposed home's size and scale. However, "modest" is a relative term. The DEIS does not provide analysis of the size and scale of homes in the adjacent areas to determine what "modest" might consist of and how the size of the proposed homes could have a negative impact on community character, aesthetic and the preservation of viewsheds. Additionally, the DEIS makes zero mention of the Orient community's desire to maintain such character„ These desires are explicitly called out in adopted Town studies and community-driven endeavors. The DEIS should address how the proposed home size and scale conform to the following statements. The Southold Town Comprehensive Plan (one of the Orient community's main goals) F. Ensure future residential development in the hamlet is in keeping with and at a scale consistent with the hamlet's character. This goal can be met, in part, through the implementation of this chapter's Goal 2, which contains a subsection on updating regulations for Residential Uses including home sizes (Page 41). It is important to note that the Orient community strongly favors the protection of community character through the use of limitations on building sizes. The Orient Plan Propositions (May 2020), noted, "No construction shall be permitted that would result in overall housing size (usable square footage) that is out of scale with the existing housing in the immediate neighborhood; this provision shall be in addition to zoning requirements, including lot coverage, setback, height and other limitations." Recommendations: The DEIS should provide an analysis of area home sizes and scales. As a form of mitigation, to ensure that the proposed homes do not create negative impact on community character, the DEIS should discuss a required covenant that specifies maximum allowable home sizes of a certain scale. Conclusion: We believe strongly that the DEIS did not fully achieve a level of analysis that provided an honest assessment regarding the impacts of the proposal and therefore, is deficient in providing mitigation measures that would help to create the best possible development outcome for this property. We urge the Planning Board to heavily weigh the Town's Comprehensive Plan and the Orient community's strong desire to protect its character and environment and to require the recommended mitigation measures. Thank you for taking the time to review our comments. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to reach me at your convenience. I can be reached at "hartltna l(,�Deastendenvironrnent.oro. Sincerely, �e4e�Kifor f"arb Jenn Hartnagel Senior Environmental Advocate Group for the East End I PO Box 1792 1 Southold, NY 11971 1 GroupfortheEastEnd.org 1 631.765.6450 From: Christine Lauber <lauber.christine@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 12:32 PM To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: Liserfiche Subdivision Pending Application I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. As a forty-year resident and owner at 4090 Orchard Street, I am concerned about the impact on my residence of the proposed subdivision. I am in full support of the comments of those named above, as well as the critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plan last dated 7-8-20. An alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Joel Lauber ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. From: Anne Hopkins <anne.hopkins2@icloud.com> - Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 6:07 PM To: Michaelis,Jessica f Subject: The Orchards Subdivision in Orient rt , { r _ To: Donald Wilcenski and members of the Planning Board I am writing in opposition to the proposed Orchards Subdivision in Orient, SCTM #1000-21-7-3.My views have been very well presented in the letter from my neighbor Barbara Friedman. As a member of the Orient Association since its founding in 1985 and resident at 380 Platt Road I am well aware of the threats to our water supply and the danger of salt water intrusion especially at the location of this proposed project. The subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as planned. Sincerely, Anne S Hopkins 380 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 Sent from my Wad ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT r PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: littta_ll� .38,2 .22 2040/We Liill</O/doc/617252/ a lei asp I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: C Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes No Local Address: Additional Comments: PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: Iti ld -gym ""l 228:2 "IO/W bI ir'k/O/` ')c/(il7 52/1'mcI--asm I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the fcommunity. i i Print Full Name: I S Sign Full Name J, Property Owner Yes No Local Address: Wo vk,L 00 s Additional Comments: ii 0 S PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File:. ht !/ i. "1 .?" ?(4()/Nk'ebl Nail /O`/do c/61725 ^/wPa eLssl , I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes No Local Address: d I Additional Comments: " PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 - 27 -3) PRELIMINARY PLATREVIEW APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS " 1 ; f SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT P f PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM / r Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to thee° Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy 1 and Mark Ferraris`submission dated November,23, 2020 am in full support of their,comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applic'ant's, p pp DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to addres'sthe adverse impacts to the, community. Print Full Name: ; Fv c+2n��fiN Sign Full Name, Property Owner' Local Address: �6a�!C7: ;G.�r���.'%%�,r°;�:,�ce'; � ; ;, � �7 w Additional Comments C 4"M'-,, t,,,, f 1Uri in t '" �/� %v,.a/l!/i/fit/%l�/l %/�i���/ii//IAM/%i�j�%ri/iGro i/io r✓���: /„ ' ,, ;; -"<, /i... if��%/ ✓/../�/i,/��/1�i�i ,.,�//i,fir% /1i>%..��//�, ��%/I////iii//p i ////,', / - �i ,,.�,ti �///��i/i:%/%�,. �✓ //Gp./�i///�i //.���i ����/ 11 /„/ �, PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000—27—3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS y l�h U t SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM r Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: 1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated October 31, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: �� �� �� 4�e y Sign Full Name � Property Owner Yesl No --ULL TINE R��—IJfi S WCC Local Address: 12-000 - P0 BaZ ffitaf, Q1s Additional Comments: From: James Haag <jamesfhaag@yahoo.com> z.� Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 9:42 AM To: Michaelis,Jessica Cc: Lanza, Heather; Yahoo A 2 1 Subject: The Orchards—concerned comment on this proposal. Dear Jessica, Heather and the Southold Planning Board: Would you please confirm receipt of this? Thanks. My name is James Haag and I have been in Orient since the late 1980s and have owned in Orient since 1994. 1 love the community—the essential rural character of Southold Town is one of the main reasons for being here. The other is the warmth of the people and their passionate desire to maintain the beauty of what they have created. I do everything in my power to be kind to the people, the land and the environment in which we live. Over the past decade there has been pressure on the Town to keep its character in check—especially with the emerging popularity of the north fork. I have spoken and corresponded with Supervisor Russell from time to time and encouraged him to do the right thing when it comes to maintaining its character since that is why people want to come here in the first place. am asking you now to seriously consider what is proposed for The Orchards subdivision in Orient. You all know what a jewel Orient is and this proposal has the potential to greatly compromise this town. The expanse of open land in question along Orchard Street is a godsend for the community. It is a reminder of the past with its Hallock Farm roots and a gift to the present in terms of groundwater protection, fresh air, wildlife habitat, and rural character. It is right at the border of our historic district and will bring suburbia clustering into the midst of this timeless community. This is your one chance to preserve our character. This opportunity will never be in front of us again You are our voice— please do the right thing and save Orient from becoming a typical suburban community. On a personal note, many of us have suffered salt water intrusion into our wells at one time or another. That phenomenon renders homes uninhabitable and there is nothing to be done about it once it happens. With rising sea levels we need to do everything possible to protect our groundwater. We cannot have millions of gallons of fresh water a year taken from us by a suburban cluster subdivision. It will destroy a beloved community that has fought continuously to preserve Southold Town for the future. 1. I beg you to please consider this very seriously. It will mean a lot to people who desperately care about the Southold which you have helped preserve. Please see additional specific comments below. Thank you and best regards, James Haag Specifically- -The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing R-40 zoning. Using R-40 and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. —We would like the DER include a full visual impact study showing maximum sized homes and barn. —The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. —The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. —There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i 1.; PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT-2595 ORCHARD STREET (Sam # 10004 27 ri // r�; ,o PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW. APPLICANT'S SOUTHOLD PLANNING PUBLIC HEARING Decemberl,,7 202q"/7 Available Using the',rLinlc``Belowto Full Docunl�.nts � Planning Department Laserfiche Subdtysaori"Pend4 ID .. the Barbara Friedman letter dated November2,2020 n ad I have reviewed and Mark Ferraris submission dated November,23, 2020 I am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressedn their respective, , responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated,? Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to;,the /! i community. / r 1 r v rr Print Full Name: Sign Full Name Property Owner No Yeses Local Address: Additional Comments: r A LAHTI ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING P.C. 207 Hallock Road, Suite 212 Stony Brook,NY 11790 Tel (631) 751-6433 December 3, 2020 Chairman Donald Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board t Town of Southold 1 53095 Route 25, P.O. Box 1179 202,0 Southold,NY 11971 Re: The Orchards DEIS Hearing: December 7,2020 SCTM# 1000—21 —7-3 Dear Chairman Wilcenski and Members of the Planning Board: The Applicant has been provided with copies of written comments received by the Planning staff for the upcoming DEIS hearing. In order to more efficiently address the public's concerns, I have prepared the following general responses to the issues raised. Detailed responses to specific public comments will be provided if deemed warranted by the Board. Multiple a .s Presented in DEIS-- 1. One purpose of the DEIS is to provide a complete history of the project and how the project was developed. In order to accomplish this purpose, it is necessary to present the various maps that were prepared and submitted to the various agencies. The two maps of particular importance are present in Appendices G and Y of the DEIS. 2. Appendix Y of the DEIS contains the current proposed subdivision map (dated July 8, 2020). The proposed property boundary lines and lot areas are consistent with the clustered subdivision map previously reviewed by Town staff. This map illustrates, in general, smaller building envelopes. The Town engineer identified the need to revise certain setbacks shown on the subdivision map previously submitted by the surveyor. My firm analyzed the various zoning code requirements for buffer areas and setbacks, then modified the surveyor's map to illustrate the correct buffers and setbacks. The DEIS was prepared based on the corrected subdivision map contained in Appendix Y. 3. Appendix G of the DEIS contains the same subdivision map layout presented in Appendix Y. Appendix G illustrates the proposed water supply wells and sanitary systems for the proposed lots. This map was required by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) to conduct their review of the proposed water supply wells and sanitary systems. SCDHS approved the proposed water supply wells and sanitary system locations as shown on this map. New York Massachusetts Connecticut New Jersey Pennsylvania Maryland Virginia North Carolina Page 2 Town of Southold Planning Board re: The Orchards DEIS 12/3/2020 "aster Supply- 1. uJy-1. Domestic Water- The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) is the governmental agency responsible for assessing installation of domestic water supply wells, and the potential impacts to the residents of the proposed lots, as well as the surrounding area. The Department's staff includes professional engineers, hydrogeologists, and other persons with the technical expertise to analyze proposed projects. The domestic water wells shown on the map in Appendix G of the DEIS have been approved by the SCDHS. Approval by the SCDHS demonstrates no significant potential impact associated with the domestic water supply wells is anticipated. 2. lrriate ion Water-The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) is the governmental agency responsible for assessing installation of the irrigation water supply well for the proposed farm operation, and the potential impacts to the residents of the proposed lots, as well as the surrounding area. The Department's staff includes professional engineers, hydrogeologists, and other persons with the technical expertise to analyze proposed projects. The irrigation water well shown on the map in Appendix G of the DEIS has been approved by the NYSDEC. Approval by the NYSDEC demonstrates no significant potential impact associated with the irrigation water supply well is anticipated. Please note the irrigation water supply well permit (Appendix O of the DEIS) includes a requirement to conduct chloride sampling twice per year. The permit also includes a provision that allows the NYSDEC to modify, or revoke,the permit if necessary(such as if significant chloride infiltration occurs). Sanita n System- 1. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) is the governmental agency responsible for assessing installation of sanitary disposal systems, and the potential impacts to the residents of the proposed lots, as well as the surrounding area. The Department's staff includes professional engineers, hydrogeologists, and other persons with the technical expertise to analyze proposed projects. The proposed sanitary systems shown on the map in Appendix G of the DEIS have been approved by the SCDHS. Approval by the SCDHS demonstrates no significant potential impact associated with the proposed sanitary systems is anticipated. 2. The SCDHS has approved conventional sanitary systems for the proposed lots. I/A systems are not required by the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. 3. The proposed sanitary systems pose no greater risk associated with improver disposal of pharmaceuticals and household items than do the existing sanitary systems in the homes surrounding the subject property. In fact, the proposed Page 3 Town of Southold Planning Board re: The Orchards DEIS 12/3/2020 systems may afford better protection as they will consist of a septic tank(where chemical breakdown and consumption of organic compounds occurs) and separate leaching pools, whereas some of the older homes in the area may consist solely of a cesspool. Farmland- 1. One of the Town's primary goals is to preserve farmland. The site has been designed, with input from Town staff, as a cluster subdivision. This arrangement maximizes the amount of contiguous farmland preserved by the project. 2. With farmland comes the need to use fertilizers and pesticides for crop growth. The use of these necessary materials is minimized to mitigate environmental impacts, as well as to minimize the cost associated with their use. An extensive array of Best Management Practices has been developed by the Cornell Cooperative Extension, and others, to mitigate use of fertilizers and pesticides. Best Management Practices specific to the crop, and varying conditions, present on the subject property will be used. Allegation of Man Non-Compliance- Ms. on-Cern lianee-Ms. Friedman, and other commenters referring to her letter, suggests that lots 1 and 2 do not comply with requirements of the Town zoning code. This is incorrect for the following reasons: 1. Proposed lot#1 has a dr wveway that connects Orchard Street to the main house area. That driveway is part of lot#1. The driveway is not a"road, street, or right- of-way" as defined by the Town zoning ordinance. As such, it is not subject to the requirements of section 240-42.H.(4) of the Town zoning ordinance. The driveway area is properly included in the calculation of property area for lot 41. 2. The"flag"portion of proposed lot#2 is 2,985 square feet,not 3,169 square feet as alleged by Ms. Freidman. When calculated using the proper flag size area,the net size of proposed lot#2 is 40,008 square feet, which conforms to the minimum 40,000 square foot requirement of the R-40 zone. Sincerely Will ain.1. L, i, P.E. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION T 2595 ORCHARD STREET 1 7 ) �r Lc �S�C PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S FT EIS � E%l � f SOUTHOLD PLANNINGEPA T T n r PUBLIC HEARINGDecember 7, _. Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserliehe Subdivision Pending Application File. bl H k Z0 Joc/6 dpi 5�/ilsl� ?,�a! tM 1`, I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and MarkFerraris submission datedNovember 23, 2020. i am in full support their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposedreli in r la last dated 7-8-2020. n Alternative design scheme is a mustin order to addresse adverse impacts to the community. Printll -c` �. C- F Sign Full Name Property ner LocalAddress: �S AdditionalComments: 1404 datrrmCe Pr tV1mtVll. °mrau^nue (2 12) _. �.a r°'� r rr Irl Inrt Bc,:,1 ul rf December rr ,2020 Ms. Heiither Lanza,Director Towmmum Planning 11 epam.m.tmmmm mmt. Town of Southold Towii. Hall Amn,ex Building 54375 Rmite 25 PO l3ox 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Via I'mail: w Of 4 9 err �lXl�wt��„�., R The Orchards Pm°ampamtred Subdivision in Orient Dear Director Vl nzam.and Board Members: ers: lAy wife and I own the residence at Q5 Ilam,lyoleze Ave,abutting thea proposed subdivision, I have ul ,,views ei l the tmmmmupmmaued submission plan as Wua°a f l as the carefully written and researched letteirs fio ram Barba ist Frmedrinawmm and time Fermi is. I would tmm.aafm r that the land s mfr comm�a�ata tel l:'� mmauatm.�mm�;la�wped and tmmwamm�m�d ttu am�mamimmt:am tm the mope rnmma s of tame area and to preserve the quality an(] suustainaabili�ly of the water suipply, Hcaweveir,I rea,lize that:the land will likely be deivelqped ill Some way. TI[°e facts seem to be (t) the town has a m:tarosire to aalhistm,u. lots in order to mut:mtam.iam nriore open space for deveto mm"meim's fil+ti 'w thsand (2) 1�he specific, hmlid at issue has sensitive waat.er, � These a;mw'Icmm:aa'tmmmg f two constraints.. � a., a�a�",tau force m1R ��`°���n than 'lll�:Q„,aN plan ,.. on(- 1�`aaflT. a��6��m1�a��"�m"m'a�.a"k":am�'" tmm:ull.ur” potentially large residences on land that has sensifive N+a+"aalra`r 6 OIISal:ll.rrm.9ras. Not as 'good idea. The flan could ha.IT�itiaadifit d tit �.t...Iev that mwn<umdid h Ima°p + fmm i,.,d tma�„I��a...a�mt�mm�mmmmnHm , D to the owner. Cri wamau. ttm.e size of the, lot to be subdivided. minder ra modified t:allammm the ae" a�q)er could eaHy m H put the four or mn.: `alusteirad ” homes"aa'an W°"'mg 'mt amm',''IC"a"m"v mm'u„"ata",mm( offour ama°u`es (one house per two Tacirr:s instead of o ne house per one acre) and still have some muuaWtam'vmmtaatued ampere `pane ammmderas modified plan. However this rriodifi atio mamatB, tam ll mnt the....town accommodate 1yfa solution ha...tm') 6m raatek.µ.adjusfin the °laal _„umt .m mt ;, ,µttat amt. 1404 Cedar Ifill Avenue Dalays,Texas75208 (212)920-7824 stefmii,ifeucrail:)e.ndt@yatioo.cowii )DIFIED PLAN. Plaving resWed in the neighborhood for sorne time,I have no cloubt that the open space feel of the new hornes being rnone q-)read ota in, this way woold feel more "open"' than under the current proposed plan,even with to technically smalleT undeveloped open space. While c1lustering certainly is a useful tool. in certain circumstances,specifically very Ilarge developments, it just defies logic to apply the clustering concept to this particular neighborhood for th'is size lot as it would in effect i-educe the open fee] of the neighborhood,the exact opposite intent of the clustering concept. g_Lqwn todLe 1'() Lsr r,')n tLie..�jL1.5terinLingit., ic ult NVOU kk-hI]-L-—ht t,p w- jLaWPbA(-m"' the 1, (lue concenh-ali of four--ry 'ilfl[ 44 FITT F'RONI A 11 N,1F.1 �V E-I "ILIJ) B�EN 1 11M-- k KM It is undoubtedly true thal f0UY 11OUses on, two acres each are more valuable than four bouses on oine acre each. In conclusion, I WOUld SUggeSt YOU C0115ider that the water reSOUrces in this particular loca6on coWd easily be exhausted or permanently 11hartned with the wrong pkin. Is the C� town prepared to corripensale, current residents in the event of irreparable hal-M to the IM'd Mltff 1-eSOUII:CeS ShOldd the curreint. proposed pWi go forward? I rain stun e,v warp will a cle'ZIT ITTOrA of,N, iti, Concerns �Wjlt��vflj Ild I'l theh ql1oll V1 hich tum hipild the tcm n tn�.jvctoble should a watQrAIyA,jfty issue arisein the future .................................. Thes,L are rny tpnouughp ts,,and I hope they are accepted in the sljphIt oftrying find to C011SU'LWflMSOW6011 For the COMIYU111ity and for the develloper and for the town, 'Fhere inust be one, Thank you. Bes't S� 'anm'rilhendt PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3) PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT r,c PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: in ,/O/`doc:/617215..2/p,ee l.e l I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Keri Christ Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes No Local Address: 22715 Main Road, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: Hydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done. Orient relies upon an aquifer already subject to farming operations, as well as the 2d largest prig l-lydrogeological studies need to be done before a project of this size may be lawfully done,. OnerO relies upon an aquifer already subject to fanning operations, as well as the 2d largest privately-owned ferry ol�ici,ttion in the country,whose environmental impacts have never been the subject of study, although it has massively increased its operations in recent decades. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27 — 3) UTi PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS I II ^ „ �r ��e III SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENTDEC 2 2D20 i U C PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM IIf;�r°7��ii ^� 1�CrraP�� Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File: littp //? 3, ' ,228.2'040/Wel� )>1,ink/O/doc/61w7 52/Pa(=T,eI asp I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Jessica Pepi Ginsberg Martin Crane Sign Full Name ✓ Y Property Owner Yes No Local Address: 1750 Platt Road, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: Page 3 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT kILA 6VL'AC"IIOi t eTr �r v� CPA N T "N ...... .. r y o n+ „rte rv7 1 r ��7 Ai' f �; u�w�,�¢�° l m /%rN % aG/r/) r ri /rl rr � r� v 'v'm✓i i� ( ^M'iljy�" ,. :e-„ U� � 1 /rlr r� 1/� �/r/, ,. ��,� ,;,� ,, ,,//'���✓r;, r //fr�ii�/����/y/� //lig r� r/ �li� � �m� %% r" �� ri�/rt, r'J� ..�/�P i/i//1Pi//�fd�"�/lii %, �'"'t ,hvv„c,o r r,;���r✓�. �- r ? �.� ��1"� ^� � ,'�qJ✓m ',,,.,. �;r� r/`�j//!l�`�/fg,�/�Qr '; �l r/,��1�J �a w it I ,�I� i+��, i rv�;',. �.':�� rE�(°feuena��✓�� �� 4., � �y / //�//r`�� /�/f %���(J�'/�H��� l%tri�/������jl`!/1 Ja' �r;��d � �✓r // % ��,� ,� 11) u�,yi�ruj l✓ v/> r/� � r/���r�ir� � !�/��!/r�T/ //o,"/ ;tai/�r,r�/�/����//i,: '"� %� / , 1�1 i, , �r� ,�� % I/ 1 li�, �. �.-l�ri// ✓/,ulltN���l��J�In//�I/%8 r/� r �/�j%�"i�//�rl, / /�r n /l� a � "��� n� �r� ,�Jr�!�r r�/i/�l��i�j�✓%//tiw rr��i�lr yi/r /r/ / �i�% v�t�r/r/'� �„�d,,'.�`4 'I�l��!r� ,vn.9n"�'�`"�w' �r, '�a���/,„�1 i�r / l� r r�r��lt �/��r//ir/�'�;��kll�"�°'fP�r/ml���"llr/�'/ fury ,�””Yui,. �. ✓/r/ ', r I� arr'`i G�If� 'v`"/�„I ��rA,f(/ � '��J�/���% %%� i/i ir�r/1 %��r/ //r/ �✓<�I � ���. If ""'Wo o AN Martin Crane and Jessica Ginsberg 1750 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 December 2, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Orchards Subdivision SCTM#1000-21-7-3 We are rather recent arrivals to Orient and live on 1750 Platt Road which abuts the proposed development. Our attraction to the area was in large part due to the aesthetic of the land and the low-density, historic houses already here.We are concerned that the Orchards would be jarringly out of character with the surrounding fabric of the neighborhood. We think of the area east of the historic district between Narrow River and Village Lane as a kind of informal walking and biking district.What is left of the views of the water,the marshlands, and low density, historic housing feel to us like a communal resource that significantly increases the quality of life for all of those who call Orient home, and have for decades before we arrived.The corner of Orchard and Halyoke sits in the heart of that zone, and the proposed development would dramatically alter the character of the surrounding streets in a negative way.Additionally,we are concerned that an increase in traffic will adversely affect the neighborhood and residents of the homes adjacent to the proposed development. As the land in question is also one of the larger and last contiguous green spaces in Orient, we are deeply concerned about the environmental effects on the water supply, its potential contamination and the disruption of a highly cultivated and rich wildlife.We have had the opportunity to read all of the letters in opposition and wholeheartedly support our fellow neighbors in their concerns about the negative impacts of this development on the land,the town and all of its inhabitants. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Martin Crane and Pepi Ginsberg PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET Ppm 4 � ... _..,.; (SCTM # 1000— 27—3) ['� ,E I E . PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S (DRAFT EIS SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT V'9 �i°r°rw irk 1wt;a J PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 20210—6 PM ......--rr.,.f Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File; h�.,I':i.//244,38.28 220,40/Webi.in�/0``/ oc(,: 1725,2iglla 1. I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman Fetter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. : Barbara Bloom " Full Name. ull Name F I rty Owner Yes No ; Address: 5'95 Edwards Lane , int NY 11 957 t „ dA tional,l Comments: ��JN 1 PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT .......... ... ------------------- ..................- N �n ( SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY 'THE ORCHARDS"5 LOTS 51TUATE: ORIENT ` TOWN:SOUTHOLD ��.... 5UFFOLK COUNTY, NY g '" 5UFF=5,a)WY TAX a .w ♦�n o gin',����.�i�xi: � ��' A y. uc &ur n i uv : � m y 1 7. � 2 r rc 9 �w i� MT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET IH-Lt r (SCTM # 1000— 27 — 3) r _ ill PRELIMINARYREVIEW PLAT REVIEI APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS wf . r.��` ;i SOU'THOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT PIanmriw � ", ,... . PUBLIC HEARING December '7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche 'Subdivision Fending Application File: i is r' k m 2 _2�)40/ eb ii,il�,,'iii/doe/6,1725 1[ a La 1 have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's IDEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat Fast dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: 'Mara Serra Sign Full Name Property Owner Yes No Local Address: 4263 Orchard Street We are landowners Additional Comments: We have privately purchased land in Orient to save it from development. I hope tlhe town of Southold Mill not allow Landowners to create miniature suburbs with building clusters . PROPOSED PRELIMINARY PLAT 5UBDIV15ION OF PROPERTY — — N A IW 'THE ORCHARDS"5 LOTS SITUATE: ORIENT d 'E TOWN:SOUTHOLD 5UFFOLK COUNTY, NY s , 3VFP" =INYTAYI \,.,,K•!-4 '� r .�o.i Nie fk j f A M1� A - k�,^,vp,^e«�.,' a. as , y � h y ^.. q - „ e T' ret Qs& . m r fi J ; re iJ r r r PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # 1000 — 27— 3) RECEIVED PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW ( APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS CSI C, ........ 1. 2-02�� f SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT l"ait i ui ig Booaua:tl PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020 — 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File.. Iittl 8 4— -..28.22 a2040/Webs, ijik/l:ll(locl6,.172_"02/P,�,g�..d:.LL Isli have reviewed the Barbara Friedman Metter dated November 2, 2020 and the Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Jeanne Markel Sign Full Name ` Property Owner es No Local Address: 100 Harbor Road Orient NY 11957 Additional Comments: I am concerned about the strain on our aquifer that this(level opr-hent will pose.All of the water used on the North Fork is pumped frorn underground aquifers that are fed solely by our local rain and snownaelt. Aquifer levels drop significantly in the,swurner months,during the tourism and farming season,which are also the driest months of the year. Peaking a term that refers to periods of heavy demand on our waster supply—occurs when a lot of water is drawn from many locations during;the.sarne period of the day or season, sracl)as tArhen lawn irrigation systems start simultaneously early on 5urmner-mornings.these peaks in dernand are costly: water delivery costs rise as more holding,tanks and additional wells are needed to meet temporary highs. The North Fork is also surrounded by saltwater.When our aquifers shrink or water is purnped heav- ily;salt water moves into the:vacumn and contauninates freshwater swells.This is happening with more frequency in our area. PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AT 2595 ORCHARD STREET (SCTM # x.000 —27 —3) 1 Co II r"UZJJ PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW I APPLICANT'S DRAFT EIS VI:P1i'ald 6i�krdPih I"Iainii ig I3aard SOUTHOLD PLANNING DEPARTMENT _.__.__..............__........n PUBLIC HEARING December 7, 2020— 6 PM Full Documents Available Using the Link Below to the 1 Planning Department Laserfiche Subdivision Pending Application File; I have reviewed the Barbara Friedman letter dated November 2, 2020 and the (Nancy and Mark Ferraris submission dated November 23, 2020. 1 am in full support of their comments and critical concerns expressed in their respective responses to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat last dated 7-8-2020. An Alternative design scheme is a must in order to address the adverse impacts to the community. Print Full Name: Richard Gluckman t' •� ,w Sign Full Name Property Owner " S No Local Address. 41630 Orchard Street, Orient, NY 11957 Additional Comments: it should be the responsibility of the board to rigorously adher to the word of the law and the intent of the objectives of the preservation of the land, water, views and subsurface conditionh From: joshua nefsky <jnefsky@verizon.net> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 3:40 PM RECEIVED To: Michaelis,Jessica Subject: The Orchards Subdivision ( li, 20 `0 hxvn i'[waml0ingptoaii,,11 Josh Nefsky 835 Halyoke Avenue PO Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 November 30, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re: 'The Orchards Subdivision SCTM 9 1000-21-7-3 The Subdivision proposed for this site is simply TOO DENSE. It is too dense contextually at the corner of Halyoake and Orchard, and it is too dense for the resources available. Mr. Wilcenski, Chairman of the Planning Board put it best in a Memorandum dated June 27, 2017 in response to a proposal to divide one lot into two on a neighboring property: "The impact on groundwater and the sole source aquifer tinder the Orient peninsula from residential density is a large concern due to sanitary systems, irrigation and property maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumulative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters.' The Orchards subdivision is a 13.3 acre property and the proposal calls for 5 homes and farmland with an irrigation permit to pump 4 million gallons/year. This is equivalent to the water use of over 60 homes. The pace of build-out in Orient has accelerated of late and we aregrateful to the Planning Board for recognizing that the protection of our potable water supply is a priority. if dividing one lot into two is of concern, certainly the number of logs in Orchards subdivision should be substantially reduced! Sincerely, Josh Nefsky i RECEIVED ii 2 '0 � I Harming Baal-(J attn: Heather Lanza, Town Planning Director TO: Southold Town Planning Board DATE: 11/30/2020 RE: The Orchards Subdivision Application, Orient (2 pages) To the Planning Board, Thank you for your time and careful examination regarding the Orchards subdivision proposal. Considering its proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, along with many other residents, I believe that the development of this property should be much more limited in scope and scale. Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities. The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community of Orient. The rural nature of the Orchard and Halyoake corner is still mostly intact, and will be permanently spoiled by the addition of four potentially massive houses. The 13.0 acre site is currently guided by the area's R-80 zoning district and is also informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient Historic District, with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the site. The current plan shows five residential lots, as well as an agricultural building and access road, utilizing R-40 zoning. Using R-40 and the split cluster configuration does not achieve a rural, open space goal, nor does it preserve the natural and scenic values of the Town and village. We would like to see a full visual impact study showing maximum sized homes and barn. Another key issue is the lack of a thorough environmental impact study on groundwater. The application requirement is for six new wells including an irrigation well with DEC permit to pump 4 million gallons/year; anticipated irrigation for turf grass; and five new standard residential sanitary systems. The most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development (particularly its density) on both water supply aril iqualily. A putenlial impact from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the property. There is no analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's aquifer and groundwater supply. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water? The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed nor has the overall impact of wastewater. The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products, VOCs, pesticides, fertilizers or herbicides from the residential properties. The DEIS does not propose the use of I/A sanitary systems, proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers "turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. The applicant should be required to identify the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping; and there is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of any of the discharge. As a resident of 35 years, thank you again for your consideration of both the scope and negative impact of a proposal that falls short of Orient's conservation goals. Sincerely, Christine Churchill c1h is@scottmg(t n.cot 1220 Old Farm Road Orient, NY 11957 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman 11/30/2020 PIb) ++LI And members of Southold Planning Board pt, m_....m. 54375 Route 25 Southold, N.Y., 11971 �!` C ' 2020 RE: The Orchards Subdivision, 2595 Orchard St., Orient, N.Y. SUM # 1000-21-7-3 stiuLhw,kl fo4rvn...__. [1la.nniii,)g li:3oai From: Richard Johnson& Laura Santisi 1610 Platt Road Orient, N.Y. 11957 We have been Orient residents since 2011 on Platt Road, on property which backs up to the proposed Orchard Street development. We want to register our opposition to the plan as presented, based on aesthetic and environmental concerns. Aesthetically,there is a quality to Orient village and surrounds that is singularly unspoiled. It is miraculous that it has not been degraded already. It is sad beyond imagining that irreversible damage may occur soon, from this current project or from future ones related to creeping'luxury living' initiatives emanating from New York City. This appeal may sound like just another local protest against change, and it is that, but there is beyond that something particular about Orient that is worth protecting. The character of Orient seems to lie in some confluence and alchemy of low density, of the rural &farming ambiances, of the colonial inflections in some of the architecture, of the continuing presence of multi- generational families, of the 'edge of the continent geography' with no town to the east of Orient, of the relative absence of commercial activity. At the heart of this confluence of gifts, however, it is probably the qualities of casual low density and modest building structures that contribute most to making the village what it is. You cannot dilute this fragile alchemy very much without destroying it. The proposed Orchard St. project unfortunately suggests some version of a rural/suburban housing project, maybe well-intentioned but a terrible mismatch for what the Orient village and surrounds always have been and remain. It would set a direction of sad, disfiguring dilution of several centuries of organic community aesthetic. Villages, towns and cities world-wide are routinely degraded in the name of property rights and the demands of commerce. Orient may inevitably surrender to that as well, but we hope as many people as possible will speak against it. We certainly do. Other local residents speak more knowledgeably than we can about the multiple damaging features in the existing proposal, especially risks to water supply and water quality. We have read and we support these carefully articulated cautions and alarms.The DEIS unfortunately does not appear to reckon with the multiple aesthetic and practical risks embedded in this ill-advised project. Thank you for your attention. Laura Santisi & Richard Johnson R�r iR'aryl iiw III�^ ,_..C , I E,D I Wil �rrm�l� il 74/', ri ri i ri fl f F� � �i �,p+ � iArN l�✓ I�N7��Y/i� '�"" "�'`�r� ��NC dP�a " G�"Mr ,"14 a��"�/ i/ %� / �j��% � mH rN�uii w9f�M��^� m. 9rwmnam�w,w rwwwmmr �wm mr«��o iii/ j�/��/p�i�/i�i/�i/��� /i ��� i � i ✓%/ii����%/%j�/////�///�/�������/�/i p%/ //iii � r r� " J M r , ✓ � l i 777, r �xar�„ wmw �u"w�w,.-,� urs wurrrm� 'wmrmw*amm�� a+a w � mroxr Y ,wawa?nmw,wy�+,r�r�w�s+�www+ P mtllW�wuWWmiWrrz�;aaa�+nm�mP �10V 1110 202 Barbara Friedman �i, �i'F o,iA' f pari 835 Halyoke Avenue i'd1'mu"'uhn�3 boarcd PO Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 November 2, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re:The Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000-21-7-3 1 am deeply concerned about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DIEIS)for the Orchards Subdivision accepted for public review on September 28, 2020. Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant: • Based on Town Code-Article XI Cluster Development 2401-42-H.(4): Roads, streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot#1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing.and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot 41 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by.1218 acres.This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. • Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240-45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they ore generally larger than usual lots... (2) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot.area..af the arlicable zoning district an which it is ... b.ulk o the lot, exclusive of the area contained in srtuated, within the ,.�.. the�flg:s,?cagpole oc1, r ,,, Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots, it am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R- 80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot#2 is inadequately sized for even R-40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 401,000 sf. When the 3,169 sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot 42, the result is below the 40,000 sf threshold. 1 This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without corrections to non-compliant conditions and recalculations of conservation and open space areas for all aspects of the proposal. ****** Addressing the D8Sin terms mfits response to the areas ufconcern outlined in the Positive Declaration: The Positive Declaration states "The impacts of the new sonitary systems proposed on down gradient sorfncewater must beassessed" The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a mitigation ofimpact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 6homes sothe proposal s6ouUd not beheld upagainst the County standards. The DE|5proposes standard sanitary systems and merely states that since the SC0HSgave them approval, itmust beokay. Tomyknowledge,the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface water atall. 2. Impacts on Groundwater Positive Declaration 2a "Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe ond boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could affect the area population" AccocdingtotheSoutho|dTownComprehensiveP|an ''VVatersupp|yprojecLimnsindicaie1hat Southold will need additional water sources by203O" 11believe this assumes that the infrastructure is in place to provide Orient with water from the aquifer areas included in the Special Groundwater Protection Areas. Since that infrastructure is not in place,the sole sIuLnce aquifer in Orient needs to be protected too! According tothe ComprehensineP|an,the pace mf "build-out" has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted for thenewnorma|mf[OV|DI9,vvhichhasnmtom|ycreatedmorew/aterdemandfrumexisting houses being used full-time, but has also created an even greater urgency 10 build additional homey on existing individual lots.Again the DE|S states that since the S[DHSgave them approval itmust beokay. To my knowledge,the DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water use for this project and the homes that share this resource. In addition to the five new homes proposed,the DEIS states that the NYSDE1C permit allows maximum mf4million gallons ayear tobeused for crop irrigation, This isastaggering number, equivalent to6212Ohomes. The DEC approval requires testing the irrigation well for»ah-warer intrusion twice a year,acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion. The DE|S does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. The DE|5does not address the effects on the quality of the water for the area population.|fsalt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation w/e||' it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential vve||s too. The applicant should be required to identifv the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. 1 question the DEIS statement on page 3-6 that "SCDHS" approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified significant impact". The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable water supply for the residents of Orient. Positive Declaration 2d:"Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater from new sanitary systems (pharmaceuticals and personal care products)pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included. Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed". The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products,VOCs, pesticides or herbicides and fertilizers from the residential properties. The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that "Best Management Practices" will be implemented.There is no mention of Integrated Pest Management. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests and can require frequent pesticide applications(more than once a week). Is this really appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100' of two private wells?The wells for 2650 Orchard and Lot#2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within 100' of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays. The DEIS does not(propose the use of I/A sanitary systems,proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers"turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal care products etc. Positive Declaration 2f.A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included: The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs.The DEIS states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private Water Systems Standards 406.4-15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a "covenant regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps" I don't see this covenant on any site maps.The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water?The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water,such as using drip irrigation,gray water recycling and rain water collection? Why isn't there any mention of drought-resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to be "turf grass." Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? Why weren't I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan,will I/A sanitary systems be ne_gL'(r°„d (after July 2021)? 3 3 Irripac't on fit„ricult:ur'al Resources Positive Declaration 3a "The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies” AS mentioned above,the conserved area will not meet tuie 60% criteria for open Space when the Lot#1 and Lot#2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated. The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant.and maintain. Why is Lot 41 separate from the other lots? Why is the designated area for the barn separate from the Lot 1 house? This does not seem to conform to the intent of the code. The DEIS argues that the sale of four homes/ home lots is necessary to support the agricultural uses. When this proposal was first submitted,the owner said that this was going to be a family compound,which presumably would not generate income to support the agricultural uses. Lot #1, which has been presented as the owner's personal residence is not clustered with the other lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes.The split cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by wealthy second home owners who can afford 1-2 million dollar homes. At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that"we are not going to do spec houses"and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner.should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. 4., Impact on Archeological Resources Based on historical maps,this appears to be "virgin" land, never having been built on. However, there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold as having historic value. See attached documentation of the Hallock(Farm, and description below. 5. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources Positive Declaration So. 'The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to large based on lot size." While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be "modest sized"with footprints of approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual hots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District,there are no rules at all about the design quality of these homes. These "structural design components", potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the "visual quality and scenic resources" at the very center of Orient. Based on 20% lot coverage,the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to: Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sf(not including additional ROW acreage) Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sf(based on current non-compliant plat) 4 Lot approximately 0'960sf Lot approximately 8'000sf Total Buildable (Housa)Area =46,343 sf Barn footprint 4 -1- sf Total Area of Buildings =50'343 sf equals 1.16 acres Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at.2927 acres,which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints mfI'75Osf+4,000sfbarn. Page 4'I0nfthe DBSstates"Aprimary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings.Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are limited" Unfortunately this is not the case,the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule. Positive Declaration 5o continued: "Minimize introduction of design components (including utility lines, lighting, r/gnogeond/iencing) which would 6ediscordant with the existing scenic components and character) On page 4-10 of the DEKS°the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" Clearly,there will need to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an "aesthetically pleasing view" oFan8foot fence and the owner's home in the distance, is highly subjective. For the residential lots, landscaped buffers pier 240-43 are not indicated and potential hedges and fences are not addressed. Additionally,the 4,0DOsfbarn is directly on anis with the view from Old Farm Road. Positive Declaration 5o continued: "Protect visual quolity associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resmurces." Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities.The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community nfOrient. AsIhave mentioned inpast correspondence, Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street. Attached isfigure 5.land additional information about the Ha||ockFarm Complex.The rural nature of the Orchard and Ha|yoake corner is still mostly intact,and will be permanently spoiled bythe addition offour potentially massive houses. This proposal does not"enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources"and there are nu safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities ofthe area. VVewould like tosee a full visual irnp showing the impact ofthe maximum!sized homes and barn. Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited infootprint inorder tumaintain the aesthetics and character ofthe area. 5 Based on design standards established by 240-45 both of the non-compliant flag lotsshould be eliminated. 7. Assessment of the No Action Alternative These six points outlined in the DBS are ofquestionable mitigation value: l.^Retumfallow agricultural land toproductive use" |sthere anything stopping this owner from farming this land asis? 2. ^Pe/manendyprotect6O%oftkeag/icu|iuca| |andcomphsingthesubjectpropedyfromfu1u/e development though anenvironmental conservation eauement" Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all ofthe land asopen space. 3."Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community" If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly priced.The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at$150/sf. Homes recently built inOrient are about twice that. Sowith the cost ofland being around $6ODper acre, and the cost nfa3,50Oufhome at$1,O5O,O80,this isnot the type mfhousing that Orient"neeJs"' 4. "Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. " This DG8claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth and if no action is taken "existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the property". | don't believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property. 5. "Increase the annual tax revenue" This cannot bedenied. However the increase in density and use of limited resources doesn't offset this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other. 6. "Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes" While Aldicarbs will be filtered out by a system that is provided free to the homeowners-there could 6enegative impacts from other contaminants. The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form,were not mentioned inthe Positive Declaration: When itwas farmed,the eastern end ofthis site was prone topondingand flooding. While the site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, itissusceptible tostorm surge. Part oflot #5is |ncatedw/ithinana/eaexpecteJto6eimpacte6byaotormsurge6'8feetabovenormai with the majority ofthe lots Z'3and 4instorm surge zone 3 (9 12feetabovenorma|) . j_M_ppcts on Plants and Animals While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site,there are certainly plenty ofdeer there.The DE|3suggests that the wildlife(sqmi,re|s, rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding the subject of deer altogether. The 8' deer fence that will inevitably surround the farmed area will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences are erected the deer become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or cannot fence in their properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of open fields. In addition the street trees should not be in ROW-they are supposed to be on private property-see Town Code-Article III Roadway Construction 161-44 B. This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We have owned our 200 year old farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. What is described in the DEIS as "mitigation" is only the bare minimum required by code (and sometimes not even that! I believe it is antithetical to the goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan-Community Character and severely detrimental to the beauty,character and sustainability of the Orient community. Sincerely, Barbara Friedman 7 Rqure 5 Y CuftoW Rommirces Map ...................... ................. -—--—-----nom,.-.-.-.-.-- -------..... deR, -'alog, ........... f IN A lu F/PIK mig od 40 0 u M hm .............. fa y j Hallock Farm 'P jo "'RA"y NA V Ij Hallock Farm -7- is ............ Ha2lloc�k lFarm oa U,r yisrai.Ye of Uk M""'w 0,;W,W"ll) P,I v Y.I'v(I (V Id i:1 BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION UNIQUE SITE NO. OR-77 QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES ALBANY, NEW YORK (519) 474-0479 NEG. NO. YOUR NAME: Town of Southold/SPLIA .— DATE YOUR ADDRESS LO' Hall, Main Rd. TELEPHONE:516 765 1892 Southold, LI, NY 119Tf— ORGANIZATION (if any): Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION I- BUILDING NAMF(S): , O ,d School 2. CO UNTY Suffolk-- TOWN/CITY: VILLAGE: 3. STREF i T LOCATION: J-JL1Lypakp-kVe___,_n0r..th Ijot st--'and PlaLL_Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public r b. private U 5. PRESENT OWNER Labe Halvoake_Ay_c� nt__ _P -r-t-Ber-Ls— -,,,.-, ADDRESS 6. USI;: : Original Present: arriqt`,q qtudio 7. ACCT SSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: Yes No DESCRIPTION Interior accessible: Explain X. BUILDING a. clapboard 10 b. stone El c. brick D d. board and batten El MXTEMAL, e., cobblestone El f. shingles El g, stucco EJ other 1). STRUCTURAL a, wood frame with interlocking joints El SYSTEM: b. wood frame with light ineiribers JD (if kimwn) c, masonry load bearing walls El d. nicial (explain) e. other 10. CONDITION: a. excellent ❑0 b. goold k] c.� �rair n d, deteriorated El 11. INTEGRITY a. original site EJ b. moved ' if so,when? 1965 from Main Road . c. list major alterations and dates (if known). 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX-8, fm S 13. MAP: NYS DO'T Orient quad La t t rt, cem C _J HE w— a KAP- , Hill 1 OR-77 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known 0 b. zoning ❑ c, roads d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn❑ b. carriage house ❑ c. ,garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e, shed I❑ f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop ❑ h. gardens El i. landscape features: j. other: 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a.open land Axl b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings Eld.densely built-up ❑ ed commercial ❑ f. industrial CD g. residential R] h.other: 2 src, v Ufa i _eaten can 1 r 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if'building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density agricultural area east of the Orient Historic District, surrounded predominantly by open land . Stone poets front the property along Ha.lyoake Ave . The artist' s sculp- tures dot the property around this building. 18, OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large -story, hipped roof schoolhouse. Belfry with pyramidal roof. verhangin,g roof with exposed rafter ends . Double leaf door with sidelights and transom. Entrance porch with paired columns on high pedestals. f2 windows. Modern extension on ;rear for artist' s studio. SIGNIFICANCE ). DATE OF INITIAL ('ONSTRUCTION:,____W .- —� .tln� eIII�I l ARCIIITTECT:_ aMC, L __y0, j_8_T2..-. BUILDER: _0. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE; This adaptive re-use of an old schoolhouse as an artists studio contributes� to the ambience of the area. 21. SOURCES: Historical Record. Oysterponds Historical Society. 1959. Maurkiem Failey. Old School Houses Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 1976 22. THEME: Form PrePared by }hurt Kghofer, research assistant BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO, OR-78 DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES ALBANY, NEWYORK (518)474-0479 NEG, NO. YOUR NAME: Town of Southold/SPLIA DATE; 'January 1988 YOUR ADDRESS, Town Hall, Main Rd, TELEPHONE: 516 765 1892 -S_ou_tTf6_Td_LT_NY TIM ORGANIZATION (if air Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION L.H. Hallock/Berks House I BUILDING N� 2 COUNT 'k �outhold t ---- --- TOWN�(]`I'Y. VILLAG, �i STREET LOCATION, H�alyoake A et. UHEE-ar-d-79-t -T-Platt RIC 4. OWNFRSIHP: a, public El b, private It 5PRESENT OWNER Robert Berks ADDRESS: flalyoakq ave,�, QrieiiL 6, USF: Original: residence Present: 7. ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC, Exterior visibl'e from public road: Yes FC] No ❑ DESCRIPTION Interior accessible: Explain 8, BUILDING a. clapboard FX1 b. stone 1:1 c. brick 0 d. board and batten 0 MATERIAL: e. cobblestone El f. shingles 0 g. stucco ED other: 1). STRUCTURAL a. wood frame with interlocking joints El SYSTEM. h. wood frame with light inernbers (if known) C. masonry load (bearing walls El d. metal (explain)-_, e. other 10. CONDITION a. excellent k:1_'i) good_ED -cfai"'r El d. deteriorated 10 1 1. INTEGRITY, a. original site J] 1). moved F-1 if s o,wh c n? c. list major alterations and dates (if known): 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX-7, fm S 13. MAP: NYS DOT Orient quad 11 MI I NR L "�,k,11 � %11 - I �. Y,14 V'I lace 4'ern Centrist 1 Eern w, �.,o rl xd wry ............... . ...... Ow", A* / 7 5 lip 1 2 OR-78 t4. THREATS TO BUILDING! a. none known Z1 b. zoning ❑ c. roads I❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn❑ b. carria c house c. garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e. sled f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop I❑ h. gardens ❑ i. Landscape features: j. other: former school artists studio--T—OR-773 IG. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a.open land ® b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings ❑ d.densely built-up I❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential K h.other. agricultural. 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density, agricultural area east of the Orient Historic district. Open land surrounds the house, dotted with large trees. 1 S. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large, 2z story, 5 bay, gable roof house with wide facade gable. Planking, single bay, 1%Z story wings with similiar facade gables. Projecting, twin, semi-octagonal bay windows at corners of main house. 1/1 windows with hood molds and double leaf front door under segmental arch. Porch across front of main house with -see attachment- 11). I1). DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION~ Last quarter of 19th century. ARCHITECT; .,. ,. BU i..DER:— Q. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: Toward the end of the last century, the prosperous Hallock family built"a dock on their waterfront on Long Beach Bay to export produce. The large old farmhouse has been the home of the prominent scul- ptor, Robert Berks, and his family since 1967. For the artist's studio, see form OR-77. Also see form OR-78 for- Hallock Farm. ?I. SOURCES: Southampton Press. 9/3/87. E. BeNcher y❑ , Atas oto Suffolk Gount L.l. dol» , North Side, Sottrtd. Share, 9C9. 2, d I" Co. , ala of Lon, ls .attd, 1897. Form prepared by Kurt Kahofer, research assistant. L.H. Hallock/Berks House OR-78 Orient 18 - (continued) segmental arches between squared posts on high pedestals. Queen Anne decorative shingles in gables. FJ rOR 78— sur°� i�,r �9` n H T H F a �, g K a;r� t , i I, wn the row w I o d. the old I 1 m m 1 a lock Farm hasn't fared as well 1e rrrr' .belt, was cons i..„'re—(: some -IIi",i . poo14.•�ti r 1 � � 'a o0l �,4'Yra'�y Island at the end of the last century, so the I lallocks brouht in tonsof stable to Orient f en�l ey introducled ov he�W irtearth rig ttaon, built dock for their steamshi a” and exported their lrarduce to New f f f � Englarod. In their prosperity, they st"arici�od diclr own small 'rx a`nr�a acct~~lelle plant and even bought a printing press, which eveidua�lly became the cornerstone of an advanced, pro- gr ive hamlet. Robert Berks, who has imade monuments of Einstein, Lin i.aeus, and John and Robert Kennedy, came here with his � wife, Tod, rr'a 066 "Ihev built a life around music and art— 75TH rt a vdrs anucia in t rc d li a oc trar rtlr�i' lijl changed, though wl'icn Charles lloraawvrtz iavvuglrt tlrc 67 acres between their s ;� house and I lallock Bay. A South Fork developer of unusual sensitivity, Horowitz ,rcar- wanted to build what he considered attractive and authentic cluster houses with unexcelled water views. He did not quite understand how Tod Berks and others in this community feel about their water. "Orient has the shallowest water table in Southold," she explains. "Our fresh water is a thin lens on top of a kettle of salt water. At the end of the dry season, farmers often draw The Farms+ands Preservation Bill lutshedpedsaveNorth Forkfietds. salt water from their wells. We pump our own water here— and if we run out, replacement would be the most expensive rape apartment and two cats. But just over a year ago, she on Long Island. ;Mr. I lorowitz has parcels of land that float in became alarmed at the prospect that a 160-unit condominium anv rainstorm. It's our fear that his cesspools will drain into called Seacroft would be built in Cutchoguc. In five days, she I lallock Bav, a shellfish nursery that, according to one study, gathered 1100 signatures on a petition against it and took her produces 52 million of shellfish a year." petition to town hall—only to be told that she'd missed the In the face of such opposition,Horowitz abandoned cluster public hearing held a month before and was therefore out of housing and divided the property into five,at re parcels. Tod order. Now, more than a year too late, her committee was Ya Berks and her concerned neighbors in Orh.nt knew what that trying to make itself heard. meant: With five-acre zoning, a developer doesn't have to s,av a�t^anowic:z spa,'ke b6efdyRobert Piked a Iawycr with 'r provide potable water. They petitioned the town—unsuc- F%voiltcy„ l ,Mh,.arn cv. Shea a Riverhead law fir-ri that spacraah- cessfully—to force Horowitz to alert buyers to their potential ivaaw ill pa.uhaluc itatcaawst law" added a fees details, Then the y water problems. meeting was turned into a a amniuttitw'v debate on trrpics as "These problems' can be 'solved' with a S775 Culligan familicar here as work boats: water and alien space. water purifier," I Iorowitz says. "What's interesting is that at "The county ,.and town heave decided it takes one full acre no point have any of these people picked up the phone and to provide woatcr ftar°twrae f"la rev,°" Iralarr i leh,hana ptair°rued out, r called me. The problem isn't what I'm doing—when I get "Now we hired tlae raarvra board blithely aallouingw six units an done, I'll be proud of what I did there—but that these people facie, VITT eo ry upset titat this is happening to one of thae most %%ant this land forever without paying for it. And the result is beautrl`ul v'illagcs on the: North Shore." l that instead of building housing that sells for as little as Robert Pike poiaited to art archilect's map thaat showed 316 595,000, I'm going to be building luxury homes." open acres -suha°able, it had beer[ said, for leasing to a vincyar°d or faarrnerm—snakirig between the condxm "The onGy c;apen space I caro sec in that site plop," like said. "is between The Act,ivist the statement that there is some and the truth." Vveil S'toutenhurgh rained sadly that a Haan who buys a piece III: D1:1'01' LANE SCHOOL, IN CUTCHOGUE, ISN'T ANY- of Wed has Aso Inc"light rhe right to use it. Danny Lydon caahed one's idea of a hot spot, but one weekday evening in a coridos as deadly an kivader as any enemy. ,,once in the May, it was the only place to be. Frank Bear,chairman vituperative venting that folio^:wed, the specific steps that of Ile Southold Water Advisory Committee,was there, might be taken to stop (lie development were for a tirne t John % iekha,m, who has g f©r otters. . t headed [lie planning In all that emotion,one thing t board in Southold for 24 years N�Ha " �; °sj� jyj;," ' seemed to be heard clearly. was there. By 7:30, the kinder a sea ` ` "We have a unique opportunity P �w u� w e�.°`far �a tr ,,hr eq pP y garten chairs had been oo-cv ��t "„ l'iere," Robert Pike said, °'lo plundered, and there were 120 7, �' learn from every mistake that's people jammed into the lunch- been made all along the is- room—all to hear a self-de- land."The persistent refusal of l " scribed hermi who had never the people of the No-th Fork to r leda rncetint�� before. be Poke their southern ncigh- Nancy S iv aitynowicz is an bars may not, in the crrd, stop unlikely actio rMt.She grew up in s the future from h i- , c. roar 200-vear-o d house, spends i I rliirg—, pa but it cerwinly alerts anyone, two nights as week taking care else with the bright idea to re- rhes woo, p alloys fight r of a 92 vcaa old wornan„ re maake this dace that he's goer g Pini. l bowls in summer, atone on a marshy share. to have a h t �on hr'us and, at 34. l,ocs home to a ga Nevi har�ads. am is FOR OFFICE USE ONLY BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM UNIQUE SITE NO. OR-78A DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES A LBANY,NEW YORK (51)i) 474-0479 NEG. NO. YOUR NAME: Town -of Southold/SPLIA — DATE; January 1988 YOUR ADDRESS- Town Hall, Main Rd. TELEPHONE516 765 1892 _07M 7 ORGANIZATION (if arly),Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION Lal _C 1_� Fa rm C omn 1 P x 2. COUNTY: Suf fo,lk ____ TOWN/CITY. Sou 1:19JId VI LLAGE9r ient 3. STR:[.,'.[-'.T LOCATION,-S.W. corner Halyoake Ave. ana Platt Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public ❑ K private P1 5. PRESENT OWNER ADDRESS, 6. USE: Original:-----4;� Present: 7. ACCTSSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: es No Interior accessible: Explain DESCRIPTION 9. BUILDING a. clapboard El b. stone 1:1 c. brick El d. board and b I Atten D MATERIAL: e. cobblestone 0 f. shingles IN g. stucco 0 �other: 1). STRUCTURAL a. wood frarne with interlocking joints X3 SYSTEM: b, wood frame with light members El (if known) c. masonry load bearing walls ED d. metal (explain) e. other 10. CONIATION: a. excellent R-1 1). good 1:1 c. fa i r El d, deteriorated El I L INTEGRITY: a. original site X__1 b. moved 0 if so,when9 c. list major alterations and dates (if known): Modern front door. 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX-9, fm S 13- MAP: NYS DOT Orient quad KK /* ;v r. V em rient71 ,ce` A— f Z R »rI % "j, s", D A '7 N ..... 2 OR-78A 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known IM b. zoning ❑ c. roads ❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a, barn:El b. carriage house K) c. garage ❑ d.privy ❑ e. shed KI f, greenhouse Z game g. shop ❑ h. gardens ❑ i. landscape features: I. other: irrigation pump houses 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a,open Land KI b. woodland El c.scattered buildings Cil d.densely built-up ❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential 10 h.other: farm land 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density agricultural area of open farm land , east of the Orient Historic District. Scattered farm build- ings surround the intersection of Orchard St. and Platt Rd . that are historically associated with this house. I ll n9P T B7 � 18, CL 1 1I [° B I� G AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large 2-AT-story, 3 bay, side entrance plan, center chimney house with flanking 1-story, gable roof wings . Porch across south. wing. 6/6 windows . SIGNIFICANCE Ir). DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION: Prior to 1 38 ARCHITECT: BI'I Q ER, 20.. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE. 9 The Hallock Farm flourished for many gears . In 1870 Geo.. W. Hallock took-a run-down farm andsworking scientifically, revolutionized. farmi.ng. On 68 acres he spread 1000 tons of manure imported from New York City and 65 Mans of fish- scrap available locally. His dock is described on form OR78. The house appears on the -1838 U. S. Coast Survey identified as "White ." 21. SOURCES:Historic Orient ILillag ee . Oysterpond s Historical Society. 1976 pp. 22&23 . U. S . Coast Survey., T-55 . 1838 eers , roastoc . tlas of Long Island. 1873 22. THEME. 0 Form prepared`, by Kurt Kahofer, research assistant. "e OR 78,x.. Hallock Farm Complex Irrigation pump la° y houses. „ Y i rod 1-V n e g m 7 ..4 M-10 1.. yvW ti S� �N o" 1m roN�y�s I n it fo r � �jr�u � 1"q�'j"„y'Irw ��"�� � rw d 1��,✓ ,,, °�,.�'. ,1,��:.f J�.,..„„ � � ��� a +,��` f”' u. 41 u N a 11:x,e y ...� 11 1, rrw m( w � �tf✓xr/r y� t „-o or r y� y(jr it rJ ��', ',�„' w w p��i G� ,��y f /�i���%��1 , ft �i h� r k�/>J yid N � r�, yvyrw w J 1l iJ lYta�i ti w „ r„�' Y r iii%Iti%l�/yy J ° / I yy G/ rr 9i1 n rr 9 r SY / OR 78A V6"v ARTS & LETTERS II-9 The Way It Was, Continued From II-1 75 YeaaAgo 1913 these because it affects values throughout the nation because it has left a broad trail of dishonesty and ruin among men of business and every � allc of,life. Everyone4n East Hampton Is Eligible Old people, stooped with suffering/ Middle age, courageously fighting/ Children, unable to explain/ All in'inisery from their kidneys. � Doan's Kidney Pills are endorsed by thousands. John W, Hand has installcd upon his farm at.Northwest a Skinner overhead irrigation system, The plant will cover one and one-half acres. It is the sarric system used on the, larnous fiallock hirni in Orient,and if M r Iland finds it workssuccesfulay� Ite will extend it to cover a considerable Portion of his farm given-'to small fruits. 10/27/2020 about:blank wr dA1 m I rA xr` aaa w . A a PI 1 n w I ffhw � ff�l�➢liirw,f fr w.p4< NEV YORK,K, f GJ- �'b �ua�i, b WO Iwt A� �: ! tlY,. «C`,b b�, .Y limen!m°wM k'llNAllA,. .nMJtwo l#N,+A'lh#'A':b'Vm8`urmpNm'c A Fm1 „bay, A" srfa x.f- I-1 P,,,.If,(j,"", P "M"f v4,A,En,f,, r, ,Fd LaP F`q,T,WiT ,vhvr"re°k, a,..,.Oi,yl r f ,aN,d 1-b,. .Plar A'RMIIoAclgw,lA vm'Kh MIwgsv"', n alw�,lnlr r: s�ly 1 Jf f cl r 14 r 1 Lr l ro ..f I k uodIf,"yi ni P 0", m 1%,A f Af nn it, rf , 1r W, 4 sr PR rf r r TT,,v,, "u uw b nry «raf r, AIJIAMTt„r: fill 04 AT a fnln¢,/ N,f ,ad lfa •Man W.",,,;a,f ao Wfl, ;;n„aF �,rx,rffm, -4,orf;'d foil,, fa7 yaruAefr,rtpp 'Bir 1 f N „>' p l 1 f, l A Y ur If I, I,fl mY f 1 4 ¢f r Of Al"",ft I.'TO ICtitrrn afux�A Now, ars AgirkmAUTro, ""k Y ra uv „rlf If, .PH-fl,k"', 1,,f fy I.,", f,4 @„ ,+L ¢141 e,,, f LP,1 e,e ff A ar u,.afnfe4.;,x,4!#is aA`w f , tl141; b,",l,Airu, bob.I>AWv"""If kf "A, f,r- A,TfTy,r:err,f Wlr.a G,o POO ,lv,.rfnna,,.E a Ivy Iry ,,e,]I Y„wzrlf 1-f,Px ,I Ovior hasl/r,f Ea V, Y4, ,'-u",A,4v 1 f',mra TTI f,w w 26e r,,f;al 9n,}r,i4m,vI Ar 14,,r,1IV,f. I.,11,rr..b"T Arrx�;� ¢,rrf fnf,¢,f. 9 ls,r ts,rto&Rv,n, I f. If,IIT, Po,"A",rllr Abl,a[TH""Af"ty 0 Jplf,, 'At 4neu4 f,HlllrF lrPx f A.Gr, UY,ks51Yv1Art,Sfl rpbl 5,f I f:.If I,'rAfyhn is ,�,Cr f, ,rnf n,b,nIA nA>CIA Iv 1Lad ,k, ,IV✓if f.:rar :hnfl,f ^li 'tfc,, ofn ffq, &'0 bfxe ftaNhP fm 5 @t ti�+d, AkJ, TT P, Ysv ,f"It, n xxv;l arc Fi r,X i,.w.l H, h,faak w, f,,,d, kA,AI f,f e ti•1 s"4 VIl n fsrafmtEY I ef0 e afJpI h' Ir A,l f ry 1,1 , IT fnvrs fi,hw ,f� vv ar A4,Id., O 1 a+'y ITf,d I,. Ir V; fraeM es :¢ ,. ennf„,bfn S,i,erN rl&Nf rA,,:>wL calf I +a'n; Lyar y y;ry. 4 r;,;b,te,,,ar,e ,, I'.- 1'a;r I v r u<su„I ,,,.f ns,.r 11 f,f,f cV c e„A ➢IOfren nnamp-'mav,r,dw«,f4i.,,,r,1V4,l r,A&.rA,yr,V,I,,ak f,tA b,1, trv,w.;.P w,,y f,layf lv I I I't Ifyf, r1 III l 'T,,II"xo2 IT'Y'fm, i . ff"cE U,oy fafs,r w,fYE4,fr le f,vf(w ra"A uSa15,p L tv To-W ar;pf«,e".r,$ re if „,en.A f,, 4n f If", ,r As,ai-l" A+ ,, WUT,,er r' "li, APf„f f I w1 vhra=E., .r6"a Ar.f,,fp VefA"In,"IT tryr rot"cul IV,ann3 rcfF,uumks,,A ffu,.(tW,wi.,qtwrfAal.l 6f f,t,„ ITT'A,,o"', f, ✓al LLi,V;fn M9 II"e 14eo l(,x fl P,frrrfa✓sp Ob rnmws'. 4AaA r r vpr W ff r r A l brrllf4.i f 4 .rno f,rr sIf . f v« yr f I,IT mo> 11 AT,ITT, Ffs,lmmim,,ri,v a141S f, ➢r,9 afllfa r:,f Y"9s I I ll4M Ac,YT 616 W°faU4,of!6(3 jkod P 1 n",N✓JAm1IAl Ari, ff I k 6,f,')TIT If,,y.¢,IT V hR 44WT rn4�Pl 9u'{lv fry,QIP wy,ksBt,g1,T u4,.A b JA.,IVMJ f,,a b t,4 r4 A I Ar 111 r`FM, 41'.p4 Itite),kf/,u /nlp,-1A 1n,b „,VT p.v r=:11Iff 19451,,, ., „�fJ➢,,,r ff,If, f ,f1`?{AP ,v f4lh IAl,k 111'r lVlp,iW lIAAVi"&'Ys fi I Ii,I l A f"al14<0 rx fi 9YE ,T 1,.l;.p[G.„a,ISNAiN "+.'A II tfh, fflfyT ¢I,G I;'T, f'%'2N If fy,,,rd(tIT,I i4 frf f.•fAf,Fd4,f ab fxr 1,I f f r fD�,,I$ Y,•ry A ,ery fE.tiy o4 ,,T Ir 81 J,fw,:d 11N,f,fit ,zA 1 I if,1,k I f If n o f urtr,- H V ff I, ✓o,,,. A,"j, ,i „rf, / " / ////iii /�i�� o�nf oil � ,' m v w, h'Arg .4 4,1 Nilo mead Nf«,1 SII,i;, Al"T k d,A 9 41 6.,Re!'- rdow 1 tN1 ffT1"Ti f Jn tfnifh I,1 e,4 e,q IfpI 11 T 4 A rl r AT 4h" / S/ / /� ITT f," hv«I raew 11 i,. II4;afl f r ff f /, I 1 II a I rnf,. „t w rc orf,r l 1 % ll //%l//�//r% i /�� f v1 b 17,x:p x,,. r tr f v IT dram,:,, f nlI AIIG ,A 11 Ie;, y W4Ap r. Un61 o Ur II I l J" v R,,4 f, A U fNaryf ,Isr yr I ww,p 11 I r /�/ � % /j( ,fii '., / f a/C if %I „sl hl,f-.al ¢raven ho lo.r.� /� lx U«raw v fx ui //%��� // r)'f /�///// , ' //« / b f A w, ,an a„ r. 1 rl r I �� r1� lqc bnr Ir,Irr rc,•nI ". // SA .�f o r Y ME/`,�j0 u l V jr r ,.'i ,II , f y/�/ /i y 1 e 6 N b I "A P u«9 rIl f r 1 1" fnf�� "'' ,A�/� / u14 d ," ,.Pats w ,ruf.T"'O,',"M,Y4 b I ff f9MAf ,%; ,/,11 i 1, ph"',f4Pfr-fly S6TOW"Y",', d¢3 4 b I El f f ' i, vi i l 6 °V W $1,, xf rI1,11eadti ,l F 4 rD p f e rl p 1 g kf 4 f%/ f// N)"}rl % x H[J 9 NO,[, f rax S rtOP ."Of I (/ ' � // N d flp F r III",( In 14 r ! f a 4k f6 �� // / � N I I, 6A tl {N IIID xl ,f frf f x tl l �j / y i ,r Al r +A bx lNof' alA n AA0.4xmnrtrcb AiTITI4 VvmA, ��� �/„ II,I AT 'Ir", AR rr w M P ro n S.f �� f , prafw. � %��/, /o / �/ , f f 6 M xf P I 1 r u r,/• frx Ia r fa er V I f TniR %r�p, 1 f f & / /� // / w .. �^111 a rJ 6 n ! JI ,, / ,of /// //,;, l "'/ I itj� fr('00,4 P i ul x 4r ul r a ! I , r l 1f gflx y , Cr -vflr f Imf. SxaI raUNI,Icol,f", ¢,"rave Isno! fro X,r,r, A, TA+ mt rvh �� ✓ " , i a✓ 41 1 w,- nI a fl« r r , l�y�W�11 „ fl xA.r. / f v(I )rt r f k II Y 1 I, I,,, r y x Vr ,➢ r u r w I I,M'k 9 r,I#f AA. PI ,,p 11,4 : °V )�'�/ % i�%/ /�� ////// r 11110 AiT,AINIf II I,0nA I AII, Ou 47,., k A x r A r a; Ir R q ;,' ,:r,, rn u,I W ak 7 /// f / A M1g A,fravy w,4114rc✓a. Non aN I !P ,c4 rr¢ar4 / ��� / Aaew ;i8 ,FVAr vknrnry Ipeaxa"Awt,Y trig,if,q¢f«„ u,n rrof9.d¢ ,,+,w T.@e.«,,. f.pf„///.��,! /�% //////�/ ////// cis n//// ,. / ,,,frfn . . I u,,w,,,t.u,;; lff,rcn ISI<+„rf,a, I,vrrvlh„d,alarm,luf,tiA",,,.. %�� � / �% N a' w r o A tra fn✓i. I&krt pas,¢,nror,,A fietaa�daa4,w;;". �f Y lr✓( "" / v% n , �,so� ��. V,Irr,M,,.srxr 4brr,fr ,war,ffxti; tnv wtf fdt'441s,¢fx,I,," fawarn ,a, eLolAwl."",F W'gxa,gtfl 1kH1,"rlu;;9 dtw ux,um-, «'hVTIAIA k'&ff 'nwx-u,f 4,4,rrfY fat:wTZf „tit Iaal,rT Oa t N,,lfu„r Clot U,Ow,,;mpvlp, about:blank 1/1 10/27/2020 abouttlank '11'11 V" It U A L E'l"spy -Y o 1,4,K 1,,,' July 'ott It,1 N,nyfJ"'A'dm*"Or Wig t 1, I,,aa I III "M", V), dr Au,y tihwv-, 1,j'llo, 'I",P" III w It ,v4 ff", It""lac ,df" if If,u1e vINF,t rd4 I."I's",']I ob R, It,, r, t ntAl""'I It 0,,Iy ajm p" ,I,,f,I. 'tf,,It, I"t I-ar tl,, vfn -t, ,VV(11,I"'j 11 1111A,A 11.1 J1,11f, w 14"Ith Ou,"obta pmir Itud"ftvmslvt 1, �I,,,Y,,,, fI I I tt",I'lf--I ft k, loo,t�I k,rf,,t)I✓,,IV,I I,If I It I gym,,It It,t If,Nj"I I I t I,1n4 f,tial I "I I,"',�Rl I or,,I,� h I 14„,�I, 1,1,,14 A I*�I I r�u,,�X,�V I,m",lo"'N"p vt ....."P iv",Ipr,,f,,w,'j by, 4 1 1,11",lW),Aftjt 1, k I, t f.I,,t iI,dx,I og e rd f"f,I It I"It fIf",,,a I fW t,4 [tty f1'4�oe oW It-A"kfu IG h It, I,a It,P,411 tm it Im" %t pvt1t),ve�ot",tjomj, 411,1 tjoaojj of wit, ", If rN,f Ow,y,Vvf fm P,LJ rb4 ","a"I"'I"'O 1- 1 1h't, foom Illf,",v, thm, Qv ff@IMdf Im'I Wtip"I'lig ".1 mFlri,ji Y-40,"',, ',w#I,[,III I flim,y era r,, ","I,I Iry 11,le,n,m,i'f erre,I,I,t,,,,,,,I"It o"I"'I"t,I ]I"if a,I, J�&I'm, dare a,, I, o"W'A me-,dud f g 6 q low tt t,y, It"4f" t I I I vv,l6 P of,c I ,If l v,fo AN o,It 'V 06 41,ff f fit, I„.M",6 y v1, g,o I I k,j,, f,)"111,6 fj,,I,f IN"'h'. It r"I is y,,1.1 v,I,,,v ,, ,,",.p,,""d.If,I", I A�y 1,,m,N,,I ft V Ia d"I,,f ff"'N'I I 11, ,at. 111do , fg, ,,I If-I.If I",i. If,,'mr "I,It VI,,fl,I'),�,�I I",I I t tff" t4, It", it"p,-Out,,/ III I.I If"I"i,I",I t"I'll 5 q I,l I,,,,If,III A I P, t."",dtf 1,"I,I,I I,,I""Y f I Il ,, I", I It,,l L,affi 4tff,1»y / vt,,t J"fj,,I I, p",,I,I yvF I,,#Y I f,f,,,, IIv,%y,f,f I"It,f/,1,t.6j,�I j, 111111 14 Y, I,+, f M- )IIIJ hn,,,"w"4", o,,d" tf,,, ,e-d1 ", I", W,o h", wiy,,4're.,f"Id f",I,<a Id1.,ffk"Nxyrfu"O'l t, If , 1,10/,,p syr ar ,,I,,I,I,o I I.. f,j 10"I t 4rof1 fl" f i,f f,,slay! 1wIt II - I, tvh-,"It - .,rlrym,l Y1>ry It Lf 1r'j-l a 6 0 mf a IN"y Lfi,Iff,". It rrt Il i f t aIr r t4 ,if&,fr vo, I,'(I, atlI rf-d If"'ItIfl h I'm I I,, a I xv i,"I",, I tfNt 'ta,Iv,b?, Ilya, j",pt, ko, 'll,I- I- p 'J I d"',Ing,Ott" "InO IwIf ,,?tvf,),qt rftmd maIrk of A 1-4 Ing,-k I On 10"o,t", w-, I m,It w�, I fW-,fRI kI(of,-VYI,..t yp""IlIg It 'p4 k6.kv,-W rI-Ifi% ll", IIA MI. Illfw ottf Ulf"wooe,`,tmo foo f"t,0 1,,A,f NO n Itt,Is fw)@.,,I (I ,mal,N,I I,I p I,,,It I,Ir;r tl I;,.IIIA fim", Iv,, IN I I It 4 1%, vpm o Iv(I otp,o,5 t I'v f,f re,yAf4Sm,I Iv i,I I I if"'i,'I"'I, o Yom,u tA rt I I I,,+It"4,W ea,s,I t I pI,I,Mill,f.t f",f I)-.I rt, Ir6and.lrIff A(""hello', uIl 'd"Njrov I/,I I fp,Ne,e It I,It v I If II(,;h fo,r It"I I I I,�,ftm,I "I III,t t,, I,,"t I t, "I "f, 14 If- ," t I,I I ,1(1.% 1tlt,1'If, I I If I i yr W,f -W It,v,."a I If lf'Il Il I"I f,jljl IYA,"IfrIll,(I""Att I 6 krf x jqwht,mf-1, -4 If,tt b, .'I,111 I 'g If,i 1/j,a v I I,,,I I,, {71`fl,f-h-0 t 1, 0",'.if, tf.W 0 f/ It III ,,,,, I ill A".I,",f I,X o I I-ILII "'a p.'y tim. III "t,Aim" If",I f If W, o,",'I"ll C"LlMATIS 02,60TA, PIANO, TwAI 11,f1f I,,It, P d,t, t o t v,I,aI°I y I a I Ir r"It, I,,,I'm- t fh n1, It,1," It v"tsax a dirtt 111" ,I,V, -et"k,"O c, ulvd;, v"'I'41"d d,If If",.),MI',nf,t , f,I,n 1,,,f O I It ll o 6 fl,mm q I",A'f,v 4/0,C TNI ,4"1 I,ti,I I.,It,k ,,I f Y I, arwy0 tf fkt,, t t u f" ?"Itogi,I., A Af,0 1,1,1 H,N,I Uo H,,, 'Ift"V If,tIl I f"I't tf,,Iwfq v 'r-I, 7,,fhj I Of)"","'t"id IUIlhtnv�mlf b 1"t"I fqiff Im,' I,, f f,,,,,, ,,I "',Ij.,rtI r,,.tlut II,If"6m1'a", IN",IIffs 1I, I a ff,I,pq A If v,,,& I,,t I I4 Oe., b,,u 4N I'm r r u 3"t IlIrf,I" I-,III,P I,q Io ItIvy I N"'I, -I NY"If",I B Ift",-1, "N' 6hftjf,f,,,I,1"',,0" o 1, f""a"fy,lt-to'� I,11 1I "A" 'I.""f 1-13 01. ..... M F�Vf,or"',%)t dy"""r,(,/',A t I, 1 ,0 f"I'll'.-, au WO tfv�It'Ir,fAgld 11 ll,' Itt",t I,(I I"" hf,'Old"H,11,1,itl i[ItfO610, T W,� t "aot, I) 1,1, in,4",o'd, f".0"-4 Of I...... N.... J",I W""If If, I jr,I I tu",, 'it-ft, I.I J of( III,,I,Y r,(,v e,10, IN fo I I t�kff'LfA,f t I "'t, ,I y, If,c f I if V,�i, I o I I I pa,I j t I", I-tIKI,It Im If aft I1 s 'A t1, I,I, t,f,n rt,,r" I,,,:,I 1 x I 1 6,ff,,,v th,,fffif4d"I -a ,to ff,tv Iwo.,aar f�if"fft,I--f If 40 v I,C rt-tI tft w,, b IIfw" t I)I I 1111 1 .,I If o It" I I t I It 1'4-P",4 d lwq-f fg tv 60,,1 ca I f/',ml I,W-"f'4, II,ar, ,I lin I t ,f,I,, 1 if I$ It",I P, ,o,.f Il I AI, I I.I, f".4 -If"x'I I, W, I,I mf I),,' 4a",ot t I, t,t'f",I f I �d" I I, IT 1,11 w Id,h IfAI¢II, d v MM4 M fl,,O IL tl b, o" If,Nt6 Ix",f*, m,faa gr III,, I(Aft(I". ,of 4"',"II fir 14 11111 k1l I t Irr,t1 ,fnf,y lyr,suI aw6.1a o I",rwaWd,f I I fk.,Ufrv, f-,If), r.J b","a",fq"ff t"t le I'f"wIt'n jl,u Y')p I,,I a lie6 f+uofa,I'm I," N,vdx,,z u9Inu,r f"1 1,If I It,I,I"" `III I,Rfy ft`.;*,"d".4 In I1,I",1,,1)11 t W41 0 1,,t,,P/I 0,„ ✓4 V I,I "by fa-t, ll't Af,"'A"'d iv,n "I"'k-14 It'jIt�iff", III an o It fft,k-If,",Ow mf,'mtf,vxt"','A 0.fr,,4 o t f I Ir tl/(,j fl/,I I,, I,t t "d "),j!I II,Io,ft t 1.A Rt,,, t a l J k l .O,, M 11E I IN,I,-,t't- r "to I v T I, viv U,p,f,,,it I,I �lk t,, I, 4 ar t'Af o� I I,vI,o M A IttIf I v I IM I W,I I II .'I, 'x NP,I I I,.I,I, j W It 1.( I Ik1 I I i" b Ito w rN f ,f Fa I f If I 1y 11yf I, 7 Ir" If"I.I,I t, t I, I Itto If,I,f 6......W'�w A IV'q Ia Wot 11 a"ott"'y V sm IIf I d'o-TI,INN Cho,"Jt t,It k A If I b,I v -v W IN k1 J 11 1 ij v las t, 16 p I ttg UO" I4M tft,Ifo U,Ift ifor T I'll,I.t,e hr,Nu, th, It f If,,If Il", V"y 1 41y k I, IIt, eca &J I 'A oIf pl�I, 'M i I, ykt I, 1.1h oy, In,I t 4. re 11"obi,h.,- f,,,4 ki-x9,1 11 ,A Na 1kf Affe t %t t N1, I rI,"lod"l f j�, dl`e o"yr I,ft."a I g,It,I-1, f,,A MI,faint'd U"','46" fin sifyfaxf,, I I I,I rrfo be,I im"i ,111 f uv 4k61 }nWIt k,0 t .6 If, h p,1 11",111, m Pur... V III f-yy 0"'I� Wil., o', 1 ,I?("I� I 'ItIll,",I Ul" 'k'I" Yfrrmn k 6, 1,f, "t E I,.f, I,k",6 1,, ,,,A AJ,"I'M rt,, I",t ,Y, o, Ilm l,ty n[ z O"til,If"", lrsf1, "t f I v v.r )I o II,,I J„;,4,1 1, ..f,f,fv,Ill",1"0", ,- till,011111m, cl.,",MN f I W,rl I It,,iu,-I. I,,,III).t-11uewrfr Ijlay,,>III if f,ei fr 10f,ll.,, of("a L'O" r ifl,IwOv,IB faIn, ec ly Abd v I -ot"', ff'10 Va,0, -A ffaff"I", f I,,I f pe W, IIIc,.,fiI y I If" W, waf, Ig," t k'-I, "t it, TM, W, r k 111,11 al I I I I evIII,I n'rl ,fr1v 1r"1 1,/ Uur1,1"ol LI f gto I I t 1 0 1 .111, 1, 1,11 t f,beta'I,III, fl I,,I I,t I Il", t",I'Lt,', .I..... ,,."'1 IIA .4,1 t"I,v "Iftf,Pfala s,wo brr,o,n k,gn'a,l,[0 1 11,µr If",I I If il I I rlu V,-s1, V 1,,p,,I,,1,al all, Vine;ou",wo"I"',f"n"Ing 1, lea 4y, A, v It I, "t',y, 1,,t, I f,t If,,r I,)I)It m,I t 1,f,I,M r, If,',I ert,,,,I I I,t,I exFnada,cc, rete o i",It t tt,v f"t It f,I f o'I, I I evzar l Tk- 1-6,1,1, -,,,,,I,, fe'r�r ld I,,,ot 'I- IfW M If". P IM tv o e f,, 14,,14 if., i u, If,PI It "t,"I 1- 1P,",,f;, Ifuu I I u 4 1,1 Zr,S,f,t,p t If,I,IIP,,11 4µ,t,,,11"Iff",t t I I w, 't( v, it""I1,f" "o,", v III I I,it, II,,LFk, fans It'o"f,"I, h"tt",I f, Crx Iv t I,Ien .,lel t 1, 11 1 o I If),wggr Ita,,e I) tf I I It,i.I lo,vrI W f,4 I t'f u It mp, K I I A Io I 1,o4 a v k,,,I A"t tj G,I(i f,",o 1 1,j(It rh 4 I//,"'tive f, I I,I I,¢II,r G j jf"I 1�t/ I I y",,lf,I,uIf ffe 4 I y I, f,I I w f AII IN.1 1114 1 1 Wf, t,y .'v- A t d,,,f,'t, 1 f) I'm I R u I tir, It,,,, "ftllt " I A arsAwazaky r4m. Oy If I.riv, t"'I O."ot Bow e,o-6, I(I" Nal Y n11,1,1 e Io, t 1,,al111, rvIK o"It"M If if II w I It,I v,,I If M,f-v vi,I-Id I,flttIII L,I a w, 't,"I,I ff"( I,u,I, ,t It f,0 f,I III,f 1 1,1 t........,�,',x�,,,,"I.,t,t I w,,,r4,,"q',I I k"I t,1,1 If real, I I q 1,v,Ne d 111 I) r I 1, l etofl,.1 fl,ito,tI �,dx,t�fjrof f,g,;, ,I,,,I, "t W,,"y-t I.f 0,0,,r)" ,,,t 4.64k ry M 1, 1,p"At,<<4 111 1 M r,if, mfa mrI f.Iy,,off m'/ b A If gf I,.av r m"'I -'Ov," t-[,, I", p o q 6 M If If,j f wtat I,IL, I I,, vf') 1 10 r,w 1 t t It If, I,d M 'I, f; I, u, III,,.1 9 mId r", I x,, 11W I �It,, "If I If "d III�, W,,fl I"I DL,,h, I I I j v, ,-y III,t"I 6 Ifff I,,W f rot /,t If 1,[1"" f,I rla,"I," e1,o M'0',h"", ,I,Hx I,,U, ,,,I k.,,.i,If,'Y S V it,I,)y r t L'r�,,u,I ,u,1 tI,1,1", fire. I,-twoo",HI,t,"I,"'A tII 111 Ifffj yr a 4"I,, ORTWIlu itrvxu.Omni, I t I v,� If I,�,�Iqfv lk,o,,r,,,�,,,q ry II't I v I'I I t YoI,P I 'Ivy aI ,, o, ""(,,," If"I'll",If f"t I I I,I 1,1, g",,p rale 11 ILL I, If ,,,y If, fl �,,"-I f I, f10 t 1,,,,1, 1,f""'y J, I v m It/t I I f1 1'A6 I I I, I, I,f,,,,I f,I(v I vv It I,, If'k, I,Ott,Im"W""I,lo 0,,,r- T E,,, I�f, ,f,,I N It y"'p(wo ,1........htf,H, It I,It,"It,A,4AII"fnfpe i, F 'I't� IN I,it� f, I j,I o.y', tn'm'O, I,,, ,f E01, 1,1 p I I,,, ,,(1h,,, I,It r I)1 1,q I"n Ue I I 1(1 1,,11 1 t,,If.1",, flu I"I If,,,,I I y ol,""Itaw W�,j 4 "'t,.,M'II,"'alo,If h IPl L, f;I'm V j",If,Bait, t P1 I ,APi.4,f,fa,, q, of h. YM1 tf4l,"Ivo-plf"'I" ,f- IYofpo, ttl't P,,rtv,,r Vwrk'f "y "VIa ,d iR-1, pI,qt I)I a MI't Of,4a wf/to I I r, ,vd 1„f b"', I aFfouIN s A r, 1lflfmlF,fm kc A utal Ce km,I t,0.,,m mai"""".fly o-ft"d Q.P.z T 11"y §j i",ou I)t 1, I",trt,w,i+fal,Imu f f,I <I I( I, R It,1,,f" I im f I,I ti o I lud t,(*f,If y v h,Ia�,,I)o",f)w,,„e,I9, k a,In t, v 11 4a1I I, 1)k v I lI,u,Nall I,If,it,m I f t, a I"'t, Lua7 I Ifyf, I I, a I1 I I I A",ua IItv 11 tB1),1 1"rry fI) th,", tel I'll t rnm h" It N7,t tI,mu!,"q,I it fty"-I,M t o,"I,M "t- I- It I".,1,1 1:,0 n A'I KI tl, I u fo t,l ll,w ro N,,tv l f r 1, .6"qt'it,Aff ff,"ratvat",x Lfe"foaafiffud)MI,, Sota t1I�I/ f,r n I xA I fyl,ttfl I I m u If I I,,,I,p Iklntlp'I, ofdtes,Itf f,IJ,,,,a It,If u,I IYw I,I I III I,,I y N,r,,f,,I Y,NI,o;J 0 r,, "If-mr, f I, "t,, ay t ,,i-III I III' v I W,",f, "I,,,, 011111,11", Pllhet'r ulv1 fsyM 1P IPI ryEavd t G"', v v"Y"GPI .I.....waff),ew"I moj altj ,,I,tq[ a wr u III my w),j-lon-k 6,vqvy' 0.1, 411 f7 11,1 ."'0'0"I"'A"r PI PU e. I 1,II Iff I"aft"t, ?/t,,"ri,I NIr4 fir,", t tu, I, I It I fr;,,,luy A,IMA 1',,w"W'k,"Nuff,f("A"ktr I,fth'ItA,vOWY, Mv I't '1"0 "I'mm", k,t" la, I,1� th'I 4"",, $&"Olf d, rprt dow I, at ......... I Atli k9,Ar 1,e 41nI"mifyl nmyalLrM If R"III N 1,10 L ,4 aanf uL"v,It- Alf I,It, I,I,,I,ln b,Iff,,I i" H It"t I",0 Vt vdratoo, nr tIV)-I rad,if I,)-f,,1, t), ,afmlrl y s4uxb 1,4 e PIft R r 'r,1 to "'y oprad.ft,,VP ftev,I,Y I't""""'I"I"', wine, I, ,,":v 0", I",t"g,rt,,ph it " t,It''t I'd I,pl, 411 61-versa""It 'I. I,f,WI forum. I-v*ur 14,[1 1 ajrf4 o ur)a ever z,ry bks k,,, WorrI I r IN av I,M",lIl' .",1,"'),""'t,I f,"a"I, f I,,I I'ro,o1;,1n1nwIIv I,, lAf,I,I ') 1 ,"I -+-'t"It utUn'l I,,,,o(,WI vng,raC"of bfo,U"',"Ot flo,,les,f I.'m"If"' m&,=111 I,,, I If tt'/A rdttl nI1,f,"¢,If ttf It I, w f,otI,Ilfdf,",v v. ,w, d,,,rvrta ft.I I f" t If, I, INe rtI,tI! II wr,;,w£ur,„1,,fenlfnly f8wltl e,t t I,I I r,,a, 1,e,a. IJ 4 rp I,I metrama,t,Ira k", lmuA,III,I I af,,Iva¢t I,I Iwkm roc, t fU I r},a v,I X11 ae i g,I 1 4 v I, III,Omf"'w f",ko, 0.If i. I,II If ;µbar pt",4A 6 m II, 14#4f"'ut4t X') I'm,f"Y"fam, "al"Y"uty,fa I?,9,1,mu, mkauulwO"tor,IrrfsNPI,,rw","aiw fWotl,a,%it&'Ifitt Ocry I,It k f"Ittkog,ery turg g"4,111 val,fI p I om Ilt I,to v, %nt A altbffv,btO mit, ratnlirs falAva I'd MI W141110 l III"Ot 1114, pay r III I r,l,Ite,1, G Il' late r9mlI ,v4` fit tom" t,I'm& vyay.anaaalar Il,toA t a re I t'. 0"",,1,,meals f,It,W,r r i rl,,f I w Ik lwk k w I I pm, VI,16",r L I iv)x mv/ga,,t,P gIv,'A t p"InAtoo", about:blank 1/1 'Iff" R', K fi` 1? 'III I,tht It,Ivetr IvIv"11,fr I"Au"ileI"f aal 061,jffpIIII�sr afsat, lwtt tv&V fvf, tI,,/;II0,',WIo,' f/0)III I, "It Y"I", I',tfff,14,IY'vo, t,,v,,t0Wvt et"I0, 01W, Jt',vv)Wtq,,, Ilov,/,"4),'It"40 4,h"44)1,f bVtel'011"I'li,ar't 4WR,&,, fit to M%s AM,IN 11", 19 WM d"Ie,vJ),eeI,eyvt f?,PJtjt,,VQI to""""""'W, 6I'qcr,I,/,mgy Ift'r A v*e taw)"titov*hsA'v,prIevI Apt,"o, IIIITSIPA 1ACIIII,I; P rrmlJg,eV,,,w r ruf "um, MA W".1 a M"nvo,I M WW- U,taav� Th'.A,2)am Me",lv%u/ Y nmu " ,V&n,N"",�,,"u,f/,t/,I, It"a A "Awo dt" R .-19,0-waD hA M Mv 110"'t fa'a,mav"fft vrailt 4,,1/',It,&P rftIft�AtIsh P/Iff,�qf,01,%IfiJ)tI Use No 0-9V RM, -4 f,,Ypm(vT tA,P�,140 fI,l'o,,A) 0'rJ0 r,.,p"I" 'tt,I0 If Tf- ,,-1)a,, pnA ,%ts;k4tig,ryhte 19I,-)r lj IfI1)III1'MW %OWN. 'I/"/,,,e, I/Im v......I I.ell""t" Y"t"kt"A"',"'e,I nW p A, I It 1~7 f 161 A". t-o I, ,,I'eo'I/,,,,,A,', 'te, ',)I,- tyl/l/c "U1,I6 ff)l ov, y ,,I ev, t�,ee f,V�f') a &V V/,),IfijV4`e et"Al &�,e t,,�VIqtp *,"'Q e 4-ol, fUvII/;�1f,/,typff#WvvI tieJ, tpU,1/01,%fi,pff"YI,,v1slel f0qv,I,'Itoev"t irtt'lemy tee"t ii �001% Wnt" A I'M .-A--"A vl� M-.1 t elm It a V"&Uw j"I vo M,Wtv PnOA In .11)t", ff#01l,ria r'l s WI 1xvJIIv,)/kaup/ett?'P/I 4"It Al Iffv 0 Wg wp,PA etvvetdfa//vt,,#"IttviffffitW a6m,•giffmfla fp)AU,e,1,I/* 'flvo, 0o I I)v e W-V f 1101 It Atev, tvt&rag, tt, VIV J, 14 vvItkj Ttlg tI a", 0 f III,qp 'pe, K6V, PJ ("'v,", fv,/,,//,tI ✓ I Men,t+,wne V,(Al,WevI,,t If vv,4tr,�,,Irl,ef f"'I p e'I't,"I It,"I" won Is" 4 P/fy"/,/ V, my, W"If",'s",'ne'V. M/ty,"0 1(/,",/' t/1 3,kt, 14/,!/,,' A IIjvt',v,f4,I t,W'l",tIvV-T fr ori rrtf o",W,4. "I"tt'vA,t,,,,,,4 I.M vIt,-IIA,f�,41,v,'Itlerjf" ,,I,, I-v,1-1-, fI f",q , T � fir rr" WWI" 15/fp m - 1"',f blit reed vw"tA'WvNa'4 OWI a 0 PSW-s vW",,ot. on t.0 MQpmws Mer r r r >r, vivA0 rWvvv 41o,,fft tt'tffI r fIar vVv,#, uwyr /l///M vely),, pt 01, ve"t",tt 4 1,- ,,,v,"o,f WA w,rA 0 6, �w p I I W *v'-/. I... I,0, I I,-, _. a..- WP /,J t'/I'VI W" o"M LM V It I/1t,/1/V/)j I v,oW /I, r, 'h"It'4(f I,IttV n"Iftt CF ,14 t140, WII vI'/, I-I't ,d' "A 1 t,"I o....... .......... 0/f Jffx� A--- f tvtfIVefY'awmhj fewhy M H Aq to barnmy, # tp,)y,,, /ttv" I evtvtil 'wo'e, vyyn7 til at, ",11i""IJ""Ie"g o/Ivf)0/'ft),W,�,Itaff"f tIVII, Y "I", "t"",v1"I,tw f e v I/,,IV VI, tfref tIf fftF IAev IMql v,vit,"o, 4p, fl,4, ItI t" It J b fj 9 II r P 1 Jy PI 0,4, I'lif"tf t#,, tw esrf"r "t,a, Ili 1M WvvPoli' o I tot", P1 q as 1 I 01111-1 a fm Ue agro r, Ipo%flbsf oa,/,tu,Ifriellfg,SAA W. o,V;,,- j At ff,j-,f I qav�tI t"'Y""f)WP 2,","wNeL M, Q sAgto"'), -Ivc ,-— IfIlf,IMM W/Iltll I tet, vut'll «t41„"aa. v,1,ItIIVIf,,I, I ,'Aw-, It, v, "' /,*,[I ,IV,VI m,kct, 'tt te,A It/og,1/vot yl I'We I I"" I,V. M me I.%*vw;A M mw H v,"M,,v W Wv, I,two ,YA-a f 00 It WA_"Qtn -IN A-4 W, A', 4oa array kNf nI 11"tfIle 'A,,ta 0j,f/, f" M11;; It "jo en"",v,rI,'4 WONI'C Wfalvv fl,3�vf f", 01f, f- I,f, v" A, III, Vf "J" th"O'k,"46 IJ'o tvvv,� ftfft� I,5"J'f I,4o, ff,I df� t �t nah) tent"I I,t f "'I I,I,W o Ift"411 1" t I I,�t, J,4 f-, -M sm-Mq, owt it �,v,t I 0/'t, Dr^r ft""'I, ,tf,"rIty f y, y 'I he" vtvItfvvI,vIt"t IIIJ,#`,Yftv MI,IlIta ft,0 I t,I, �v,I I,r,,�#t-1 olol,tv,,14 Afit tv M ffoad,rel t"t"I"yJ' "ha sorra JR 0 t I,r. Ie,,SI I a I, r f 1 4,tIt, I Mai ka", I..... pIt"'L "I eq�,10ar"'r x4lk "MrIt/1"A", v"0 ,If n 'o r y er tJI fft P"M_W/4, ✓ ft"IM, 111,1011" tt," ,'0"t, IlIf I/ I I le ft letr t"', not r rf iMy "I 4fff' JF "to 4"1 tt" 1p"y 11, IM VS fAIY Wn,4-011,'al f It, I', k// tip vIvIft'AI to t It I tl ,Irvt,- ItAI 17t,"t~ 1HI'y 'uV I I t�y Ik"It I,I,I t, I//, f t I,-A �,, tf, I'll, f`31, flfl,,,f "'W" I ,- t Iftl f vv* fo,'v", t ,", I, ,�1 „a.h ,.a f„ 11'111 1,,,VIt q', 'A W d If, -10 WO No ,,,IJ,,"111,1,*10,v ,"nvv/,/,�, "tifiVIIII",-Iltu,msm N t, f fl jI 1, r"I,66 kr k qac IV U/,V" &/vall HutaI, 't-I, t"",o,_I fff&(,6, "Iegi f hittve t nW, 4',"a yotvv,�4"A"', qw tfe ff"I vt,)t Uvjrvt,,I) 1ef d;elk, hrr,,JtV ,f"t f Wov" II of 1rtet,"ltv A— t1l't"a It", Ur I""'tJ a 4"t',fw ""I, er W M&M Q sm-,"o"If, In 'JJIlA J11 4 W" 0-MI MA W"Mk -MM e �vlrt)Ijf g If I',,ttt, I tt V"/ If fl,f I,I "I't, 01yY� ,tdff, �flt go"MW.st,ux HOAX4 Utter nts awwo, elan rr. 16"1", -6 0- 0 1. Pt if, ef v`1I,14f(,v,vv1v t,t, 1� tvl' te. Ax Knahlon Dara Carrmwill ww"H" o, re x � xrop flj Rv�( tl,/,,�o%, al If Int to M,t ,Is a, 101 Amp a -14 A M, MM M wo" gram T , t"I'll. ,,�,,Vavt, ', 'v 73= I Mamtem. V hf( Irv, 0, MIV�, toitVult, I. 1 A*t,'t"0�tj, ft, pe'ar, Tbl pe/4"IWI, rc "o....I I....0 A Chip _I'f,4I,y)"I'[01 f,),/.t ,,)I'I'Iff"'O,0- ,Xm tR0 Itpa"t", I lue,Ms".4 As djqhdMW A.W H&hq I-,"',I— If�Illtt,�,VT I,It,If *env 0, IMM IM A070MAMPIM t. WItlt,"I'l 'Wf, tr, fW1 1104VIfIv, t4t,,�I1J,,4eAvfe,VIIv,, ,',f ""aid I Won,WMP f.woo Mv,A/ITI) Wahl, M! 1.rvuh-,a MIS I-cmd M a MWIf" IV 1 0"M A, 0, 1 A rr r 7 f t f"I""c f"J"ftv,ffItAol, WW _Ia "AMY W;Aw 0 IT, 0. t,Jl tvn�IWIt III' yr U A t"/,LIj),/tJ.Ih'.v0 IIJ, ""I'tv,1I 2.1, V, TI',,,v,,.wry K"AMWA A 0'W U'v", ftvvt�f q,as Mf Itflt�f'11"1114 t"', 14 4:a vie 01 "fl,pif, n'- Y,,�,A,40,,f ,&Wf "u-"t WAYN"t- 0 11.1 v,1 W_ N AIM A Mf11,1ff1,,vIf1,:J11f111 V h!"M ;,r,, t,W,an M, on IV 10 0 10-,1 a-" 0"M"WMAK MMM",vIIAf faIDI It",IlvA 'A'a R"I %4//�"I, 1A4,vf,)Y,S41adfbiultd yQl to v)trvftA un r vlil Ittypt,""I" fttrn W_"M_1 ", M. M ,nd M, tn1Iffvvrht1,If't vt(aff"""", hrolt%ItI�)f veit", Mut, 14t6p/r tI veIf6l/ I Yt"Il reef 1w u 4,rl J It,IV,, v-6 Itj, ""'II0,oo VIte mv "'-d-ng fifpa y I'le IvIfitak,lIV1,uv, 4,, f "to 11; f f ff v I)',""'y 6'vr I M',p1lo0r"?,tfit"fa,Pyt, 1f,/,vj(,1 0111011"I", v 4)f-I/'dv, III", p f;IIJI,J,/It I,,'I ff I III "ap"t"J"In",t-,0"We"I"',_ �jf, 44,", IrVi,d -M g=u .M Jew MMO 4 Matu,M hmg, lo Q M"ft"V,'n th,, "Inn ,;0 M"Wil mom, t. powd, AAA III; "M WO atfv f 9 IN, SH raft F.0 MA M"W4 MA MM4 V 111"'t" lo,/a,f, ut,7fluf,'JJoItItt,yn"A'40 D,. f,/ee� in W,p I'a&GRd" $RIJIvro, 0vt Mumet,W Mtn"rroI pdount,vevvf tie'l, Vert 11,/'st "'If agaft, a^rraJ1&k It,01,letvIe'ra,I'I'S tjV)'jvtjRf,&,#"MIIIft W!ff,Isf," IdgAITtIvtvtjfW1I ass I10',I I.,oqvd,I, #If"',"III,e ,/tA I,,/"" II,Viy 0 a MS -M QMWU StIe,a;fx/,/tv vol,"P luflodsoj'af ,0e tk/if, 0&tv, I0 my,1'40,"'Vey pt(paAkt,,iIv Mffjql'Aar4, "flirr"I e,'oxt,,apy1for It,e I vW,', v',/, if.tvI &"g,V 4,0 vI I 'A'"t,' tv"eI v"A" jotv"l, 'IA )vf)'ItIVA, 1"'j, o1j"kei),Itv,, A IMA MMU 4 UM6 Up I'd AV vf�)VI//,IJ4/ I,V"'I,4) "'ttufat"y*v, ",*tl, I I',ftu f",�0",//,t III, fVt�l(j It, tdt, ov 14 12 T11111 COUNTRY "la EWWI FLr`;, NIANAijvu:,�,t 22,014 vxene larmeheserations of Business F 7hey Ha-ve Overheaellrri4 "on, C Adtorqgy and Heir Oww fia�eigjht SUame .......... By Bart(�ltn W Curd. iw J- T a.-as rar.a Irrilismift SV#I.nma Uhm ikso tomoglod Ill ki H ., I'll—M.M.I.—Ih..1110M Ponn NIX V**ves Amp is 1401woogq� SO 1141iju"k Ah The HaRwit wweam&M I 'Ile 16rfy-wffr oliwAffld �VMin, TIte myeit dry vems oll(,tNt (1,R(!oWil-wast fixrnmrs gre M02 ii mtmiW,arigunient for irfigUOUll,to W.jinr,,.rr,b"'M vsiar 0*4pWols q4ION 01, this IV]dwwrl arld oull,say cerf- ofAilvd, Ngnplig its xh�rrafe� 04B P�6vnlo lulgpx� TIMly m6wrf mareivird lAr ifkv W, 01""'eato,"pild k0mv,yiellIN W mrtain of our IrviA. *ire hasbeewi,tradilUval gwrnlom to pf.,R-w M ..V.—sit Ar, 01.8.4,"'"thay or"- lrups, 09161MIN Mull MuP, Wwoml the word J�Tdvn�6 A InOwn, kenvw mod prim,"owrzrt pjollw j0*1 not dot?*Wo af Vote, Tkfllr*�N41HKAI 10 1*MW DOOM inakw fad. Thor wiila are aA 0)4l, YN is"i" or irliKalilq,�fur tnYLUDO11A. ma AUHAIlhil aftli'd alvill llp* tittetty ll 0 haw M,c-ur 144"Jit diwiloo"Mold laching in lilKni;9Wd. XMigi eo on, lnmwt 11,q)Ubles,LIM 1:Wv van,ttrsuLlsge� Ell, Vim ag 165#Ishient,fauto It aj fivadamendah ashwir agate. keivere fkar vvv"Am"who to t0c,eam of Llleel provniod wo ol""Rld he�Wqnewbok of ajar to Nor, 0"O'"rors MF4 "'T Frfor. d"li'lovil limAtudUAR jowh�a 1:11,gCO"I wan'if-A Inean by thAt S**,Mk FdAW 1W as Ovisdem jfjrdlv�� ktilroo&6vwAd W P-#,,tMrd lo, 3JIL4 RtWiulw tu AUWII:ikl U9101A a Vim Ii)ty'pv. TIMAI IN our gravwt dowil-04O%tirrimalvit IrlaclM farm,CIMMA: efirl, 940W �you ayo cliewift)v k� citthe flke Imit aoyd in recidem qfmaitio isroprese damos,Amv, sperfat 4mpx Oaf regWro, [uroblonl�64 It�601vk In I'm knerk�AN- krivionq equilyalimt- 11 fann With- 4so Orfoor Oro'404,Ago,ArIII fftolhoMmi,*kig vejj, imqlN dilhell"It I'Miol yotir tri rymgr Me. OUR frills and yet itivilk'd Into 1&fkh A.o,,.0,oj Orm PlAkdUr Allo,INN "my;Iqp Mjr_I nupid,tin,uriiu and hairAriltger an. 6.-Orls of 0-4lox 040 Olig 4nF 1 "ay wot as�ov to Avvidde opohig down our lxjtwto ern e„"" thil I amd"ve foOlkimed amp wh% swii immirapre, PAr” h ur,)a plahl,[Hrmor who Mbf fil a lc'hK- 040 prodgwoo #j,4200 Ad "altol, WAYY PAA Ills was IrrijolkAm"I St'"con Aort distalifm I10 Rod keeps Into awns eh pf M"Of's" Ae qqw-00 bF f" orm- "As I ln;%rJAni lo say,,diose wren On vauketall,MOMOaa6mao IS'Atulely a Wme "v*. 7%0w ad A1* ...... "Yk Wkills INKI as e�hdw, dry s"OHIS vsk morr of Agog WRA gAd RqjA- A11 O�T 04 no 147ry- omivivitt-d me fluit It ;va on twis,.i.1 H..U.—lb.0..A6—biqs wpighl Lan wiml to hm-4atigato pos. IIIATRIOCII I&J*,W110 e;hh cArry ilh It"IN atu'004adyam. PA"A'fl,1,ocMA4 01 HAIRK14 J"AW irN cigar ion *Yllkewls,W I Melia JAMUlk 400 tQjW W giLrin dor (lip inventor of cWt qYRThoad Nowdum thnRigh niftyket Outs,&M AWHirikk,,r Yyotpun to corne&.;wn to, is Imi,afillim from I&vAqwn dix*infivaqvwn bout tol0lawedowil I)IMIR: up :ami obj*x% Iffison in acrimillutre,that "Maid W Oripet mid uojdyy rgriffitiams.. AA u resuft ed hip vWt Tj IrsnxrAirtabon clixrgesAnd thew are only a Cray of thL, red"luttami and iduinitiAt&I MOM likiraim FA"in say two, Aptertycirled to bifli'All tke sympirl, I W"Pacil I the pl,ping and "terjxr6IMMwgtM'luia*m of OAK Vin wn,inowl;farm, fOurming country whvre land prollW114"WOVIR 51WIP1019 lUrI* MUEThIll FAITIO VP IW,it,in(Murol4irm at a rtmL Ia Mkilmit I i 50 Ft kt osillpil 11.1 tlalyoaW Farnt,and It cmlR&W,lJ s4glvq, W 4rhig in diosistdot. asll acre", le.l:lfmintly IMAim At(Ment_IxAiRm liptanct. [Typu niovii3it It IA rx(b,"tfiFiWrig to,holAr of nmnsrwr aro ps isret,Arnox- Mr. Hallnuk ext,laivicd that an acs".rate trIcrivIftip of Your luallyou will filml,(JuNt PlAef, Irift INW116 tnoll Orght WAIA, VPUt k MA filkeet)'y a miticer of nI*VjltI4,l*i MArgi milAy o'gineerivig'Alas 40ill~11441&pnylek 0,a t6 North,Shorty f"tahwulk Of Long Wan".L. 9"'n qMI, ammud iliti-*4 Olwwp thurr lsi. OTivnt, u, IN.Or t1.L Ll'o ljde wt Ru. fi—r ng Ay,,RM... Aa a young',rluu,, wrbutj [Am, n4il"Mil drewl't go Ilown C1514R,qo (AT, hftving iu North HaIkK,,hA hsvve ralfled 'NO#1"Labou(",f olikiw,to Oil,arro ficthorA Una Damm yiwav,41 Imca,4mm, laulosipart mW A,que- More teTuldn'llw walbqjl,at,(ItffAloifirt, mid haves fadaw,"t up with die jira tavtniqi of I LIN lyashri& b"UM-, bi, dAm,ikled oj learn as crfalk, tatlwr tliari g�m ititki comAkivr"I 'warn wrv, OOmply jusCifigd in of carrivis on dip ienime norm, They do thW Wirt of tiong fanvil'ir" He IgnAril6ii tlMil Irm6i of, rMirlsvprer mrid abot kjrfttjjwg Ejelpyake' Facim down emc It Is aa f" ilipwri Wit'll and WkItsOut irriguildn'tut'i, fixt ti o aveftheall,irrJpt- oIvM;dwii,-,I Univ A.ifl, [it tawhliq riam-hyalhold y4tIbloOLLM of "IME afpl.Lisn ftqAM-1s on th.,IMI-T W 1,xw, I,RIROW"Nvillem IYAne Sygt*M that-440 ill,4041WI,IV NuT lon-aery"ONIR.l-v, fl.,-1 th.t v,,Hildy to ixjklyr ,xi-try,fift r 1j"Ol"j"I fo lt Fell,In did a twidge or Kwink Over to Fluni hlltnid- And.the haft flim ramal six yoTdmrMl it 6 tPitfird'i4i Li, hir iLdlack miy fllta twintm4f,but,I iintrel"I frowl othcq murtft that,fie 11414pTAm"Witiba,dlin"e-lulmf unit tulwd up thia f0fln"are 1h(l namely Iw vrAwl)-yi0d inolfrAnve, It swOOrisn %irtfiderit we ulwaym a ifibMwollitudeml: of any oubivet that inter WINAIM-Poirt,%,Rrkyqor,down--out "Doey tvinso Of 11101MIC1110 I:LL dle jlhfl,ar d1frie uj Inatu", (he em pm And carry' oSIa4j thyh" talil b,ackaaN Ujty as ra(AlrAl jift for haadle'rall, 1,he,Wet cild Nujok of Suftblk C"15untry.and if Y41U klmlx wv)-,, ml,Illip louses vel MJ pirisjullion in nividy,ordimmlmmliminrv, his,vlumar miudy and kmm utmerva tiom., Ile(rano to farplirIg I WtW a[aut Ninorkon goitcadOWAF YQU Will(OUICIOMIAIN41,that but IL would riot ko Utrimi Oh fit slll IIINAIMWMA(IMAP Milk ifloug fag ty yvixm lllgv,"wimm Itle,dosix-1k,of Ins brother who IN :rimilA III LWA gtovic lOaMcli, limA illlva tire RAWertiswilsh Will if Ow hilawrm provkhNl a minOW rain2mil uL jurat tAro hadl CAIUM&II ten]w the jullivIT parl rier In liml family offril-41j- avntqlrvj wiven pivil"r.wTing ovifri q)MI Long Islarld wand a Job in'torWAIN wkiln nx&tum W'"In llwmdomarI& ocral x9aim, fur the lnirdktic,Y-Nitiaeli dw niallior cuisntx)r tc%WMOvkI, 'Vlais ftAnly-penji,givwrkend iztigution gymLern,in,bie EdgIemi -I' Vaiaw but traffiI ni"ALM41", said Mr. Hallo6k, 4�4uipjnllmt ipt the tind h)Now York Staw And onli,of(lie "iw f im)nenov aomwitim*to mv as a farnnyr,floinLmiliX fvW,Milull Mukiuw�Pquipmentm n-i Mile hurnid bill t crnlrrwsul!b trudAIN are,negenlhldl its IL:IDLM ivickdent to 0"1 gwgrickd Ha[yooke Farm is a imval Yingoiayr lilt tem Fj;�Wvrfl,Und Sou(Nxt'n SI'Milm. WaT(W is P1,4171(iml, slirw but t cxAftsideT ,t,,,Or gr printery ben ,m.. une,brandi Myt dwEfidlock fairalv. Them suryp inisny 1:103- front a w6fl dEtectly MALD aly,SYMAL-Im UzINJ&a preAtatly."I.-A Lallee. f know ray boy it embiwivily yuMillifiLd W luirry oil lockg Hviltwed Dywq the Kart h Shore,but almly g1le Clemirpa fixim,titirty to forty JAP0,114m,furniflWnc a cfirw Ppray ovar Our wark herrn bveao*@ of his full kiinwilidr of Illachinevy W. Halki'l kirall)PIM,of LIMA. laridf,d JiSPFW, III,tKIM OriCllt 01411 MOWN of vtvtAblft klrh p(Irfurinkil okpat. Tke well and bumhulft, I do mut lsefihvt in,laris"zig 6aya toprMurd a owtorrijim, Tlte flTra IS S111I called less a lift of Im thall IUD fent and aft phundlint TMploy Of 0juvAcal iNkleaOuff" They Milsomia Want stMeh out celtioadovi GiAirge,W-HALlock&Soilij,alth"'uKit,die.—L-parLmar died Water., klad[y cfiouoi u,wow for it." a v&tLl ycqr.a awt. Tlw junior paTtwier,Luritio H.flafllovk, It raiglit be bector to prdwre P54rther dasiUR of this irrl- It shimikil W dl froin,tbaia inWTpola4Ynq that it wus is the, orvitiriotor now, with th*third AmMaration rtlpt& gafloh System With a,brief history of the remonuA low as lial,aevmeairy for 0#ylft&Nr6 CIO hire plullikik", on 111"ter M (Ai 1,y,fiblotlwt rivitgr.W-JIMMIN4''a yalall,Of"Ilty- In OW Ilutl4w YROMO 4 1& Wo (,kwzo W, YnApebRivim taw wig tel Likk, iIU9*MdbLhpYM of tlW J`nrt)1-44;1N-(1 tmOLlM b"" l)�who"Ian YquipWd lfar ratedbig by It llama pro flisijoek victlMved I Im Idea of initufing Wkth arcIA60 raho l. vkflMead "PeltikIler Ayvwnt. TE Cql�umtikv GENUN f� MMAlortirleal Onwil"wring,uuypMteargymm nri by it IviOnw,in 0 IYUMo- He nwilo WvvrLui m pmrlrnontu.4ut it liMipp.41"I 010-hilp In Feivni,i-tjo;1"01 aqlwtwirilwl arki(4-doorribing notablil nailsO college. lie was in t1te nddst of tlbem Nature elvIkki in With "anillIm Of lky"Mitaxi IrripifloMN ht Nev JeOnosyin whieh No raviriNpr qd Oikt fmn*him 44bUDIFIRTA,TQ'IFI(MIL 'Tlie pr crit giftvilrinfin,6on tW,juroMyr the, imisillatioa aLvots Oir-&, esolijorixted at 42150 an AKTV OT' wye'r rim-dki mn,yi-vociforgwo urrguiiR Tina larwi4ig is a WW- itartrier, usff"[ Against any Huch Cpuqjfty" on tFnpissawlarutm, Thtwt",WA induAled the-Aillod labor chat Flow lopil ohnfilld W conAlketerl MIA an bLoallew °1 he $he UMeciry dimuk,Imnal'unt knanisive vulti vation,;wild oldillull thiv,Ifalloas Ymml able w do widwEit. Wf're blagirlew(ArjArro fidarv,Un de gixtn'*Drilartr7wnt cd spriticatioxi W iww)jvr fertAimn wouki serve the purowe Ntrilic 010, busy, phnitinz CLAiltivaling told evipping X,VriiqMJtUr0 NAMC", W10 tjMk*Jdeya ant A Fflrlm mintriptnislit of high YRAMIS Wit'Ji IMUrt d*qtablty. VID11 4I.Mirfy pLano verw nionfla; of tim �mMur ir,imn dhim)aAvvxl LAM lorty- rrem Oml Burenxi and prinver eouraimt Lil,farm hookkneping. In the ablui4movi and not takon ap agnin until 9everal. yoors employ e, ran I'MyOulle Firma" the nulijormy (14 thiron mvimlifti flslv prslvqivi9d M,lune,6nionala wim some,lar- Rfiter the delith of the llhinp HaRuLk. Lanskilled lablyrers. Them im a saradily empkiyaA to roe of turom worm WAWy WitrTing W aa mtMeth find Lo, '"Aller Ewthu'w 4:14WIM." explairiMMel LIApjqM0j 11, 1JUJI(KA", ateut twenty nvion, TI&!for ry WR* hvnCkoiW Oat thlw pleat,WdA flawl,aro Ill every al ail 010,1,Novo "we liald lihnxa y*mfu of grod raki,followed by Oe%vn airy well WAR dug Muut the purupkig 4M.,11 ra and wverk4wd jaijilms COUNI'RY GENT' LP" NIAN 1411, wurutn km4colli'd*4houiv..Imilerrerivig wil.11 vIW rleteaTy Tou- 11411,Ole plan imp w fiimL, 'I"Imi Pligi:1wr ri%lde a eull'tul ea- hipirilig i)T rilugh EntAls. Trildifillng W"""I 661kram4l, m"k Ol, ,if ll-p rk. Mr. R"kimi'k did rriant Walk -1 'tily m6rizzli-,-I mg ,T..1 that th.5fizu,-j.-Lirrmy lwelvmv tlrvy wmm�I JKAAUWa 'OiQy N-140�+X°10-4 i�ivatimla to ik-beirnihm.taus,im'L. a t of thlw 'I'liv kikOkNodl,were built and Illiv lidodid the greener,tart pod mmi(I wAtimcgillm thitt%muld Work lmh L ua ipurimianviiii iT WAuniks; Iml L �u� Far lus the rrlvrzhl,cKindult or,heyidarit df Lhe W'ork, mmA i cUttilng LIW A dresiging ED mi minimum., bwdri. Subblo muAllure had was flpe vmz*,iukd ferdAiymf for k;Nulw9hod hO 6,go'J"flod r No:$I40 all lixro, o0yorkid 0100 Willi this Olarmel W-knire, Mr.RidIock Imught:a dilwAge zo., genetationii And vi Ill 6. lumplmv imitaflalimm of him irrigmulmi,1q'itevil. liksum the rlenUILA abilliniA by LAIC, gli'd ml natural imimm, "'A'u um pONq fprlikers,"omm mr,Ffmlo4,N1'ton we kjo -ljor twYokems of rimatkill,"m4ig) NIll, 11410ork, ""is very TakkiwimN ho k,1"vit,4ing a lin wriacre 1',00,k ie kis as pAIMAIPY IMPt biky add VIOVOt Imiuve IMiulgila mmoA fdrdfimvr%, Vk r warm Brifilf d,I'mir,Oik,fizvi,t Lit lRead'v RIA clur grultild in cqmw red,[ e"Ibbitmilic Inellind rag pmA-FI-ing a i'hulkliel. dvnlimg w1th nur comm probImins of 0011 .1o"IffiliAnr 11,111d;OT, mo, Amili wtiors fm Wry imoy(mm, rim kowor During Oil,two liklmvy enlppirg jymit0im of rim mulmer Wvter cttmholod lxp kiicww flWill.Dnlvurnawly timull may mmim, hLBIt im]"A lh4il;fqmr aukimm,which,WiR do NAL Y*ljr fiftet NIT. lfidlglck-mllilji6 hie priAtive chtcm7l:lu,,New'Viyrk on his Incluil-r-of commercild fe"701"Wir, 111wol ve 4,-all hay tile yearirl Ow-�",imill. f3ollowplently,tlk*mm�4 lirflo chalil-ffl Ilt OWrl 94 fliOVIPT, t irr 6g wri vAl to,'meet:t I'M 71-10it NVONIOA raw,giNNIMA1 ill hiave qusilahim and that,6 mem wool omy-- TlAatk arld liftem tat,na Joe Orup Im phoRwd fur mAmm]yearS bikatkAll', AA Wffiet GIU4%1110 k0mKIN him L=gql" 11,6 flim mine vimlm imlr6vimjeti I SpTilyingi yvill is lila oil,lie Paryie Xmiml� in klubg"I do Olio thlo mail mitit:he lm-rw thin milmij w lit 010,Illooth,of Olo Con- purchwo,qJ0 iwmd miAl gwimleril mullphim, imm hept nw"A and ruilut hillmuN wl,well fth full of din d*iMFftt6 FmOicul, lflvpr, to he trarmalki4i40d Wholud 96 Hurtfurit- Oct Hm�d Nuumdoll Nix.RLdImAk�4111: tiom Ov Win qmafity of 69,61fty, This.jR Ily turiting randcT gnwn Now Yvnek:himls- FAAY hA clut down trimqkorLiltialll lAorgmA of,I hil poliAla w*d 0044latjik,ill aloe rmlarkA4c wim filer illcjma -q.-A-evv, IY$'Lk'ne NW."A ujwa,fff REJAbix,immure to ki I'moilhimni,RkA im like,wi+,o mWAi Lil,00151:Nd 460 21m v of 601herwiloll dulm allz,'Pl'unt dinfum- fj",Wjdq.jz Am';Iq h,lianited omi Of lival, hiu,jmxhicu�ill marIvq�I I him 4 TrotTli-iri of hint/n. -rhm qwmiity of oor mvd Kim 64%stepuldy loMg P ,dOW D., "The im mL ihf rumidlig LhO irtkg&GWl iAmit is lJOt hW3:fiVy Cwlmkidy theire fixe no rum,ertalgitlem lit The oixuxd"il with VeqrX bbl had year We have iAleal wid after it i, �kisr"All"Al" Fi1q.gallons Of Ura lhmlr Will,rim,Ole ChAs metAitid; them 6,rm hhmd groping U.marimt gr piobilgn aLIUJ m1il7 wLil.ewmwtditii a a oll 1xing lgland(or po"ALD I5hJdRk-- rmighm pin twplttu-fijur himit"H'Ald,Wive Aboult 111me sr 's a We Kuv lfl� g of pYalu vierckd"m anIIy freft'lit swum ver 9;b011,but alflem Elkaiwm Elko ijukiNty Pvt 11be d i"ImpVim o p wx v Vold wvWllfg, TI'm ntimbur of timal th6q will he mquixed OvIL. VhJ,'s tiN'dz&ry'Mr.HAIiilCk getmi the fflmrLeL Illjotild mm milt Fliiiq tin Nurmild %itll mi r vrop, We get tikoot at wear durilig thee Anttion 6 0.mAkNAj?delmmk&mr,i3pion Clio millfAD aver OP, i4opholim Imm New York tind he cirkm his sw4 1mvit S1 iflne. Wo,niks*a giAd q abilik",&wrl Ilpre Nit usuallir",Ikerhal,*',J%ire cluring I im mmmo. AnLahti mi,IN,tit 6duipulloria Hcqordh:lN;l,,i". JUA am clwhAfly he W&Whem,010 thm Hennudil grawlu,but that ljog*110 Ilipill Ov",Olim iffidich 60:Urm.."TPlIWIN'd t0kile them itrsteril,as in omperation. We da imp(m allip7mla" combig irim New York an m to rimae With illi, Our&rnklirs mina ,Ole Red Rkm ad mmtor roll, net grAviv,pt j4z Um I Im uIVIVArmam W Hprmy kmm"O.1fdaes, dWit LAnut,AUOh IKO r4mr6c Thio ftietwr ih irwrie"migly trimat,gor mrummmiam metil,, Thilt mmper'l jjF*jjjI)r,vtj 4"P, Our yl&lo to tho mtre mmier hrrig-66on,iuv noceyqwled hripwrorit unduir Ole naw IsAff, BoxmmdaTho llowtoes arl, gintiltil sherc,antl shippmj t* earned 5400t; imilor favurzible conflIlItimim of milm fidir. Thiq Old-fiLghiAhk dAlWh4mwt fartilkle doles IlDt flAv or bmth: W thim vvjumtr�^,wJlklsv, Lhey 00d rAtr imyrarl or Oight 1111"fdlPj*n W OuT hundd dillift'll,is W,SuPPlettlexis Namrl m, NA'St illat bli ZTld hiM klill"r I)Wilt ixfp it riumer[y apkiftarml diillmra a barripl," whm shay im PONVUrdly iml her Kup(jIV of r1zhi,Mid w4ieti wL tmtkvlfiretka. I'Kh Virftehl f4bPrietkir 411 lidlyrOIJGO,Piwrim im; f,ak, gel: tI,(, 6o4nwma m",oAlqs frol,L ilrlift4ibli rp[m 'm flokyn fjiq,-YO-milla nae niod-ty oml-,PTk,diftigymov-hovl kmolight A X,lo,z;jm't,, we are rantima. Ato YlAth rAj the,njoh," 3N tam H dliAeu*, JKAxl oaf the rt'fiky sujmnekle I'lumlo"A de'I'Alkin of Mr. Hjdhla l4im not,mmidirlr binwif hn 11mD light of A, busbeh 0 tmmileR,70 64AN*of lzitiom gr§4 HO Ihwpyrlru,rla hiss 6wrinlimic. He daumi Lim All maw,of Ilia fzzm,1,OWNY IplA pamimakor OJI'd lie is lig n Ole Ran or miall Lb utgi:brie ripigh., ae,cummils are wlxl4,aft"houp 11,them-r IIIAN kk,exti*&I", to"'Alk,Ahura roil bmilieso judgTmaalnts iff Ills father, Vive old'Of 60N 01AX, IIley miast realow ill Ilia Wmalops or(&,I[, T'he Myra Halb"W"k AW']licit(1wo-Al iijaimi tho Kiticqvtimnil.butfrom I ImHuck wat;aln ty lmmf w-calfid rrlad,� OIiAt Izv hu unmukllvfl all amwewpesmaC IeHg,[&rkc'j&sW-%LvVll1 IN mric,ther mmillq,- J,limIrled RAWS 50 ImLoAtOm of, lmytato", to qTm(mrimer withom kilxming it Koubkig vas left to,qAmn.* knomi fri.mi wileiivid of brig:Gilmind to dmatligri all(i njYjk�my the kocrv"ION likishOo lit cirlionq wld 12410 ImAlwim flurromm liavo visited(hiaeilx up wo 11,And L13 aloak. of emmills were lar thmn mmiftn undw Mr,Hkidicirk"A Advim. It m.,julli he iAi;Ifivijh.for hm larimilig orovill, Limit lu alw tbirty acm,�44 the th"M W FIVId 4 IMOMP PONAMnICONO 0XjA1AfoelAv1-, her r land ptoducv.d.M),00 busbflki ofaldom 4m It 010IBiNAllihm Lbirir arm Quidmrri"s,Mr.161, a Am crop and Ir"0041 I)LUUd". cif marrow,lu; a boric priminmoki it, Whom I ask)Q N he thought >Fki�rjd exult. "J"Ids kA tvid kanol"forridtig;evvil omimad,irrigodmi wall hkoly In arly wuv Ill mv&, W h4rp virgpil rmLIv,Lvaids,1A CalffivrFlim Und LOMINIsrim, lutioldle farming mmtholig In flw humid r"gimaill Ile, Imedamlamralaly Ach bi lcicoijtqug, ornnrmt"hqzy h4ijk*,,T Tefilied g yields, "1 430 pot, JM4iVVil flwKt 1,1144MY fj1Frft#.r% ljjlf-hP- NlAcwridly, to Moldik such yields on land tlmjt z1bapt"will mtmsrYtrprtalreriptataum. There areb,'kelysin him; twoqxr,jiluki euffivzoion rur more tkim a ohil, Ire ma ry nittuittim darlug whidi,rlhfmy Wjljjqj J)q)pt�.) miry, k is ibnoftmaj, to forlifigAl intoluiveay,lmO ri Im"Ni for ft� 'I n nky ca%I waa kriumt;famimlily sit, Trich,Oubte milixurn m 4 Nivau, Tbm ehglay w(TOPH �of HaI,,iyzl&kt Vlarm minsumv malty mrJuadm ofi. the surfaep, 'The micinity of mEmblo miluilre Rach ymr. to lab 6llwn Livemiy4m.,tx::i lifty lent., 'Thil fivOler fml addiflon Ilt 130014olm,lyniolum llmd m1mvilt,the dowil,I huy p Omp gToater the cxgkimov for Immn4yn%. ElLkhocltzm rain& Eilig troj�'As ug mrWlmi Ilklaltoacrd MY @,qwAcUm.,*6 that irriga "titull dcIm ir, Un~IssprouW. '17ho BrimitmAm 41ymutil minio crekme fvr bett'",yWldm� As T,have ROAUXI,I rpgor'; Isisk,tmp. Aldit Ainl1gy UH kjWdftjt00i al"I j 1101leV1m tJIUL 'The mKI 41,07,zqv,Pixult is'narlipli o�a wift tijmgrl rMfirl Wilk tmanwimjm illaqwUng V4,01,a systemm shozil,d frorli tbo rmillit. 11;jo(lrtnrallod,kily thit INgit V-m Ill.0-D..k iii 1116,0-U-1 lo N.,� %,rigunt it, When you are gmAng wpocmal ur(qw direst-impimsion iolimlinim llysttmi. M r. that tequire,livy farlifigmicrl)it 4%very Halk,ek liltartmed ftle 1but his q,*Id-At9rmgc IKI"IAO th,9%3NK1 EflAy Mr Y&Ur WAY d,041T p1mi L ww;umeig prinvi lyslAy tzi hold PArritla i to jkrovide AuA iosurance., 'If'Imirg im no row far tabk mse arldi Ifelo in Jurm,whem the wri why tho aystmin climmot Iwo ImmUed 1,1:1, tiv.zuieknL rm laudy LD Im(ware. E I;[H JA"aGjjj#dr Nrlupre twills iLfft ata emlawride4y jul ia naw 1A)rake use of oWd-momp ragmuz,for 4urt)mpm urka, huldfiv,g Bf-tielzelm mmfmr&UL0 ItOrAt NOVVEnbeT4 "We have teem limfiq np mmrjy ilry oy4lort1hxy am told %limmem,lately Ouxt thim,is 11110 urally kia rommigiry,wilm Ole UlAylkelh wrt,meltally ar" imirrerakiml, inter Liz tweThead Igrrigmticml, their kmt, 7hvz c,"jiNvilty now k,fur 4AD but difilm1d,the Atijujim rowme WOWWas rear evatt miAlld Owiftly&md"W"erred ts- 1016 Iad bimutillhAl tKil U40M -A�V)ulAj: rp)(,j 11410 Duo ibisalmmnof t. that they bag]intido a'"Iflily mimiAe- Them No ullit ill Abe fill-miriff PlAns iff the there in mutothpir Nmzkg� Timi nim,4 for on F,Iwllpr!kN IK rak&:1.Yin bf milovid e, irrivilion"em 6 Hk(ky tio eatite idwr a B"Ififfliog jAb HIR PU,",-,bAW orfs OWN4 4ffld bad Y-l.iwim'.Lim fmi-milm all Wjr1ah3g tip,wN 11 the ikhipfflWht Of f"Q6 Irl ri be alziq to midertilte the experArtwift,"' 91m,form fmight.swompr,arch bol�- Rim, YZ ILI limr Wilit forril,Y,Oiap in tlia vj- tmmvjl Artuded, RA ki,unk gimb6frii, sal' fim MWAP ftbm�I.,vlim~m evilibe 1n*Pl"R,LmwAiog%w era Me Ckmk 4amiry of (Imiam niffl, OAXfl#WhP1,V Jyj Irbi!' ij73poj,tv,jm% jU one m0mhizaring nndghehxxrkmmmL ug;5100 an w7v"Mit furmer mmmrkiml,Coorge Hallkh& Allis rim not Imff'In tum appmach l lu, SlIn hm%llt 17,10TIT knalvim how Em 1eL valuil of HA;Vqlllum FaTzzli, ()pv out arm im+l W iflack. North Shore ouneervative itifaritmi "uRz% thr bl&zz Jyj lijklippijIg qi%it Fjmjji;pkkk Vmhteta ream 1100ock bom ON for the plactilmild Nult:cm.m a wjkg, firrit cbrievitxd thU walet9mht A pl&Ot eAdreglwrit ME OrWit'. ,r,f thm tarm witzi pructically trlmpm� Forinfing has imns Iteame AOAPPI m- KiL,te to thImBI'Le. Alii]16W mt&A Ya mW Ing ]n ftm wfl of Lud.w It.. 116111AL flglm, iscretrAod away out b4o Ormine eLtarelueHe bwv"mmaking It irnpoikAbbe for a kont d he lllvoA fallow d raft w mille im, ThmViltora mil t1ki"P, SlAr[Ally� W im! .11 Orieia.wen likswidiamilum iImmmv,orimhat Im 4-Alatmes Ltp regard in thal:it,Wmdo Im imp, Lit LhmL light.110 davotex 10 kiwllriry NrWAA:Ae w dreg*a it chful fiel Ravent k1r,Halk-14+Fa A tyt*Of I,ulxfl rya problik"HAVO POOL, 60AInnujazi of[hu wild m!ha,ayj aetting 11-Haltal2k,Ntowom,vigmt 1-he 116(mu for IAP,lipw H*4100ia ty1j,v imoorl stlidlyinig thp vidmJ flo", ovor nOL 40 mlr m miuvy railionk fin, tht,jjutA plrmg Rio tom*4,vlm1 the jAmi, Illum,YF4 rare qLA)tIghl V)ho vom lel plait Lurmh'" 1,1 lr1.I11h(Ajqr1A fil M. MiXite ho:i0larliunt kit do� evoicOld, dile mmild halal to"It mdwme cor lhimgm Owin nzaii(v:sU3if,,r rlmiagly e4tivitwied -dkixoml+46 of Anoint 1tYdmKhAI)hk' ard W-l"ittid.Lhii Aw t-ail .4 .&BI- dw hgo", J / F / f I � , 1 / 1 / i iii...... . / / / aaaaao / ao / / / o / / / F / i / / _,// ✓ � _lei/ / T ,;,,,i y,6Pl//��i (r�, ✓, ,� /. / .r�r' � � / ,/f lir „; �... � + /� �. / r / ..i /� ,../ ✓ � / 1. �, ...,....,, li /,/ �.. ll � /, 1. ..%�, ,, r .. :,i ✓,„ ., ,;,, 0 a,, ,,,.. ,,,/// / � / r / / 1, ✓ / r /< �>1 / VIEW LOOKING NORTH ACROSS HALYOKE IN 1995 - NOTE OPEN SPACE VIEW FRAM HALYaKE AVE. LOOKING TOWARDS ORCHARD STREET IN 1995 NOTE OPEN SPACE AND RURAL CHARACTER. RECEIVED 3 () 102f'J Robin Long Mayer 2265 King Street Pl&MinL Brian:I Orient, NY 11957 November 8, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And member of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 RE: the Orchards Subdivision SUM #1000-21-7-3 As per the research conducted by fellow Orient resident, Barbara Friedman, the proposal for the "the Orchards" development has many faults, not least of which the following points which appear not to be code compliant. Based on Town Code-Article XI Cluster Development 240-42 -H.(4): Roads, streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot#1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot#1 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by .1218 acres.This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240-45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The Planning Board may permit a limited number offlag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they are generally larger than usual lots... (1) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at,IeOSt the rnirfil?UMI 100(71-00 OfMO g_pplacoble oWnna district h rhich it,rsmmSituated, 110thin the bulk o0he lot, c. clrvsitire l7f 0.7.e(,jrea contained CSD' the° 7(��,�GYIP'_4dL(F',�S,,S�B'Ul, Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots. I am not sure what"usual lots" means,but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R-80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot#2 is inadequately sized for even R-40 zoning,which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 sf. When the 3,169sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot#2, the result is below the 40,000sf threshold. Additionally, of great concern is how over-development is going to impact our Ground-water as well as nitrogen and chemical runoff into our surrounding bays. Remember Scallops?What goes next? Orient has become a popular spot to visit and move to.And so the developers have followed in an effort to profit from that popularity.We fear there is little thought or care for the impact their"developments"will have on our beautiful town.Should we allow this to happen?We want to prevent becoming simply the source of profit for developers from out of the area. Sincerely, Robin Mayer Frown: Barbara Cohen <bjcohein@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 8:42 AM 0 2020 To: Lanza, HeatherTown Cc: Terry, Mark; Michaelis, Jessica; Nancy Ferraris Bkn:)rd Subject: "Orchards"' Subdivision - SUM# 1000-27-1-3 - Ferraris ssT&6 Fo F"D&E-AN-Prig"', Attachments: Ferraris-Subimission 2595 Orchard St DEIS-Prelim. Plat - Nov 23 2020.pdf Dear Ms. Lanza, In advance of the upcoming Dec. 7th public hearing and on behalf of Nancy and Mark Ferraris, resident owners at 3585 Orchard St, Orient, I am submitting their response to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat. Attached is the full document. Please confirm receipt. Thanks very much! Barbara J. Cohen PO Box 391 Peconic, NY 11958 917-562.4290 ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. . C/ETr C A§ - C<' &- <\ 5Q 3585 Orchard Street♦ Orient NY 11971 516.3 7 5.8149 November 23, 2020 Ms. Heather Lanza, Director Town Planning Department Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Via Email: heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us mark.terry@town.southold.ny.us Re: Draft EIS for Subdivision Approval of "The Orchards" - Dated August 2020 Proposed "Cluster" Subdivision" 2595 Orchard Street, Orient NY SCTM # 1000-27- 1-3 Dear Director Lanza and Board Members: We are resident owners of 3585 Orchard Street, a corner property at Halyoke Avenue, opposite the subject site's Halyoke Avenue frontage (SCTM # 1000-27-2-2.10). We have been an active member of the Orient community for over 25 years and spoke to this proposed subdivision in 2015, along with others in the community.' The key findings and recommendations are based on a review of the application materials (including both conditional approved and proposed plans) and the first Draft EIS document, the subject of the upcoming public hearing on December 7, 2020. Moreover, the following recognizes and is in full support of the recent submission by Barbara Friedman (resident of 835 Halyoke Avenue, Orient; SCTM# 1000-27-1-7). z Duplication and repetition is avoided, as Ms. Friedman's detailed response addresses many specific issues in the DEIS, and are supported by the findings in agency reports Public Comments(25+pages)at May 4 2015 Sketch Plan Public Hearing provide cogent responses still relevant today. 2 See Exhibit 1—Friedman Letter—Oct 31,2020 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 1 that confirm the proposed development generates multiple adverse impacts and nominal mitigating measures are offered.3 Therefore, this submission aims to build on Ms. Friedman's analysis, revisit key issues that haven't been addressed, and make comment specific to the Applicant's DEIS and Proposed Preliminary Plat-- all clear evidence that the DEIS and its reliance on a Proposed Preliminary Plat is very problematic and comes up short in evaluating the full impact of the proposed development at the subject site. Key Findings & Recommendations A. Multiple Plans: Conditionally Approved, Proposed, and Premature Referenced in the DEIS (pages 2-3, 2-4, 2-12, 3-5, 3-6, 4-2, Appendix) are different plans used as a basis for different reports. The initial review reflected the "5 Lot" Yield Map (6-5-2005) based on Existing R-80 Zoning, the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan (6-15-2013) (Appendix P) and the Existing Resource & Site Analysis Plan (10-17-2013) based on Sketch Plan Lot Configuration. The Applicant's significant departure from the Conditionally Approved Sketch Plan is represented by the Proposed Preliminary Plat for Standard Clustered Subdivision (1-21- 2015) (Appendix B). This Proposed Preliminary Plat does little to address the many concerns expressed early on and are still relevant today. In fact, this Proposed Preliminary Plat is a clear disregard for the goals for future land use and zoning reflected in the Town's Vision Statement and Comprehensive Plan as well as County and State Conservation planning. Regardless, the Applicant's DEIS seeks to defend the Proposed Preliminary Plat and fails to demonstrate its benefits. More proposed and premature plans are put forth in an effort to provide mitigation and support for the proposed development scheme. • Existing Resources & Site Analysis Plan (11-18-2017) based on Proposed Preliminary Plat Lot Configuration (Appendix C) • Proposed Subdivision Map with Corrected Building Envelopes (July 8, 2020) (Appendix Y) • Proposed Subdivision Map with Sanitary Systems and Water Wells for Suffolk County Department of Health Services June 18, 2019 (Appendix G) s Planning Board Positive Declaration;Local Waterfront Revitalization Program(LWRP)"INCONSISTENT" conclusion; Comments and requests in numerous Planning Board Staff Memos and other Town Departments and jurisdictions,including but not limited to,Alternate Plans and Visual Impact Study. Nancy and Mark Ferraris 2 Plan Inconsistencies Abound --- basic code compliance goes uncorrected, lot sizes change, setbacks are modified and incomplete, irrigation well appears in different locations or missing altogether. Furthermore, seeking review and approval by the Suffolk County Health Department, prior to Town's SEQRA Determination, and Preliminary Plat Approval, is presumptuous and leads to more confusion. Planning Board clarification in assisting public input is required to define purpose of December 7, 2020 hearing --- are we to focus on the quality and incompleteness of the DEIS document, or the Proposed Preliminary Plat, or both? Even though much work has been done and this Proposed Preliminary Plat has served as the basis for the Town s SEQRA Positive Declaration dated July 6, 2015, the LRWP Assessment dated April 15, 2015, and review by various agencies, it is critical that the Planning Board stay firm in its recognition of the shortcomings of the Proposed Preliminary Plat and current DEIS and work further to demand better from the Applicant. The Applicants impatience and reluctance to respond to key issues should not replace nor lessen the Planning Departments authority to make plan modifications according to Article IX Cluster Development, Section 240-42 A. The Preliminary Plat Review phase of the subdivision approval process is critical to shaping the final subdivision map of the subject site and reflects the Town s commitment to the fundamental guiding principles for rational and appropriate land development. B. Balancing Developer Profits and Town Vision The subject site at 13.3 acres is currently guided by the area's R-80 zoning district and is informed by its historical context and the goals represented by the Village of Orient Historic District with its eastern boundary at Tabor Road, just 880 feet from the subject site. Moreover, the surrounding properties defining the existing neighborhood character reflect lot sizes between 1.5 acres to 6 acres providing a rural, not suburban, landscape profile. The initial Yield Map for 5 Lots combined with the goals of the Cluster subdivision approach applied to the larger than 7 acre subject site has put the Applicant/Developer interests and the Town's Vision at odds with each other. Source of Conflict: Number of Lots, Lot Sizes and Split Cluster Configuration The determination by the Applicant to achieve 5 residential lots utilizing the R-40 lot size and setback criteria is at the expense of the natural and scenic values of the open space goals of the Cluster development provision and the Town's Vision. As discussed below, it is even questionable as to whether the Cluster development approach, yielding only 8 acres of open space (including a 4,000 sf Barn building), is the best thinking for the development of the site and its impact on the community. Even though the Cluster provision allows for modification of the underlying zoning district, the key elements of Nancy and Mark Ferraris 3 the existing R-80 district (minimum 2 acre lot size and deeper setbacks) should not be abandoned in its entirety. In considering any proposed plan, it is essential to envision the full build-out and the desire of developer and prospective homeowners to build to the maximum and then to ensure privacy. Once setbacks are defined, the allowable buildable area, following the shape of the lot, sets the parameters for design and construction. With small lot sizes as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat, the building lots may be predisposed to seek ZBA waivers to reduce setbacks and other requirements to accommodate a large house, pool, cabana/other accessory structures, and possible tennis court on a site An undersized lot as defined by a subdivision can become the "hardship" justification for granting the variance, increase levels of activity on each site, prompting evergreen screening along property lines for privacy and noise buffers. For example, in the Proposed Preliminary Plan, the full build-out scenario for the very crowded east and southeast portion of the subject site would result in negating any historical reference to "famous" Hallock Farm and its Halyoke Avenue approach and natural or scenic values along the 701 feet of combined Halyoke Avenue frontage and the Orchard Street portion east of the existing house on Lot 4. 4 Any scenic value associated with the remaining Orchard Street frontage (approximately 400 feet west of Lot 4) is similarly diminished as 8 foot high deer fencing would surround all of Lot 1 (residential house, agricultural barn, and open space), the driveway entrance and gate, the residential building on a 1.35 acre lot and the separate 4,000 square foot barn all stand in the way and interrupt any scenic value perceived to be gained by the relatively small (under 8 acres) open space under the "cluster" configuration of the subject site lots. The split-cluster lot configuration created by allowing a larger residential building lot, agricultural building and access road, all as part of the privately-held Lot 1, is excessive and unacceptable, as all the benefits go to the Applicant/Developer with none to the Town. Moreover, the owner of Lot 1 not only gets value from the residential building on the largest lot with the most surrounding open space, but also can gain additional income by leasing the farmland portion the site. Finally, the owner of Lot 1 can benefit financially from either income tax credits or generate cash by selling the open space conservation easement to a land trust.5 Without further discussion of the serious negative impact on water supply and quality as well as the important role the Open Space Conservation Easement document to define restrictions, the Proposed Preliminary Plat (1-21-2015) itself clearly demonstrates that the benefits to the Applicant/Developer far exceeds the Town's nominal increase in the property tax base. 4 See Exhibit 2—Hallock Farm; Cultural Resources;Historic Bldg Inventory s See Exhibit 3 "14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons(2020)You Should Know" Nancy and Mark Ferraris 4 We strongly suggest that the Planning Board use its authority to modify the Proposed Preliminary Plat and provide a more equitable and fair balance between the Applicant s interests and the Town s Vision. For example, fewer number of lots, more reflective of the R-80 regulations and neighborhood character, achieved by removing the Lot 1 residential building lot, reallocating excess lot area to remaining four lots or less. An alternative design can then be assessed for its impact on critical water issues. C. DEIS — Critical Shortcomings Water Water Everywhere: Not Enough ... Not Safe to Drink Perhaps the most critical shortcoming in the DEIS is the impact of the development (particularly its density) on both water supply and quality, covered in Section 3.2 for a total of 4 '/2 pages. On page 3-4, there is recognition that "The subject site is not served by a community water supply. A potential impact from the project would be depletion of the groundwater supply lying beneath the subject property." However, the DEIS avoids any hydrogeologic analysis regarding the severe limitations of Orient's groundwater supply. In fact, a document search for the word "aquifer" is virtually absent from the DEIS, except for in the Town's Positive Declaration in Appendix A. As the adjacent property to the southeast, we will be the first impacted by the quality of the groundwater as it flows towards Long Beach Bay. Perhaps the most disturbing and confusing series of events occurs between 2016 and 2019, where the Applicant's test well results in 2016 not only show the contamination but also SCDHS remarks regarding the depth to water of less than 40 feet (Appendix L) and the need to restrict lot size conforming to the current R-80 zoning. Then by 2019, different well test results appear to allow for the SCDHS Board Review & Variance (Appendix H) where lot size restrictions are removed.' Is cherry-picking results an acceptable approach to ignoring a well-known and documented concern regarding the fragile Orient water supply? The Applicant's DEIS continues to push the Suffolk County Health Department lot size determination that 13 houses can be supported, but that the proposed plan only provides for 5 houses and an irrigation well for farming. Further, the DEIS spins the facts of contaminated water transformed by water filtration technology to conclude that the filtered water discharged into the groundwater has no impact to water supply nor water quality, it is a benefit created by the development! Really? The Applicant's DEIS addresses water related issues and the use of fertilizer associated with the farming of the open space by simply assigning it to NYSDEC reporting (for subject site only) and best farming management practices. The broad-brush statements about this and other issues require more specification. s See Exhibit 4—Select Pages DEIS;Appendix L and H Nancy and Mark Ferraris 5 On prior occasions, the Planning Board and others have expressed concerns relating to water issues and development densities. For example, as recent as June 27, 2017, the Planning Board disapproved ZBA#7063, a proposed variance request to split a 4.2 acre parcel in a R-80 zone at 2050 Platt Road (SCTM 1000-27-1-9), recognizing the sensitive area of Orient and its sole source aquifer and the impact on ground and surface waters as a result of increased residential density. ' The "Settlers at Oysterponds" subdivision created in 1984, located directly opposite the subject site at Halyoke Avenue and Orchard Street, was also challenged by constraints and concerns surrounding water issues, influencing the density and configuration of the lots. A proposed plan for 47 house lots on 67+- acres was reduced to 10 building lots (minimum 5 acres) due to water and other concerns.$ The Planning Board should require a second DEIS that provides a more in-depth analysis regarding Orient water issues and the impact of the Proposed Development as well as an Alternative Plan representing lower density and better lot configuration that mitigates many of the non-water issues of equal importance to the community. D. Devil in the Details: Open Space Conservation Easement I Covenants, Restrictions & Maintenance Agreements The Open Space Conservation Easement "sample" (2011) provided in Appendix D is irrelevant to subject site's scale and complexity of the proposed development as presented in the Proposed Preliminary Plat. The adjacent property at 2295 Orchard Street (SCTM # 1000-27-1-2.3) is a 6 acre parcel with an allowable 1,000 square foot agricultural building compared to the proposed 4,000 square foot barn building, access drive to a proposed 1.35 acre residential building lot. Although it may be premature during this SEQRA Determination step of the Proposed Preliminary Plat Review to craft the Open Space Conservation Easement as well as the Covenants, Restrictions, and Maintenance Agreements, it is important to evaluate any subdivision plan and how it informs these agreements and provides a level of confidence that implementation and enforcement will be strict and rigorous in defending the goals and objectives of the final approved subdivision. Simply put, a more complex subdivision plan requires a more complex set of agreements that are more likely to be challenged at a later date and uncertain enforcement. More specifically, a subdivision with multiple land uses and activities will prompt special attention and detailed agreements to issues that include, but not limited to the following: 7 See Exhibit 5—ZBA#7063 Determination with Planning Board Disapproval Letter s See Laserfiche—Town Of Southold>Planning Department>Applications>Major Subdivision(MJ)>Approved > 1000-27.-2-2.1 Nancy and Mark Ferraris 6 1. If an Open Space Conservation Easement is applicable, it must be consistent with mitigating efforts to offset the subdivision adverse impacts and therefore very detailed as it anticipates all possible uses (agricultural vs. non-agricultural), types of farming and crops, if livestock—what type, ingress and egress, irrigation, fertilization, tenant leasing, among other items. 2. If a proposed future agricultural building is permitted in the subdivision plan, issues of location, size, building profile, framework for appropriate architectural design (eg. metal Morton building or historically inspired), and the impact anticipated if future modification is sought for conversion to habitable space for either workers associated with the use of the open space or if accessory to a residential building lot. 3. If a residential building lot is not assigned its own tax lot and remains part of the open space parcel, there is much to define in terms of the location of the house structure within the entire open space lot, required utility connection to the house and accessory buildings as well as the potential cost that could prompt future modification in the plan, the relationship of the residential development to the open space and any accessory buildings, shared or different access, etc. 4. Future Development on Lots — anticipating the build-out scenarios and desire of developer/new owners to maximize development either "as-of-right" or by variance, especially if the subdivision plan predisposes building lots to allow waivers and modifications inconsistent with the mitigating efforts to address negative impacts of the subdivision. Individual lot guidelines relating to building design, plantings, etc. may also be considered. 5. Overall Subdivision - Detailed restrictions and responsibilities regarding constructing and maintaining access drives, lighting, street trees, natural and artificial buffers. Planting plans and implementation schedules would be appropriate to ensure that expectations are met and compliance is complete. Therefore, the Planning Board should evaluate the impacts of any Proposed Subdivision plan at every stage of development, as the full implementation is the reality that the community will experience for years to come. Thank you very much for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Nancy and Mark Ferraris Enclosures Nancy and Mark Ferraris 7 EXHIBIT 1 �10V 1110 202 Barbara Friedman �i, �i'F o,iA' f pari 835 Halyoke Avenue i'd1'mu"'uhn�3 boarcd PO Box 11 Orient NY, 11957 November 2, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, NY 11971 Re:The Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000-21-7-3 1 am deeply concerned about the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DIEIS)for the Orchards Subdivision accepted for public review on September 28, 2020. Two aspects of this project appear to not be code compliant: • Based on Town Code-Article XI Cluster Development 2401-42-H.(4): Roads, streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space. The area of the conservation easement is based on 16' right of way for Lot#1 driveway. The State requires a 25 foot clearing.and in a letter dated March 6, 2015 the Town Highway Engineer said the Right of Way should be 25 feet. The additional 9 feet of right of way increases the size of Lot 41 to 1.4744 acres and reduces the conserved area by.1218 acres.This would bring the Conservation Area below the 60% required threshold. • Based on Town Code Article XII Design Standards 240-45 for flag lots: D. Flag lots: The planning Board may permit a limited number of flag lots in a residential subdivision plat provided they're well shaped, they ore generally larger than usual lots... (2) to assure that the flag lot is of adequate size and shape, a flag lot located within the residential zones shall contain at least the minimum lot.area..af the arlicable zoning district an which it is ... b.ulk o the lot, exclusive of the area contained in srtuated, within the ,.�.. the�flg:s,?cagpole oc1, r ,,, Both Lots 2 and 3 are flag lots and they are NOT larger than usual lots, it am not sure what "usual lots" means, but the average size of 17 abutting lots is 2.5 acres, based on current tax maps. I would suggest that Lots 2 and 3 should therefore be at least the minimum required in R- 80 zoning which is 80,000 square feet. Lot#2 is inadequately sized for even R-40 zoning, which requires a minimum lot size of 401,000 sf. When the 3,169 sf access strip is deducted from the area of Lot 42, the result is below the 40,000 sf threshold. 1 This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed without corrections to non-compliant conditions and recalculations of conservation and open space areas for all aspects of the proposal. ****** Addressing the D8Sin terms mfits response to the areas ufconcern outlined in the Positive Declaration: The Positive Declaration states "The impacts of the new sonitary systems proposed on down gradient sorfncewater must beassessed" The DEIS suggests that Suffolk County Sanitary Code would yield 13 homes, and therefore 5 is a mitigation ofimpact. Town Bulk Regulations would only allow 6homes sothe proposal s6ouUd not beheld upagainst the County standards. The DE|5proposes standard sanitary systems and merely states that since the SC0HSgave them approval, itmust beokay. Tomyknowledge,the DEIS does not assess the impacts of sanitary systems on down gradient surface water atall. 2. Impacts on Groundwater Positive Declaration 2a "Potential adverse impacts to groundwater quality and quantity could be severe ond boundless and must be assessed. The probability of the impact occurring is moderate and could affect the area population" AccocdingtotheSoutho|dTownComprehensiveP|an ''VVatersupp|yprojecLimnsindicaie1hat Southold will need additional water sources by203O" 11believe this assumes that the infrastructure is in place to provide Orient with water from the aquifer areas included in the Special Groundwater Protection Areas. Since that infrastructure is not in place,the sole sIuLnce aquifer in Orient needs to be protected too! According tothe ComprehensineP|an,the pace mf "build-out" has already picked up, and the predictions of a few years ago should be adjusted for thenewnorma|mf[OV|DI9,vvhichhasnmtom|ycreatedmorew/aterdemandfrumexisting houses being used full-time, but has also created an even greater urgency 10 build additional homey on existing individual lots.Again the DE|S states that since the S[DHSgave them approval itmust beokay. To my knowledge,the DEIS does not address the quantity of water available based on projected water use for this project and the homes that share this resource. In addition to the five new homes proposed,the DEIS states that the NYSDE1C permit allows maximum mf4million gallons ayear tobeused for crop irrigation, This isastaggering number, equivalent to6212Ohomes. The DEC approval requires testing the irrigation well for»ah-warer intrusion twice a year,acknowledging the threat of salt water intrusion. The DE|S does NOT adequately address the site specific availability of groundwater for the proposed use and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. The DE|5does not address the effects on the quality of the water for the area population.|fsalt water intrusion occurs in the irrigation w/e||' it likely means that there will be salt water intrusion in neighboring residential vve||s too. The applicant should be required to identifv the salt water interface and evaluate the impacts of pumping. The proposed subdivision has the potential to impact the fresh water supply for the whole village. 1 question the DEIS statement on page 3-6 that "SCDHS" approval would not have been issued had the SCDHS review identified significant impact". The SCDHS is looking at narrow legislated parameters covering all of Suffolk County. It is imperative that the Town of Southold protect the available potable water supply for the residents of Orient. Positive Declaration 2d:"Assessment of potential impacts to groundwater from new sanitary systems (pharmaceuticals and personal care products)pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers must be included. Impacts to adjacent properties must also be discussed". The DEIS does NOT address the concerns for potential impacts to groundwater and adjacent properties of discharge of pharmaceuticals, personal care products,VOCs, pesticides or herbicides and fertilizers from the residential properties. The DEIS does not address the use of fertilizers and pesticides except to say that "Best Management Practices" will be implemented.There is no mention of Integrated Pest Management. I am not a farmer, but I am told that sweet corn is especially susceptible to pests and can require frequent pesticide applications(more than once a week). Is this really appropriate in a residential area, and in particular within 100' of two private wells?The wells for 2650 Orchard and Lot#2, along with the irrigation well for the proposed farmland are within 100' of the proposed farmed acreage (these areas should be mapped, cannot be used as farmland and should be deducted in all area calculations). Even with Integrated Pest Management, most of the pesticides used to control corn pests are toxic sprays. The DEIS does not(propose the use of I/A sanitary systems,proposes a crop that requires an abundance of fertilizer and pesticides and offers"turf grass" in the unfarmed open space. There is no mention of how the new sanitary systems might mitigate the impact of the pharmaceutical, personal care products etc. Positive Declaration 2f.A discussion of the current groundwater quality, contamination and impacts on the proposed action and adjacent properties must be included: The water on the site was in fact found to contain excessive nitrates and Aldicarbs.The DEIS states that the homes will require filters for excessive Aldicarbs. According to SCDHS private Water Systems Standards 406.4-15 if water exceeds MCL and treatment is required a "covenant regarding water treatment must appear on all realty subdivision and development maps" I don't see this covenant on any site maps.The test well for Lot 2 also exceeded the allowable for Nitrates, and yet an I/A Sanitary system was not proposed. What will the effects be on neighboring properties quality and quantity of drinking water?The overall impact of the additional demand for water has not been assessed and the overall impact of wastewater has not been assessed. Why is there no consideration given for conservation or alternative sources of irrigation water,such as using drip irrigation,gray water recycling and rain water collection? Why isn't there any mention of drought-resistant plantings or limitations on irrigation and fertilization for the areas anticipated to be "turf grass." Why was a potentially water and pesticide intensive crop selected for farming? Why weren't I/A sanitary systems proposed at the outset, and if the SCDHS has approved the site plan,will I/A sanitary systems be ne_gL'(r°„d (after July 2021)? 3 3 Irripac't on fit„ricult:ur'al Resources Positive Declaration 3a "The conversion of farmland to residential use is INCONSISTENT with the Town of Southold Local Waterfront revitalization Program Policies” AS mentioned above,the conserved area will not meet tuie 60% criteria for open Space when the Lot#1 and Lot#2 are corrected for code compliance unless some building lots are eliminated. The configuration of the conserved area is not conducive to agricultural use with several notches that will be difficult to plant.and maintain. Why is Lot 41 separate from the other lots? Why is the designated area for the barn separate from the Lot 1 house? This does not seem to conform to the intent of the code. The DEIS argues that the sale of four homes/ home lots is necessary to support the agricultural uses. When this proposal was first submitted,the owner said that this was going to be a family compound,which presumably would not generate income to support the agricultural uses. Lot #1, which has been presented as the owner's personal residence is not clustered with the other lots, instead it is in the northwest corner of the site to take advantage of conservation easements of neighboring properties rather than be clustered with the other homes.The split cluster layout of the site does not suggest a family compound, it looks more like a plantation except that the low lying land to the southeast will not be populated by farm workers, but by wealthy second home owners who can afford 1-2 million dollar homes. At the planning board meeting on April 6, 2015 the owner stated that"we are not going to do spec houses"and yet the DEIS suggests that is the intent. The owner.should clarify how many houses he intends to build himself, and will they be built on spec or for his family? The proposed layout appears to maximize the profit from new homes, not maximize the continuity of the open space or its viability as farmland. 4., Impact on Archeological Resources Based on historical maps,this appears to be "virgin" land, never having been built on. However, there are adjacent parcels which are included in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Southold as having historic value. See attached documentation of the Hallock(Farm, and description below. 5. Impacts on Aesthetic Resources Positive Declaration So. 'The potential impact for the siting and scale of homes could be moderate to large based on lot size." While the DEIS indicates that the five homes will be "modest sized"with footprints of approximately 1750 sf and overall square footage of 3,500 sf. Once the lots are subdivided, it seems that the Town has almost no control over what will be built on the individual hots. There is presently almost no limitation on the sizes of the homes, and while there are very stringent oversight of what is built in the nearby Historic District,there are no rules at all about the design quality of these homes. These "structural design components", potentially very LARGE homes, will have clear negative impact on the "visual quality and scenic resources" at the very center of Orient. Based on 20% lot coverage,the FOOTPRINTS of these houses can be up to: Lot 1 approximately 11,783 sf(not including additional ROW acreage) Lot 2 approximately 8,600 sf(based on current non-compliant plat) 4 Lot approximately 0'960sf Lot approximately 8'000sf Total Buildable (Housa)Area =46,343 sf Barn footprint 4 -1- sf Total Area of Buildings =50'343 sf equals 1.16 acres Table 1 of the DEIS has the Total Area of buildings at.2927 acres,which seems to be based on 5 houses with footprints mfI'75Osf+4,000sfbarn. Page 4'I0nfthe DBSstates"Aprimary purpose of the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is to ensure properties are developed in manner that provides the appropriate amount of open space between building lots with appropriately sized buildings.Thus the size and location for each of the proposed homes are limited" Unfortunately this is not the case,the houses can be almost unlimited in size based on the Bulk Schedule. Positive Declaration 5o continued: "Minimize introduction of design components (including utility lines, lighting, r/gnogeond/iencing) which would 6ediscordant with the existing scenic components and character) On page 4-10 of the DEKS°the project shall provide aesthetically pleasing views of the open space and active farmland" Clearly,there will need to be an 8 foot fence surrounding the agricultural land. The statement that this will be an "aesthetically pleasing view" oFan8foot fence and the owner's home in the distance, is highly subjective. For the residential lots, landscaped buffers pier 240-43 are not indicated and potential hedges and fences are not addressed. Additionally,the 4,0DOsfbarn is directly on anis with the view from Old Farm Road. Positive Declaration 5o continued: "Protect visual quolity associated with agricultural land, open space and natural resmurces." Two of the properties associated with the Hallock Farm are within 500 feet of the proposed subdivision. These properties, along with several others just outside of the 500' buffer, are indicated on figure 5.1 of the Southold Comprehensive Plan as listed by the Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities.The Hallock Farm was an innovative and prosperous farm that helped shape the community nfOrient. AsIhave mentioned inpast correspondence, Halyoake Avenue was formerly the driveway approach to Hallock Farm from Orchard Street. Attached isfigure 5.land additional information about the Ha||ockFarm Complex.The rural nature of the Orchard and Ha|yoake corner is still mostly intact,and will be permanently spoiled bythe addition offour potentially massive houses. This proposal does not"enhance the visual quality and protect scenic resources"and there are nu safeguards in place to insure that the structures that will be built will not seriously detract from the visual qualities ofthe area. VVewould like tosee a full visual irnp showing the impact ofthe maximum!sized homes and barn. Considering the proximity to the Orient Historic District and to the Hallock Farm Complex, the houses and the barn should all be contextual in design, restricted in height above natural grade, and limited infootprint inorder tumaintain the aesthetics and character ofthe area. 5 Based on design standards established by 240-45 both of the non-compliant flag lotsshould be eliminated. 7. Assessment of the No Action Alternative These six points outlined in the DBS are ofquestionable mitigation value: l.^Retumfallow agricultural land toproductive use" |sthere anything stopping this owner from farming this land asis? 2. ^Pe/manendyprotect6O%oftkeag/icu|iuca| |andcomphsingthesubjectpropedyfromfu1u/e development though anenvironmental conservation eauement" Even more of the property could be open space or the land could be sold to a trust or individual who would preserve all ofthe land asopen space. 3."Create new modest size residential homes to provide additional housing in the community" If these lots are sold at current prices for real estate in Orient, they will not be modestly priced.The estimate of cost to build these homes in the DEIS is very conservatively posited at$150/sf. Homes recently built inOrient are about twice that. Sowith the cost ofland being around $6ODper acre, and the cost nfa3,50Oufhome at$1,O5O,O80,this isnot the type mfhousing that Orient"neeJs"' 4. "Control of vegetation to enhance scenic vistas from the abutting roadways. " This DG8claims that the view sheds will be improved because the land will be cleared of overgrowth and if no action is taken "existing vegetation would go unchecked and eventually consume the property". | don't believe anyone would object to the owner maintaining his vacant property. 5. "Increase the annual tax revenue" This cannot bedenied. However the increase in density and use of limited resources doesn't offset this gain. The conversion of farmland to residential use in order to produce tax revenue on the one hand is contradictory to the use of preservation funds to conserve farmland on the other. 6. "Removal of contaminants from the aquifer via filtration of domestic water for proposed homes" While Aldicarbs will be filtered out by a system that is provided free to the homeowners-there could 6enegative impacts from other contaminants. The following concerns mentioned in the Full Environmental Assessment Form,were not mentioned inthe Positive Declaration: When itwas farmed,the eastern end ofthis site was prone topondingand flooding. While the site is not in a currently designated FEMA flood zone, itissusceptible tostorm surge. Part oflot #5is |ncatedw/ithinana/eaexpecteJto6eimpacte6byaotormsurge6'8feetabovenormai with the majority ofthe lots Z'3and 4instorm surge zone 3 (9 12feetabovenorma|) . j_M_ppcts on Plants and Animals While there may, or may not be any threatened or endangered species inhabiting this site,there are certainly plenty ofdeer there.The DE|3suggests that the wildlife(sqmi,re|s, rabbits and birds) will move to the adjacent conserved properties and then repopulate the site, avoiding the subject of deer altogether. The 8' deer fence that will inevitably surround the farmed area will not allow the deer to repopulate this site. As more and more fences are erected the deer become more of a problem for homeowners who do not wish to, or cannot fence in their properties, and to drivers as the deer dart across the roads instead of open fields. In addition the street trees should not be in ROW-they are supposed to be on private property-see Town Code-Article III Roadway Construction 161-44 B. This subdivision should not be allowed to proceed as proposed. We have owned our 200 year old farmhouse for 26 years and in that time development has very slowly changed the character of the Village of Orient. We are now at a tipping point where the pace of development has increased while we approach a precipitous limit in resources. 7 acres of corn is a Trojan Horse that does not justify the density of development outlined in this subdivision proposal. What is described in the DEIS as "mitigation" is only the bare minimum required by code (and sometimes not even that! I believe it is antithetical to the goals of the Southold Town Comprehensive Plan-Community Character and severely detrimental to the beauty,character and sustainability of the Orient community. Sincerely, Barbara Friedman 7 EXHIBIT 2 Rqure 5 Y CuftuW Map ............ ................ ........... AIP/e/ 1152/t 4, vp jE ajoSM u n I A, /"o Fisheto Wand j H a oc m �qg ddd JO allocl Farm o ,wA Ter Hallock Farm P,I v Y.,'v (V"'i Myq""""I,I ii fl v° 1 s. ryrye�} p�qq �ryy g�yy +,�. �y 4d 11 �... ` N 1 t,p R N H 1• �� 11A 0; II rIP nj�r q� w fi N. I)own the road. the old 1 lallock Farm hasn't fared as well rC iiia aei'C was conSre i. iMN ,nr F mfi��rYc saa��� � t"i1 t i" aI ;te°t. some o l��aL poolr.•st ort �a��riaf, tri Island at the end of the last century, so the I lallocks brought g in tons of stable manure.until it had some of the richest earth 1 � in Orient 'then they introduced ovcrhe�id irrigation, built a dock for their stcamship" and exported their prtrducc to New England. In their prosperity, they starieiul dicer own small If acct~~lelle plant and even bought a printing press, which i everriura�lly became the cornerstone of an advanced, pro- FI-c"sive harslet. P Robert Berks, who has imade monuments of Einstein, Lin iaeus, and John and Robert Kennedy, came here with his Y wife, Tod, 4,1, 066, Thev built a life around music and art a vers mucl.1 in t ac I lda oc tear.utu iii laa�ut changed, though when Charles lloroa sitz bought tthe 67 acres between their M house and l lallock Bay. A South fork developer of unusual sensitivity, Horowitz q wanted to build what he considered attractive and authentic '" cluster houses with unexcelled water views. He did not quitei understand how Tod Berks and others in this community feel aiaua¢.rt their water. rich acs t e s a owest water to a In out o , s e explains. "Our fresh water is a thin lens on top of a kettle of salt water. At the end of the dry season, farmers often draw The Farms+ands Preservation Bill lutshelpedsaveNorth Forkfietds. salt water from their wells. We pump our own water here— and if we run out, replacement would be the most expensive rape apartment and two cats. But just over a year ago, she on Long Island. ;Mr. I lorowitz has parcels of land that float in became alarmed at the prospect that a 160-unit condominium anv rainstorm. It's our fear that his cesspools will drain into called Seacroft would be built in Cutchoguc. In five days, she I lallock Bav, a shellfish nursery that, according to one study, gathered 1100 signatures on a petition against it and took her produces 52 million of shellfish a year." petition to town hall—only to be told that she'd missed the In the face of such opposition,Horowitz abandoned cluster public hearing held a month before and was therefore out of housing and divided the property into five,acre parcels. Tod order. Now, more than a year too late, her committee was Ya Berks and her concerned neighbors in Orient knew wheat that trying to make itself heard. meant: With five-acre zoning, a developer doesn't have to SJ a�tynowicz spoke briefly. Robert Piked a fawyer with 'r provide potable water. They petitioned the town—unsuc- Iwoilwy„ l ',vh,.am & Shea a Riverhead law firm that speciaal- cessfully—to force Horowitz to alert buyers to their potential i?Os ill p,.ubfrc°-jntcrer't law" added a fees details, Then the V naectinrg was turned into a i"ommunuty debate on topics as "These problems' can be 'solved' with a S775 Culligan familiar here as work botats: water ar�cl ,alicn space. water purifier," I lorowitz says. "What's interesting is that at The county ,.and town have decided it takes one full acre no point have any of these people picked up the phone and to provide mwaa tor for twra¢t f"rr rRv,°" Irahn Wickham prier°ated out r called me. The problem isn't what I'm doing—when I get "Now sire lipid ilae IoNvra board iahthely aallouing six units an done, I'll be proud of what I did there—but that these people aac'rc, Vl-n ear"r upset this is happening to one of the most %%ant this land forever without paying for it. And the result is fie"aufiR0 villagcs on the: North Shore." l that instead of building housing that sells for as little as Robert Pike poiritcd to ari archilect"s; snap that showed 316 595,000, I'm going to be building luxury homes." open acres -suitable, it had beer[ said, for leasing to a vincyard or faar-Inerm—snakirig, bet"cen the condos, "T'he only a;a;aen space I can sere in that si(e plain "' paha. sai�:1 "is between & p i a,"is bttveen T'he Actvist the statement that there is some and the truth." Vazul S'torutenhur°gh noted sadly that a Haan who buys a pierce IIF. DFA'Ol' LANE SCHOOL, IN CUTCHOGUE, ISN'T ANY- of kind has Aso lin"nigh( the right to use it. Dann), Lyda n carded one's idea of a hot spot, but one weekday evening in coridos as derad[yr an kiviudcr as any enerny. ,"snd in the May, it was the only place to be. Frank Bear,chairman vituperative venting that folio^:wed, the specific steps that of the Southold Water Advisory Committee,was there, might be taken to stop (lie development were for a tirne t John Wickham, who has g f©r ottCn. . t headed [lie planning In all that emotion,one thing board in Southold for 24 years n ( ps seemed 'CO be heard Clearly. r �; % r �"" d ,l eves there. By 7:30, the kinder � r� P r �at;u, �"""'` r°�a „Vii, `� '� ' "We have a unique opportunity garten chairs had been here," Robert Pike said, "to f � a plundered, and there were 120 v ; l �f, , a learn from every mistake that's people jammed into the lunch- been made all along the is- room—all to hear a self-de- land."The persistent refusal of y " scribed hermi who had never the people of the North Fork to r led a rnectim, hvfore. be like their southern neigh- Nancy S�o astynowicz is an bars maty not, in the clad, stop h unlikely actin She grew up in this future from hai l I erring—, ra 200-near-aa d house, spends m but it a;rar°tariraly alerts anyone, two nights as week taking care else with the bright idea to re- of a 92 sc,rU"old wornan„ re in akt this place that he's goer g finishes wiry I boats in summer, atone on a marshy share. to have a helluva fight on his and, at 34. j oes home to a ga- New York July 2 , 1984 hands. am is OR 78A V6"v ARTS & LETTERS II-9 The Way It Was, Continued From II-1 75 YeaaAgo 1913 these because it affects values throughout the nation because it has left a broad trail of dishonesty and ruin among men of business and every � allc of,life, Everyone4n East Hampton Is Eligible Old people, stooped with suffering/ Middle age, courageously fighting/ Children, unable to explain/ All in'inisery from their kidneys. Down's Kidne Pil John W, Hand has installcd upon his farm at.Northwest a Skinner overhead irrigation system, The plant will cover one and wane-half acres. It is the sarric system used on the, l arnous Ul'allock hirni in Orient,and if M r Iland finds itwork succe sfulay, Ite will extend it U_ to cover a considerable Portion of his farm given-'to small fruits. BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION UNIQUE SITE NO. OR-77 QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES ALBANY, NEW YORK (519) 474-0479 NEG. NO. YOUR NAME: Town of Southold/SPLIA .— DATE YOUR ADDRESS LO' Hall, Main Rd. TELEPHONE:516 765 1892 Southold, LI, NY 119Tf— ORGANIZATION (if any): Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION I- BUILDING NAMF(S): , O ,d School 2. CO UNTY Suffolk-- TOWN/CITY: VILLAGE: 3. STREF i T LOCATION: J-JL1Lypakp-kVe___,_n0r..th Ijot st--'and PlaLL_Rd. 4. OWNERSHIP: a. public r b. private U 5. PRESENT OWNER Labe Halvoake_Ay_c� nt__ _P -r-t-Ber-Ls— -,,,.-, ADDRESS 6. USI;: : Original Present: arriqt`,q qtudio 7. ACCT SSIBILITY TO PUBLIC: Exterior visible from public road: Yes No DESCRIPTION Interior accessible: Explain X. BUILDING a. clapboard 10 b. stone El c. brick D d. board and batten El MXTEMAL, e., cobblestone El f. shingles El g, stucco EJ other 1). STRUCTURAL a, wood frame with interlocking joints El SYSTEM: b. wood frame with light ineiribers JD (if kimwn) c, masonry load bearing walls El d. nicial (explain) e. other 10. CONDITION: a. excellent ❑0 b. goold k] c.� �rair n d, deteriorated El 11. INTEGRITY a. original site EJ b. moved ' if so,when? 1965 from Main Road . c. list major alterations and dates (if known). 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX-8, fm S 13. MAP: NYS DO'T Orient quad La t t rt, cem C _J HE w— a KAP- , Hill 1 OR-77 14. THREATS TO BUILDING: a. none known 0 b. zoning ❑ c, roads d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn❑ b. carriage house ❑ c. ,garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e, shed I❑ f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop ❑ h. gardens El i. landscape features: j. other: 16. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a.open land Axl b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings Eld.densely built-up ❑ ed commercial ❑ f. industrial CD g. residential R] h.other: 2 src, v Ufa i _eaten can 1 r 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if'building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density agricultural area east of the Orient Historic District, surrounded predominantly by open land . Stone poets front the property along Ha.lyoake Ave . The artist' s sculp- tures dot the property around this building. 18, OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large -story, hipped roof schoolhouse. Belfry with pyramidal roof. verhangin,g roof with exposed rafter ends . Double leaf door with sidelights and transom. Entrance porch with paired columns on high pedestals. f2 windows. Modern extension on ;rear for artist' s studio. SIGNIFICANCE ). DATE OF INITIAL ('ONSTRUCTION:,____W .- —� .tln� eIII�I l ARCIIITTECT:_ aMC, L __y0, j_8_T2..-. BUILDER: _0. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE; This adaptive re-use of an old schoolhouse as an artists studio contributes� to the ambience of the area. 21. SOURCES: Historical Record. Oysterponds Historical Society. 1959. Maurkiem Failey. Old School Houses Nassau and Suffolk Counties. 1976 22. THEME: Form PrePared by }hurt Kghofer, research assistant BUILDING-STRUCTURE INVENTORY FORM FOR OFFICE USE ONLY UNIQUE SITE NO, OR-78 DIVISION FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION QUAD NEW YORK STATE PARKS AND RECREATION SERIES ALBANY, NEWYORK (518)474-0479 NEG, NO. YOUR NAME: Town of Southold/SPLIA DATE; 'January 1988 YOUR ADDRESS, Town Hall, Main Rd, TELEPHONE: 516 765 1892 -S_ou_tTf6_Td_LT_NY TIM ORGANIZATION (if air Southold Town Community Development Office IDENTIFICATION L.H. Hallock/Berks House I BUILDING N� 2 COUNT 'k �outhold t ---- --- TOWN�(]`I'Y. VILLAG, �i STREET LOCATION, H�alyoake A et. UHEE-ar-d-79-t -T-Platt RIC 4. OWNFRSIHP: a, public El b, private It 5PRESENT OWNER Robert Berks ADDRESS: flalyoakq ave,�, QrieiiL 6, USF: Original: residence Present: 7. ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC, Exterior visibl'e from public road: Yes FC] No ❑ DESCRIPTION Interior accessible: Explain 8, BUILDING a. clapboard FX1 b. stone 1:1 c. brick 0 d. board and batten 0 MATERIAL: e. cobblestone El f. shingles 0 g. stucco ED other: 1). STRUCTURAL a. wood frame with interlocking joints El SYSTEM. h. wood frame with light inernbers (if known) C. masonry load (bearing walls El d. metal (explain)-_, e. other 10. CONDITION a. excellent k:1_'i) good_ED -cfai"'r El d. deteriorated 10 1 1. INTEGRITY, a. original site J] 1). moved F-1 if s o,wh c n? c. list major alterations and dates (if known): 12. PHOTO: neg: KK IX-7, fm S 13. MAP: NYS DOT Orient quad 11 MI I NR L "�,k,11 � %11 - I �. Y,14 V'I lace 4'ern Centrist 1 Eern w, �.,o rl xd wry ............... . ...... Ow", A* / 7 5 lip 1 2 OR-78 t4. THREATS TO BUILDING! a. none known Z1 b. zoning ❑ c. roads I❑ d. developers ❑ e. deterioration ❑ f. other: 15. RELATED OUTBUILDINGS AND PROPERTY: a. barn❑ b. carria c house c. garage ❑ d. privy ❑ e. sled f. greenhouse ❑ g. shop I❑ h. gardens ❑ i. Landscape features: j. other: former school artists studio--T—OR-773 IG. SURROUNDINGS OF THE BUILDING (check more than one if necessary): a.open land ® b. woodland ❑ c. scattered buildings ❑ d.densely built-up I❑ e. commercial ❑ f. industrial ❑ g. residential K h.other. agricultural. 17. INTERRELATIONSHIP OF BUILDING AND SURROUNDINGS: (Indicate if building or structure is in an historic district) Located in a low density, agricultural area east of the Orient Historic district. Open land surrounds the house, dotted with large trees. 1 S. OTHER NOTABLE FEATURES OF BUILDING AND SITE (including interior features if known): Large, 2z story, 5 bay, gable roof house with wide facade gable. Planking, single bay, 1%Z story wings with similiar facade gables. Projecting, twin, semi-octagonal bay windows at corners of main house. 1/1 windows with hood molds and double leaf front door under segmental arch. Porch across front of main house with -see attachment- 11). I1). DATE OF INITIAL CONSTRUCTION~ Last quarter of 19th century. ARCHITECT; .,. ,. BU i..DER:— Q. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE: Toward the end of the last century, the prosperous Hallock family built"a dock on their waterfront on Long Beach Bay to export produce. The large old farmhouse has been the home of the prominent scul- ptor, Robert Berks, and his family since 1967. For the artist's studio, see form OR-77. Also see form OR-78 for- Hallock Farm. ?I. SOURCES: Southampton Press. 9/3/87. E. BeNcher y❑ , Atas oto Suffolk Gount L.l. dol» , North Side, Sottrtd. Share, 9C9. 2, d I" Co. , ala of Lon, ls .attd, 1897. Form prepared by Kurt Kahofer, research assistant. EXHIBIT 3 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ SFPo' CH GFT DIY CASK OFFER o 14 CONSERVATION EASEMENTS PROS AND CONS (2020) YOU SHOULD KNOW BLDG JULY 24,2020 BY ERIKA o 3432 VIEWS C7 0 LIKES S� 0 COMMENTS Even the most experienced land buyers may not know all of the pros and cons of conservation easements. In fact, we didn't know a lot of what is covered below until we began researching this blog post! But, to start with, a conservation easennnennL is a voluntary agreement that permanently limits the use of the land to protect its conservation values. Placing a conservation easement on a piece of land allows the owner to continue to control it (but usually not develop it) and also take advantage of a tax deduction. This deduction is calculated according to the value that the land would have had if it had been developed. THE � TOP 1 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� Now, conservation easements have gotten quite a bit of notice in the past four years. This is, in part, because of President Donald Trump. He created a conservation easement for his Mar-A-Lago estate in 1993 and has popularized this structure. When the property was appraised at $ 5 nlilli011 it] :1,993, he donated an easement prevented him from selling antiques inside the historic buildings or adding more buildings to the compound. This easement ultimately reduced the valuation of Mar-a-Lago to $19.25 million. President Trump received a tax deduction for the difference of$5.75 million once the easement was in place. See the benefit? This is reportedly a tried and true tactic of the real estate tycoon turned politician. Conservation easements alone have generated $loo million in write-offs for President Trump. If you're looking for the same benefits for your property, what are you waiting for? Start by watching this video: THE TOP 2 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ f aQ air MY CASH OFFER j� Then, you can read about the top conservation easements pros and cons and decide if it's for you! PROS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS You receive a tax deduction The main benefit of a conservation easement (aside from protecting the land!) is the tax deduction you'll receive. Typically, you can deduct 6o% of Your income for :u..6 years up to the appraised value of the easement. So, if you make $6o,000 a year, you can deduct $30,000 for 16 years. This results in total deductions of$48o,000. However, if the appraised value of the easement THE TOP is less than $48o,000, the total deductions 3 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� You can customize conservation easements to meet your needs Initially, conservation easements sound like you're giving up a lot of rights. However, they're not as inflexible as they may sound. You can entirely customize the easement depending on your plans and goals for your property. The goal of the conservation easement is for everyone to benefit —both you (as the owner) and the land trust or government agency. One big pro is that you'll still have flexibility and control over your property. Public access isn't created with a conservation easement Some landowners opt for public access as a condition of their conservation easement. However, this is a rare part of the process, and it is not in any way a "rule of thumb." If you're concerned about public access being an obstacle in the conservation easement process, it isn't a requirement of a conservation easement. Ultimately, the easement will follow your needs as the property owners. THE TOP 4 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� Simply put, your land is still private land. You're just preventing future development by foregoing future development rights on the land you already own. You're not in any way creating a public park or other recreational space. An easement doesn't give the government access to your land This is another common concern! Just because you're creating a conservation easement, it doesn't mean you're giving the government direct access to your land (in most cases). The majority of conservation easements are held by a non-profit land trust. Non-profit land trusts are 501(c)(3) organizations designated by the IRS, so they have a similar role that other NGOs and tax- exempt companies do in that they provide charitable work. The instances where a government entity holds an easement would be rare. The most that would happen is that the government would scrutinize or audit your conservation easement transaction, yet that could also occur if you worked with a non-profit or made unusual changes to your financial profile. THE TOP 5 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� A conservation easement isn't "signing your land over to the government"by any stretch of the imagination. You don't have to sacrifice agricultural production Some people shy away from conservation easements because they profit off of the land in the form of agriculll.ural production or ranching. However, this doesn't mean you can't have an easement at all. If your property is productive in its current form, then you should absolutely keep it that way;just be sure to work it into your easement. Remember, conservation easements can be flexible and work around your goals. All the conservation easement does is prevent future development in other ways. You can still work on the land in the way you've already been doing so as long as it's outlined in your easement. To qualify as a rancher or farmer, you must receive more than 50 percent of your gross income from the "trade or business of farming." The following activities qualify as farming: • Cultivating the soil • Raising or harvesting any agricultural or horticultural commodity THE � TOP • Handling, drying, packing, grading, or storing 6 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� farm regularly produces more than one-half of the commodity so treated) Planting, cultivating, caring, and cutting down trees for the market If you meet this criterion and you want your conservation easement to reflect it, then it must contain a restriction requiring that the land remain "available for agriculture." It's also worth noting that, if you qualify as a rancher or farmer, you may be eligible to receive tax deductions of up to loo% of your income in exchange for the conservation easement. # You can financially benefit from a conservation easement(even with a low income!) Even if your income isn't high enough to justify the tax benefits, you have options. A conservation easement may still be a good option for you. If your parcel of land has high conservation value, then a land trust may pay you for a conservation easement. There's a great benefit to the public in preventing land development in certain areas, which is why land trusts may buy the development rights from the landowner using private donations or grants. While you may not get a tax credit or deduction, you're getting cash in your pocket. THE TOP 7 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� This allows a landowner to monetize his donation while also providing tax relief to high- income third parties who are willing to purchase the credits at a discount. Both these routes are pros that you may want to keep in mind if you're interested in conservation easements,but don't necessarily have a high enough income to receive tax benefits. CONS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENTS The land trust will need to physically inspect your property Some people don't like having people on their land constantly. The bad news is that your land trust will need to physically inspect your land at least once a year. So, there will be a few inconveniences with a conservation easement. The hidden pro? You can make it a condition of your easement that your land trust doesn't visit you repetitively to review the condition of the property. Furthermore, most non-profits don't have the resources to visit multiple times. THE TOP 8 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� If you're sincerely worried about this, then be sure to negotiate your expectations upfront. Otherwise, you'll likely find that the once a year inspection is more than enough for the land trust and not all that inconvenient for you! You can overstate the value of the conservation easement To claim the tax benefits for a conservation easement (on both the state and federal level), you must file forms to document the transaction. If the deduction is larger than $500,000, you must provide an appraisal along with IRS Form 8283. Now, agencies are paying closer attention than ever before to ensure that values are not intentionally or accidentally overstated. When going through the conservation easement process,you must have a defensible appraisal of the land in question. So, not only will you have to pay for an appraisal of the property, but you'll still have to actively avoid overstating the value of your conservation easement. Both can cost you! You may not qualify for a conservation easement THE TOP Did you know not everyone can take advantage 9 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� This is one of the largest cons of the entire process. You can only take advantage of this easement if you meet one of these four categories from a financial standpoint. The following is found in the IRS Code, Section 1.17oA-14(d). • You are preserving a relatively natural habitat of wildlife, fish, or plants • You wish to preserve forests or agricultural lands that have open spaces • You want to allow public access to a portion of your land • You are protecting the property in response to a clearly delineated government policy that is identified in local open-space plans In general, conservation easements must provide public benefits. "Public benefits" include water quality, farm and ranchland preservation, scenic views, wildlife habitat, protecting endangered species, outdoor recreation, education, and historic preservation. You can choose the incorrect land trust Not all land trusts are created equal! For every awesome land trust out there that will work with you every step of the way, there are equally awful land trusts. Some land trusts want to create benefits that THE TOP 10 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ Cl�N = Q GET MY CASH OFFER Otlliers are i l le ible atid confrontational na.l about your property. This can put property owners in a tough situation, especially when you're not familiar with the process. Of all the conservation easements pros and cons on this list, this is one you can (hopefully) avoid based purely on research. Land trusts are non-profit organizations that actively work to conserve land. It is their job to ensure that all the restrictions described in a conservation easement are actually carried out. The land trust will take legal action (if necessary) to enforce the easement. Thus, it's important to select the right land trust as you'll work closely with them to ensure you've come to the right agreement and can move forward comfortably. This is a big decision — don't take it lightly! First, choose a land trust that offers a proven understanding of forestry practices and agricultural issues. After all, if this is their specialty, they should show it through their practices. Next, work with a non-profit that is certified by the Land Trust Accreditation THE TOP Commission. 11 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� Doing your due diligem.le can pay off on this one. And for other due diligence tips, you can watch our video below. 7 Tips for BUYING Land Your ability to use your property can change without a structured conservation easement Sometimes you don't know what you've got until it's gone, and this is exactly what property owners realize when it comes to conservation easements. Over the years, landowners have discovered that they're unable to use their property the way they want after their conservation easement. Even if you're fully in control of the negotiation process and able to see what you're getting THE TOP 12 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� Here are some examples of issues that have occurred with conservation easements. • Restriction on wind turbines or other economically viable technologies • Inability to use ATVs, snowmobiles, or other recreational vehicles • No access to inspection records of your property • Confidentiality breaches such as a public petition for structures or other land uses without your consent Keep in mind that these issues are rare. However, they do occur, which means they're worth acknowledging during the negotiation process. There may be a limited selection of buyers available There are so many pros of conservation easements. However, the relationship that a landowner has with a land trust often complicates the process of selling the property. As a result, you may find that your pool of interested buyers is limited if you decide that you're ready to move on from the property. In some cases, future owners may want to develop the land, which won't be possible. THE TOP 13 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j You may encounter lender problems Unfortunately, the banking community does not always understand the nuances of conservation easements nor conservation easement pros and cons. Just like buyers, lenders often view conservation easements as a hurdle rather than something that benefits the property as a whole. As a result, landowners have found that it's difficult to refinance their property if it has an easement. Or you may find that you have difficulty with your appraisal or bank terms with your lending agreement (if one is authorized at all). Together, these obstacles make it challenging to buy or sell the property. They may also increase the cost of these actions or make it hard to obtain future financing. # You may lose access to some rights When you purchase land, you purchase different types of rights. You may have surface rights, oil and gas rights, mineral rights, and even water rights. THE TOP 14 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ f aQ air MY CASH OFFER j� When you create a conservation easement, you may lose access to certain rights. While you'll likely retain certain surface rights like farming and ranching, development is almost always limited. Furthermore, surface mining is almost always off the table and the goal is to protect the land overall. This can be frustrating for some buyers and even result in the value of your land decreasing to nothing. FINAL THOUGHTS There you have it! All of the conservation easements pros and cons. Overall, conservation easements allow people to protect the land that they love THE TOP 15 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM 14 Conservation Easements Pros and Cons (2020)You Should Know https://gokcecapital.com/conservation-easements-pros-and-cons/ M N, Q air MY CASH OFFER j� This process provides numerous advantages but must be balanced with the specific disadvantages of each property and landowner. Doingyouur due diligence and finding the right land trust are important parts of the process. In the end, each property and conservation easement is unique, and you'll want to thoroughly review the pros and cons to make sure it is right for you. Did we miss anything? Let us know in the comments. For more information on buying, selling, or investing in vacant land, check out our other resources below. We're here to help throughout the entire land buying and selling process! If you are looking to buy affordable land, you can check out our 1JAings page. 11po"c:; Riiii If you are interested in land investing, you can check out our article on How to Get Started in 1,and Investing. WELLMAKE YOUA THE � TOP N 16 of 19 10/28/2020, 10:38 AM EXHIBIT 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 property. it is accessed via several narrow dirt pathways that run through the property and connect to the larger dirt roadway. A cleared dirt area approximately 3,000 square feet in size exists in the western section of the property. The cleared area is accessed via a narrow dirt pathway that runs south toward Orchard Street and connects to an access path on the adjacent property to the west. 2.4 Permits and Approvals The approval process can best be represented as a two-phase process. The first phase is approval of the subdivision map. The second phase is approval for constructing the improvements depicted on the subdivision map. Multiple approvals and permits are required at the State, County and Local levels. Phase 1- Subdivision Map Approval The project is subject to review by the Suffolk County Planning Commission. The Suffolk County Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project and determined it to be a matter for local determination (see Appendix E). The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) must review and issue approval for the sub-division map (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 2018). The project was originally submitted to the SCDHS circa 2013. Since the original submission, the project has been resubmitted to the SCDHS, with modifications, on multiple occasions. The latest SCDHS review notice issued December 13, 2018 is presented in Appendix F. In order to address many of the SCDHS comments and proceed to the Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of review, the Applicant prepared an a dated subdivision ma illustratin the information re uired b the SCDHS (last revised June 18, 2019 - see Appendix G) and refiled it with SCDHS. The updated subdivision map indicates the locations of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells. In addition the Applicant drilled two deeper potable water supply test wells that were subsequently sampled by the SCDHS. The results from the water sampling necessitated the Applicant to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review as the water quality did not conform to minimum drinking water standards (discussed elsewhere in this document). A variance allowing development of a five residential lot subdivision as shown on the proposed subdivision map with sanitary system and water supply well locations (Appendix G) was approved by the SCDHS Board of Review on December 17, 2019. The SCDHS variance approval is provided in Appendix H. The Town of Southold must review and issue approval for the sub-division map (Town of Southold 2004). The project was originally submitted to the Town circa 2013. Since the original submission, the proposed subdivision map has been modified multiple times to address concerns raised during the review process. As part of the Town review, a Positive Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting,P.C. 2-11 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 Potable Water Supply- A public water supply is unavailable for the subject property. As such, private wells must be installed for each of the proposed parcels. In accordance with the requirements of the SCDHS, on September 30, 2015 two potable water supply test wells were installed on the subject property. The well driller's certification is included in Appendix J. Each well extended to a depth of 46 feet. The location of the test wells is depicted on the subdivision map(see Appendix G). Test well#1 is located on proposed lot#l, at the extreme northwest cornet-of the subject property. Test well#2 is located on proposed lot#2 along the northerly property line of the subject property, approximately mid-width of the subject property. On November 17, 2015 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated February 29, 2016 (see Appendix K) stating the groundwater underlying the subject property satisfied the criteria of the New York State Department of Health Standards for use as drinking water and was determined to be suitable for potable use. However, the test well depths were inadequate to provide the minimum 40 feet of water within each well as requi red by the SCDHS (Suffolk County Department of Health Services 1992), resulting in the SCDHS issuing a Notice of Incomplete application dated April 13, 2016 (see Appendix L). Failure to provide 40 feet of water within the test well results in a SCDHS imposed restriction limiting development to one residential dwelling per two acres, or the need to obtain a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review. Since development of one dwelling per two acres was not intended, and the Applicant did not wish to seek a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review to modify this requirement, the Applicant had the two original water supply test wells re-drilled to provide the required 40 feet of water within each well casing. On June 3, 2017 both test wells were re-drilled to a depth of 65 feet (see Appendix M for test well driller's logs). The depth to groundwater at the time of drilling was determined to be fourteen feet (14'). On August 17, 2017 the test wells were sampled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for the purpose of determining the suitability of the groundwater underlying the site for use as potable water. The SCDHS issued a report dated January 19, 2018 (see Appendix N). The sampling revealed the water in test well#1 exceeded the Suffolk County test well standard of 6 mg/1 of nitrates,but did not exceed the Maximum Contaminant Level(MCL)permitted by Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code (The State of New York 2018). The water in test well #2 exceeded the MCL for nitrates, Aldicarb Sulfoxide and Aldicarb Sulfone. Each of these contaminants are commonly found in the groundwater surrounding the subject property and are most likely attributable to the former use of the subject property, and surrounding properties, as farmland. Due to the test well sampling results, the Applicant filed for a variance from the SCDHS Board of Review to seek permission to develop the proposed five residential lot subdivision with private water supply wells. The application included an engineering design plan depicting the location of the proposed sanitary systems and potable water supply wells for Lahti Engineering and Environmental Consulting,P.C. 3-5 Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 APPENDIX L Suffolk County Department of Health Services Notice April 13, 2016 WA04 - o25 (Rc,,, 8,05,) EEI SUFE'OLK,COW'fl'Y JILAI-TH SERVICES Of"FICT OF" WiNS I FWATI"J"?,A'0j0,`AGLN1PNT 360N'AV1[LANK AVLNLJ`, 9,11T 2C YAPHAP41K, N&W YORK It 980 5 (631)852,5'700 GNIZ NOTI(',T OF' [NCO V1 PL,ETE APPLICA'TION -, SUBDIVISION 1`0� 1Jr_h,,)hn Pilers, LJI'�, SUB NAIVU,`,� TI-I ORCH ARDS 6 East Main Street P,[1`, NO,: S I 0_13_000,15 Riverh(,ad, 'D4,Y, 111901 SCTM NO10()0-J.7-0103 Your stibmission fot- the i-cferenced sukWivision Ims been r-cvicvwcd. This office will i-equire the folloiving ft:iw further review and/orapproval. Application 11.n'rn signed by licensed design professional El YtOd niap. rnininiurn .................. square fixA, lvases. i I ing F 1'cc $ due,, El Tesit fiwleo) hxatcd and witnessed by� Health Dept,('11 all S515 754 schodule 111spection" See location rylap, enclose4J, Flealth L)epiirtruickit, pni"n"e'durey'; (Test we411, not indlo,�ate a vi,,iiiver "rest °. "a sarnp�ed b), ofre,quirernent fim, connecoori to public. vvalcr) - see kwallon tnaj,'�s enckised, ,tter letter ffonl water district, Onclude distance c & ost ffwateir rniun extearsion is 1equirud), flublic w, ... ..... iroiarnentalAssessment 1"orin (enclosed), W"Wands perrrift or detertnination, letter, Desigg as report by hccraseid design j,'m,4essional (br the onsile scsva�,,;,c(fisposal systern arid water supply, ('ovenaras� TBE), fi 7114111ce notwc eth."Josed,oard o f Rev"ew vai,,iimcc, N,,)n conk,n SFQI(A detxmn i nat ton fronitown, ('erti fiwaw c)f or kit sc,h',Iff 110, In addition, (liefollowing is recluired to tic shown on aprefintinaij4hital inap oir on 44 sepa r,ate seage disposal/water supply plan signed and sealed by as Iliiceia sed design prokssional: Z Metes and 13ciunds Descnpn(,.,)n* Suffolk 0,)tjniy "hawe p lNumber" Se"Vase (Jkspos�',d & �vatcr supply locations fear,all existinEp,kniddisags On 1"moperty Z Neighboring wells arid scsvage ifisposal systerns %vithin 151) k-at ol'property (specit"'y thione) .......] Lh's'ign f6l, the onsi(c se%,agc disposal and water supply per Depariment standards j Desipri a,,cwcr inain. exten.sion approved by local sewer distfict (tbr existing sewers in Sewer Districtt,1'3, sewer stubs niust bernarked by dis(rict ort plan) El Tcspographicorflours, (5 ft', interval) 'Atc,ir/sew,er location(s) (1aJ)el as exisfing,/proposexl)* "I"est well locafions* .............F Comet clevat4mis and tust lu,"k, elevation Departynent aj,aproval staffil,a"' Z Test hf,)ie EII'yawl lot la'Vow: water & smage disposal' I_S, certification an(I Zeertification ofsewage dispos,�,A & %k-ater sul,,)ply desilpi by P1- RA_ or L_S, %,%ilh rn,,-,qx; to be filed with ("ounty ("Ierk require Hen"is inarked ,above %,%,'V"a aster,isk, Other: (1) Submil, ecq,ya,jf coservation, E'1'uSC11r1CTq,_(2) !j"Lit Life Barn, area ils Lot ;'�" I locath')n Of Futtife .......... AAi!,Ficq1traa.1 Burn, mi b.-st wo ..'rest rC3LJ1t,S' W1d W011 Driller's Cem, shcm, 1, .........._,_....... ....................... 40 t' t of"water in each this Stib(tivill"�,1(,)ii,%��ili,,i,c', re,each 1,,,, to be ig leist '2 �acres. if turer,pen'; ..................... fmwtmtot b(,, rnet a Boatd ofReview, vanarice Nvill he CC� Mx, Steven A, Martocello mrc ."A Miller \'(,mxfs Drive DA IT" I I A pri I ?, I 16 'Nlilka NA", 117614 111,LAS1,i,', RETIJRN A OPY OF-1411S FORM WITH ANY RESI,JBMISSION(S� Draft Environmental Impact Statement The Orchards Subdivision Application August 2020 APPENDIX H Suffolk County Department of Health Services Board of Review Variance Approval December 17, 2019 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK SrrE,VEN BELLONE SIJFr,OJX COUNTY EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES JAMES L.ToMARKEN,MID,MPH,ARBA,MSW COMMISSIONER December 17, 2019 Mr. Steven A. Martocello East End I Ioldings 24 Miller Woods Drive Miller Place,New York 11901 Subject: Board of Review I learing—August 15, 2019 5I0-13-0005 -- The Orchards — 2595 Orchard Street, Orient — t/o Southold - SCTM: 1000- 027.00-01.00-003.000 Dear Sir: Enclosed is a copy of the findings, recommendations and determination of the Board of Review concerning the subject application. Based on the information submitted,the Board granted the request for variance/waiver with the provisions indicated in the determination. The granting of this waiver does not imply that your application will be automatically approved. It is your responsibility to ensure that your application is complete; otherwise, your approval will be subject to unnecessary d a y . Very truly ours 0hnSohng , P. Chief Publi 11 th Eng in eer Chair, Soar of Review Enclosure Cc: Board of Review File —Yaphank Ms. Lynne Burns—OWM Mr. Steven Churchill—Reviewer Mr. Andrew Freleng—Planning Department ,Ms. Heather I,anza—Town of Southold Mr. John Ehlers 4Division Of Environmental Quality* Board Of Review# 360 Yaphank Avenue,Suite 2B +Yaphank NY 11980 0 Phone(631)852-5801 Fax(631)852-5826 �cHealt SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES I?IVISION Or ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD OF REVIEW ARTICLE 2,SECTION 220,SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE To: Jaynes L.Tomarken,MD,MSW,MPH,MBA,Commissioner From: Jahn Solingen,P.E.,Chair,Board of Review Subject; Findings and Recommendations of the Review Board Regarding: S 10-1.3-0005—The Orchards 2595 Orchard Street, Orient r..Vo Southold....SCTM: 1000-027.00-01.00-003.000 Hearing bate: August 15,2019 Board Members:Anthony Condos,Kenneth Zegel,P.E. Reviewer:Steven Churchill Statement of Problems Private Water System. Standards require test well results for realty subdivisions to comply with the guidelines and Maximum Contaminant Levels(MCL) contained in Part 5 of the New York State Sanitary Code. in addition, the arithmetic mean nitrate concentration of all wells tested (ori the same day) cannot exceed 6.0 milligrams per liter(mg/1)and no,well shall exceed the Nitrate MCL.Nitrate.and Aldicarb levels in the subject subdivision's test wells exceed the limits specified in the Private Water System Standards. Findings and Facts 1. The parcel to be divided is located in Groundwater Management Zone 4. 2. The parcel is 579,348 square feet(sf)in area,and is shown as one lot on the 1981 tax map. 3. The subject parcel is currently vacant. 4. The proposal is to divide the parcel into five (5) residential lots meeting the minimum lot size requirements of Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code,for lots to be developed with onsite sewage disposal systems and private wells.The residential lots sizes range from 40,000 sfto 406,545 sf. S. The parcel would yield 13 residential lots based on the Suffolk County Sanitary Code Article 6 lot size requirements. 6., All residential parcels will be served by on-site sewage disposal systems, to be' designed in accordance with Department design standards with,sanitary leaching structures placed a minimum 'of 3 feet(ft.)above the highest expected groundwater elevation. 7. Soils are acceptable,with 0 to 1 ft.loam, 1 to 7 ft. silty sand, 7 to 11 ft. sand and gravel,and I 1 to 16 ft.water in sand and gravel. 8. Depth to.groundwater is 11 ft,below grade as per the submitted test hole results. 9. As per the groundwater contributing, areas and source water assessment maps prepared by Camp Dresser McKee(CDM)in 2009,as part of the Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plant James L.Tomarken,MD,MSW,MPH,MBA,Commissioner Hearing Date.August 15,2019 Subject: 510-13-0005—The Orchards 2595 Orchard Streets Orient—t/o Southold--SCTM: 1000-027.00- 01.00-00.3.000 (CWRMP) for Suffolk County, groundwater flow is southeast towards Long.Beach Bay, and the subject parcel is located within the 10 to 25 year contributing area to this surface water body. 10.Test wells were installed on Lot 1 and Lot 2 of the subject subdivision. 11.The well driller's certificate for the Lot 1 test well(Well# 5-133850T)shows a total well depth of 65 feet with a static water level of 14 feet, and 47 feet of water above the 4-foot well screen. A water sample taken by the Department on August 17,2017showed water quality in the well to be in conformance with drinking water standards with the exception of Nitrates,which were 7.2 mg/l. 12.The well driller's certificate for the Lot 2 test well (Well 4 5-133851T)shows a total well depth of 65 feet with a static water level of 14 feet, and 47 feet of water above the 4-foot well screen. A water sample taken by the Departrnent.on August 17,2017 showed water quality in the well to be in conformance with drinking water standards with the exception of Nitrates,Aldicarb-Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb-Sulfone,which were 11.2 mg/1, 6.0 mg/l and 4.2 mg/1 respectively: 13. The MCL for the Nitrates, Aldicarb-Sulfoxide, and Aldicarb-Sulfone are 10.0 mg/1, 4.0 mg/1 and 2.0 mg/I respectively. 14.The high Nitrates and Aldicarbs can be treated to levels below the MCL with the groper water conditioning equipment. The Nitrates can be treated with reverse osmosis and the Aldicarbs can be treated with granular activated carbon,. 15.The Board motes that Aldicarb treatment removal devices are-free to homeowners in Orient and funded by the Department through Bayer Scientific. 16. Department records indicate that groundwater in the area has been known to have high Nitrates. As an example,Department staff provided the Board with test well results for a residential application adjoining the subject parcel(SCTM: 1000-027.00-01.00-004.000 anis Reference Number RIO-05- 0047)that had Nitrates at 10 mg/l. The application received final approval from the Department on .April 1,2009. 17.The applicant submitted a Suffolk County Water Availability letter dated September 13, 2019 stating a water maim extension of 10,000 feet would be required, Private Water System. Standards require water mains to be extended to a subdivision when the existing mains are located within a distance equivalent to 150 ft. multiplied by the number of proposed Jots, from the applicant's- property pplicant'sproperty line. Therefore, the applicant is riot required to extend the public wester main since the existing main is located a distance greater than.750 fl. from the subdivision property line. Determination It was a 3 to 0 determination of the Board to grant the request for the variance for the use of onsite private wells,provided that the following conditions are met: : • Covenants and/or deeds shall be prepared and filed, in language acceptable to the County Attorney for the following: -72 James L.Totlnarken,AD,MSW,MPH,NIEB A.,Commissioner Hearing hate:August 15,2019 Subject: 910-13-0005 —The Orchards Po..2595 Orchard Street, Orient,—t/o Southold--SCTIvI: 1000-027.00- 01.00-003.000 o Require the installation of water,conditioning equipment to treat Nitrates and Aldicarbs to ensure the levels meet the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State of New York at the time of development of each lot, o Recommending periodic comprehensive water analysis of the onsite private well in order to monitor drinking water quality. o Require the installation of necessary water conditioning equipment to meet the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the�State of New York if the periodic comprehensive water analyses of the omsite private well indicate water contamination'in excess of the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State ofNew York. o To hold harmless, indcmnify and defend the County`of Suffolk, its employees, offices, or agents harmless from any claim for damages or injuries that may arise out of the installation or use of the private well and sewage disposal system, The Department's Private Water System Standards are intended to protect priblic health by ensuring residential lots can install a potable private water supply meeting installation and driinking water quality standards. Although., the test wells results indicate high Nitrates and Aldicarb, the applicant will install necessary water conditioning equipment to treat Nitrates and Aldicarb to ensure the levels meet the minimum drinking water standards and/or guidelines of the State of York. The granting of this variance is not a,formal approval to divide the parcel,or to construct new dwellings or install new sewage disposal systems or onsite private wells on the subject site, Rather,it is a determination on the specific variance requested, based,upon factors noted in §760-609 of the Sanitary Code. In compliance with §760-609A(l)(a), the variance is in general conformity with the Sanitary Code. The variance should .not impair groundwater,. surface water and drinking water supplies, and, as such, is consistent with criteria specified in §764-609A(l)(b). The granting of the requested variance will not adversely affect the design of an adequate on-site water supply and/or sewage disposal system,taking into account soil condifions, depth to groundwater, and site specific physical conditions, and as such, is consistent with criteria specified in §760-609A(l)(e). As per §764-609 of t'tte Suffolk County Sanitary Code, the approval of the variance with the specified conditions is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Sanitary Code to protect groundwater and drinking water supplies,surface water and other natural resources,and public health,safety and welfare. I?ecember 17;2019 7' — ofR view �t�i*dote:All references to Article 6 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code refer to,bo January 1,2418. EXHIBIT 5 BOARD MEMBERS *rjv S0 Southold Town Hall - Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson 53095 Main Road P.O.Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Location: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringtr 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento COMM Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtownny.-,Ov ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED Tel.(631)765-1809-Fax(631)765-9064 fdlr— FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION 2 5 2017 MEETING OF JULY 20,201"x U'! So 0. n"Wold Town Clerk ZBA FILE: 7063 NAME OF APPLICANT: Eve MacSweency and Veronica Gonzalez PROPERTY LOCATION: 2050 Platt Road, Orient,NY SCTM No. 100027-1-9 SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type 11 category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated March 30, 2017 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP DETERMINATION: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. SOUTHOLD TOWN PLANNING BOARD: The application was referred to the Southold Town Planning Board for comments relating to the proposed subdivision. The Planning Board, in their June 27, 2017 memorandum indicated that they do not support the area variance for reasons which included concerns with insufficient lot widths, impact on groundwater and the sole source aquifer located under the Orient peninsula, and potable: water quality supply resulting from increase in residential density to this area. The memorandum included recommendations relating to Suffolk County Department of Health development and consideration of innovative and alternative onsite wastewater treatment systems capable of reducing threats to potable water. Furthermore, the Planning Board referred to a conforming yield plan for consideration that was submitted by the applicant, last revised September 4,2015,and depicted one of the two parcels resulting in a flag lot. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a 4.2916 acre parcel located in R-80 Zoning District. The easterly property line fronting Platt Road measures 300.00 feet, the northerly property line measures 637.79 feet, the westerly property line measures 278.89 (recorded deed measures 279,30) and the southerly property line measures 548.28 (recorded deed measures 548.20). The parcel is vacant and described as fallow field as depicted on subdivision map prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. last revised August 26, 2015. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances under Article III, Section 280-14, and the Building Inspector's January 17, .2017 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a two lot residential subdivision, at: 1) proposed two residential lots having less than the code required minimum lot width of 175 feet, at: 2050 Platt Road, Orient, NY. SCTM#1000-27-1-9. Page 2,July 20, 2017 #7063, MacSweeney SUM No. 1000-27-1-9 RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests a variance to subdivide a 4.2916 acre parcel into two residential lots in an R-80 Zoning District measuring 92,619 sq. ft. (Lot 1) and 94,324 sq. ft. (Lot 2) zone, both confirming in size, but with proposed non-conforming road frontage of 150 feet lot width instead of the required 175 feet according to Section 280-14 of the Southold Town Code, (Bulk Schedule). ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: As indicated in the memorandum from the Planning Board Chairman, the Planning Board had previously reviewed a yield plan prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. last revised September 4, 2015 depicting proposed lots; each of which conform to the Southold Town Code(Bulk Schedule) and would not require Zoning Board of Appeals relief for area variances. The applicant's attorney testified that the two owners wished to create the two non-conforming lots so that each would be of the same monetary value, since flag lots are not considered as desirably as lots with road frontage. At the hearing several nearby property owners objected to the variance, stating that flag lots were not uncommon in the area and there was no need for a variance when conforming lots could be created as of right through Planning Board approval. They also voiced concerns about setting a precedent that would appear to permit more"suburban"non-conforming narrow lots in the future. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 6, 2017at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood, and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant and makes the following findings: 1. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Although, some of the surrounding parcels do not meet the required lot width, creating additional non-conformity in the area, when most parcels are conforming to code required lot widths would set an undesirable precedent whereby other large lots in the area could be subdivide into long, narrow lots, which would diminish the rural quality of the existing area. 2. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Since the proposed lots meet required lot size and depth, the applicant can pursue Planning Board approval for a subdivision consisting of one flag lot and one lot with street frontage which would meet all zoning requirements. 3. Town Law V67-W)M(3). The variances requested are mathematically substantial, representing 16% relief from the code for the lot width of each of the two proposed lots. 4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4) Evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. An alternative subdivision yield plan utilizing the creation of a flag lot would not require a variance and would create two conforming lots that are more characteristic of the area, 5. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. : The applicant purchased the parcel after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase. 6. Town Law 4267-b. Grant of the requested relief for two lots with non-conforming lot widths resulting from a subdivision is NOT the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of two single and separate lots, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3,July 20, 2017 #7063, MacSweeney SUM No. 1000-27-1-9 RESOLUTION OF TBE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-13, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Acampora, and duly carried,to DENY as applied for, Vote of the Board.- Ayes.-Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dantes, Goehringer, Planamento and Acampora. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). Leslie KanedWeisman Chairperson Approved for filing 71 ;Z/ /2017 ....... SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEA'LTHI SERVICES HAUPPAUGE,N.Y. DATE NEST HOLE DATA ' _ SUBDIVISION 1F115 IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE PROPOSED REALLY SURDIVISION OR ------ FOR ` DEVELOPMENT FOR IN THE 1:9.IJlR pARX 6Rpfl}I 6p4M Ol. VERONICA GONZALEZ WITH A TOTAL OF LOTS WAS APPROVED ___0.5' y, ON THE ABOVE(DATE.WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWACE.DISPOSAL —T NJ SRT"'R �. T ORIENT 'b FACVLITIES MUST CONFORM TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS IN EFFECT '"""25 AT TIRE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE TOWN OF S'OUTHOLD PERMITS PURSUANT TD THOSE STANDARDS.THIS APPROVAL SHALL BE BROWN ANE TO L SF SNO ARR RN WAVEL SW N.Y. SITE VAUD ONLY IF THE REALTY SUBDIVISION/DEVELOPMENT MAP IS SUFFOLK COUNTY,N DM11LY FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK WITHIN ONE YEAR OF THIS DATE. CONSENT IS HEREBY GIVEN FOR THE FILING OF THIS MAP ON WHICH WOO-27-01-09 KEY MAR } THIS ENDORSEMENT APPEARS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY CLERK IN ----Y 0 15, Sp tpo SCALE+J'•Epp' 1, ACCORDANCE NTH PROVISIONS OF THE PUBUC HEALTH LAW AND THE SUFFOLK COUNTY SANITARY CODE,. PAlF RRON FTN'Tp COARSE SAMA SW EL 1" ---122' +HxsroxcrMu SCALE, I" = 60' A` DIREGTOR�DIVISION OF NNIROIMIENT QUALITY wA¢R APRIL 29 2015. a WA.TERWPALE RRakM FLM t5,CBAR.g'S4VJ SW Aug. 26, 2dI5{revon, THIS PS TO CERTIFY THAT THE SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN APPROVED IY BY THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOVN OF SOUTHOLD ON BY 5TAii 1/iA"PLANNING BDVD .7> �OF tdEl y //RYl�ljli �}�• I HEREBY CERT FY4F{NIY'LPI1IS"l,$U1� CN PLAT WAS NAVE FROM 1� R ADTLWL SUR"YS�OMPLLT.7E,R \ � TRAP'ALL NOfvL'iMEMTS STA7VN'T4Af.0 0,ACJCIA['f EXISt' D tT IEIR POSITIONS ARE CAR7EC11 Y ,A CCJJ SHOWN'ANS L�ifNEN l{NWL AND GEC( TIC AI YAT-s ARE CORRECT. 1 y ICNO49618 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAF-TIFF WATER SUPPLY(S)AND/OR SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM(S)FOR THUS PROJECT =P 'iI6L WERE DESIGNED 8Y ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTON.BASED'UPON A CAREFUL AND THOROUGN STUDY OF v TME 5014 SITE AND GROUNDWATER CONDTRONS,ALL LOTS,AS PROPOSED,CONFORM TO THE SUFFOLK COUNTY ID DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH BERATES CON57RUCRON STANDARDS IN EFFECT AS OF ANIS DATE DATE - N/O/F JANE LLEWELLYN � .. IpWELLW1p1 ' THOMAS C.WOLPER7 P E NYS P.E.LIC.NO.451483 637.79' N 51-53'10'E E.(AC N 31'33'00'E.tACTVALI' n+ ` v -... - 1-1 U. R ItT or rlcr.o O veno m a I LOT TEST NOTE U'y ELL 19.8 i4 N r0TIT µ Z aN p.wN O FALLOW ROAD - Q S52'52'26'II mm, d k OWNERIAPPLWANT G I r� -VIIIONICA EST END AVE Z TYPICAL PLOT PLAN " N 52'S2'26'C 5"2.66` rd ALL WATER(LINES TO BE A MINIMUM OF "' FIELD \ a NEW"'YORK,N.Y.Ipp2 90'FROM SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND DRAINAGE F STUCTURES p CESSPOOLS TO 6E 159'MINIMUM FROM ALL r-N'iv ,wm LOT 2 o 0 POTABLE WELLS t'T$0;1I ti\ O eO�u �I e` 5I D ZONING-DISTRICT- R 80 SCHOOL DfSTRCT- ORIENT FIRE DISTRICT- ORIENT S 53.4 CAROL 9.52 WE 5 549600 W 349.309ACTUALI�5 51"5;90"W � S 53'5936'W. 198.94 fACTUALD S 53'47'5,5,'w 199.72 WEED) 348.68 1DEED1 �uca� IQp.pO' NiOIF ROBERT R. BERKS d MMANNFRIEDMAN': Q'PflpPO5E0 STREET TREE (TOWN APP110MEDI A0'D.C. . I®WELLN6! j' 11,JOSHUA NEFSKY A� AECkYVED ELEVATIONS 8 CONTOUR LINE ARE REFERENCED To IDWE 040 9 WELL LOCATION NAVD. LfKNOWN ih°.�^y)'i 1111 2.MONUMENT �+ • PIPE ;. �' ZONING 6OJlMD OF APPEALS rhe location of public water, wags and cesspools shaven herean are rom field obseratiarrs-d ar from data abtarned from others. �ynyMILL PECOPIIC SURVEYORS, P.C. ANY ALTERA70M OR AODITON TO ISIS SURVEY lS A VIDLATDN TOTAL AREA=4.2916 ACRES (631) 765-5020 FAX (631) 765-1737 OF SECTION 7209OF RHE NFW YORK STATE EDUCAAON LAW.. P.O. n EXCEPT AS PER SECTION 72O9-SVBOIWSION 2.AIL CERAFTCADONS OBOX 909 HEREON ARE VALID FDR 1HIS MAP AND COPIES THEREOF ONLY IF AREA LOT 1=52,619 SO.Fr.or 2.1262 ACRES ry TRAVELER / y5, SAID MAP OR COPIES BEAR THE IMPRE9,9 p SEAL 5,f Tlf SURNEYgR LOT 1230 t I\AVELER S I/EE ,/J� (/] /'Jy RHOSE SIGNATURE--APPEARS HEREON. AREA LOT 2=94,324 SO.FT.or 2.1654 ACRES SOUTHOLO, N.Y 11371 1 v_991 MAILING ADDRESS: PLANNING BOARD MEM13ERS (ftv SO P.O.Box 1179 DONALD J.WILCEN'SKI Southold, NY 11971 Chair OFFICE LOCATION: WILLIAM J.CREMERS Its- Town Hall Annex PIERCE RAFFERTY 54375 State Route 25 JAMES H.RICH III (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) MARTIN H.SIDOR Southold, NY ' Telephone:631 765-1938 www.souiholdtow-nny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD f. MEMORANDUM RF-CETVED JUN 2 To: Leslie Weisman, ZBA Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS From: Donald J. Wilcenski, Chairman Members of the Planning Board Date: June 27, 2017 Re: Request for Comments for MacSweeney and Gonzalez SCTM# 1000-27-1-9 ZBA#7063 The Planning Board has, reviewed the project and does not support the Variance as requested based upon the following: 1. The Planning Board has an inactive Standard Application for the subject parcel (figure 1). On October 7, 2015 the Planning Board accepted a Yield Plain (last revised September 4, 2015) recognizing 2 lots where lot 1 was proposed at 90,341 square feet and lot 2 at 88,227 square feet (excluding flag). The Yield Plan met the dimensional lot requirements of the Residential 80 Zoning District (figure 2) 2. The Yield Plan was submitted in response to a Planning Board denial on August 7, 2015 on a Yield Plan showing insufficient-lot widths that did not meet the Town Code §240-10 B. 3. The impact-on groundwater and the sole source aquifer under the Orient peninsula from residential density is a large concern due to sanitary systems, irrigation and property maintenance. Although the residential density in the area is equal to or greater than 1 acre, the cumullative build out in this sensitive area could lead to greater impacts on ground and surface waters. Public water is not available in this area and the preservation of potable water quality from nitrogen impacts, saltwater intrusion, pathogens, pharmaceuticals, personal care products and volatile organic compounds is a priority. It is these threats that have prompted the Suffolk County Department of Health to develop the regulatory opportunities for the Brian Fuhrmann Maria Marill ����� 1, e;< <'(J 2620 Orchard Street - Orient, New York 11957 November 12, 2020 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman And Members of the Southold Planning Board 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re:The Orchards Subdivision SCTM # 1000-21-7-3 Our property is directly across from this proposed subdivision. We are concerned as to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)for the Orchards Subdivision which was accepted for public review this past September 28, 2020. There are specific aspects to this project that seem to be out of the local code requirements. Some of which we present as follows; 1—That being that "roads, streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space"—It appears from the plan that due to including the aforementioned in the proposal,the Conservation area set aside falls below the requirements of sixty(60) percent. 2—The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design standards for such lots. Based on current tax maps abutting lots should be 2.5 acres. Further, it is clear from the DEIS that there must be assessed the; 1. Impact on Surface 'Water 2. Impact on Ground Water It is our understanding that the DEIS has NOT adequately addressed the specific availability of groundwater use, and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. We all are keenly aware in Orient Village that salt water intrusion into ourfresh water supply potentially impacts the entire area. The proposal requiring 4 million gallons per year for crop irrigation is an extraordinary number that represents the equivalent requirement for sixty(60) to one hundred (120) homes. In addition, the DEIS does not fully address the potential impact of fertilizer and pesticides to the ground water, especially since the corn crop proposed requires a once a week pesticide application, which are potentially toxic to ground water and thus nearby well systems. Has there been any consideration for drought resistant plantings, gray water recycling, drip irrigation as options for water conservation? Has there been analysis to assess the potential impact on neighboring properties drinking water and the overall demand requirement for water in the area? Our property stands on land that was many years ago farmed. There are high levels of nitrates in our soil and thus in our well water along with other contaminant materials. All of this requires the need for substantive in home filtration systems. We are further concerned as to the aesthetic impact of the DEIS. Though the owner states that Uwe are not going to do spec houses", there seems to be no control in place as to what gets built on the individual lots. Orient is a community that MUST require very careful thought with respect to the how land is developed. Our concern, and that of other owners we talk to, is that the threat of developers building "McMansions" will take away from the charm and aesthetic of Orient. Recently, there has been housing development that if left unchecked will change forever that which we all appreciate so much about our village. Once precedents are established there is no going back!!! Thoughtful consideration as to the visual quality of the property is essential to protect scenic resources. Size (square footage, height) of homes, along with landscape, fencing should be part of an overall visual impact study. We strongly believe with others who have provided a tangible and comprehensive response of this proposal that it is not aligned with Southold's Town Comprehensive Plan, Orients Communities history and character, and thus must be modified going forward. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing and changing the DEIS as currently proposed. Bestgards X Bran Fuhrmann Maria Marill 2620 Orchard St. 2620 Orchard St. Orient, NY 11957 Orient, NY 11957 _, 5"] E7 µ �u Brian Fuhrmann Maria Marill I(w ` '2� 3 2020. 2620 Orchard Street 1._... m Orient, New York 11957 a November 12, 2020 Donald Wilcenski,Chairman And Members of the Southold Planning Board 'lu 54375 State Road 25 Southold, New York 11971 Re:The Orchards Subdivision SCTM#1000-21-7-3 Our property is directly across from this proposed subdivision. We are concerned as to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement(DEIS)for the Orchards Subdivision which was accepted for public review this past September 28, 2020. There are specific aspects to this project that seem to be out of the local code requirements. Some of which we present as follows; 1—That being that"roads,streets and rights-of-way may not be included in the calculation of the minimum required open space"—It appears from the plan that due to including the aforementioned in the proposal,the Conservation area set aside falls below the requirementsof sixty(60) percent. 2—The flag lots proposed are inadequately sized based on Town Code Article X11 Design , standards for such lots. Based on current tax maps abutting lots should be 2.5 acres. Further, it is clearfrom the DEIS that there must be assessed the; t � 1; ,t ' 1. Impact on Surface Water ' �l 2. Impact on+Ground Water tip t J It is our understanding that the DEIS has NOT adequately addressed the specific availability of 4 groundwater use, and there seems to be no consideration for water conservation. We all ares keenly aware in Orient Village that salt water intrusion into ourfresh water supply potentially Nlt impacts the entire area. The proposal requiring 4 million gallons per year for crop irrigation is an extraordinary number that represents the equivalent requirement for sixty(60) to one n 1; hundred (120) homes. %P l� r X11 �� In addition,the DEIS does not fully address the potential impact of fertilizer and pesticides to the ground water,especially since the corn crop proposed requires a once a week pesticide application, which are potentially toxic to ground water and thus nearby well systems. Has there been any consideration for drought resistant plantings,gray water recycling,drip irrigation as options for water conservation? Has there been analysis to assess the potential impact on neighboring properties drinking water and the overall demand requirement for water in the area? Our property stands on land that was many years ago farmed. There are high levels of nitrates in our soil and thus in our well water along with other contaminant materials. All of this requires the need for substantive in home filtration systems. We are further concerned as to the aesthetic impact of the DEIS. Though the owner states that "we are not going to do spec houses",there seems to be no control in place as to what gets built on the individual lots. Orient is a community that MUST require very careful thought with respect to the how land is developed. Our concern,and that of other owners we talk to, is that the threat of developers building"McMansions" will take away from the charm and aesthetic of Orient. Recently,there has been housing development that if heft unchecked will change forever that which we all appreciate so much about our village. Once precedents are established there is no going backM Thoughtful consideration as to the visual quality of the property is essential to protect scenic resources. Size (square footage, height)of homes, along with landscape,fencing should be part of an overall visual impact study. We strongly believe with others who have provided a tangible and comprehensive response of this proposal that it is not aligned with Southold's Town Comprehensive Plan,Orients Communities history and character, and thus must be modified going forward. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing and changing the DEIS as currently proposed. Best i,egards LA Brian Fuhrmainn Maria Marill 2620 Orchard St. 2620 Orchard St. Orient, NY 11957 Orient, NY 11957 From: Lanza, Heather lE IIS�� � III' IIIIL.....,.. Sent: Monday, November 23, 2020 3:16 PM 'i pu To: Michaelis, Jessica Subject: FW: Sub division Orchards 21. ,`U From: DILORENZO [mailto:lorenzolake@optimum.net] Sent:Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:47 PM To: Lanza, Heather<heather.lanza@town.southold.ny.us> Subject: Sub division Re: Sub Division/Orchard Street, Orient To Whom It May Concern, My husband and I are full time residents living on Platt Road for 20 years. The sub division in question is behind us and it is a BIG question indeed. This subject came up years ago and was denied for the same reasons it should be denied again along with more reasons than ever. The landscape in Orient is changing quickly with large homes being constructed in the village area including a 12,000 plus square foot home on Narrow River Road a half mile away from this "subdivision". The main concern is the water table. We have well water along with our neighbors in the area. How much water is available before it is completely exhausted? And, you KNOW they will be putting in swimming pools as well. Every new house being built in the area includes a swimming pool not to mention pools being the new addition to the homes already here. The idea of five homes being constructed on this property is preposterous and I am 100% not in favor of it. Sincerely, Laura Westla ke-D i Lorenzo & Dominick DiLorenzo 1340 Platt Road Orient, NY 11957 ATTENTION: This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected eails. i 3180 Orchard Street Orient,New York 11957 631-323-3501 November 3, 2020 �� 1 Donald Wilcenski, Chairman �a �:�A� ��� � rrw� Members, Southold Town Planning Board uu�uu� Re: "The Orchards" subdivision, SCTM 41000-21-7-3 Dear Members: I live across Orchard Street from the property under consideration. I would like to call the Board's attention to the history of the development of the original Hallock Farms property, which is immediately across Halyoke Road from "the Orchards" and also to its north (Halyoke was originally a Hallock Farms road, and the original Hallock farmhouse is farther along the road). Some forty years ago a developer (Mr. Horowitz)proposed to build a pseudo-"colonial" village of approximately 50 homes on the 60 or so acres of the farm. Ruth Oliva of Orient was president of the North Fork Environmental Council., and the Council was extremely concerned about the effect if this kind of intensive development on the fragile Orient aquifer ("too many straws"). The Council led a town-wide effort to halt this development, inducing a variety of State and County officials to conduct extensive tests on the property, leading to the recommendation of an extreme reduction of the planned development. The result was a subdivision of the property into five and ten-acre plots, with carefully separated building envelopes to prevent intensive draw on the aquifer in any one area. The analyses of the Horowitz property should offer a guideline for the development of "The Orchards"property, which is for all intents and purposes identical. By this standard, the property should support no more than two building sites, with carefully separated building envelopes. Likewise, the introduction of farming is questionable due to its intensive use of groundwater. The limit of"'The Orchards" to two building lots would also better conform with the present environment in this part of Orient. Sincel'el Frcdrica ti "achsberger X21 Md R.EQE1VQD C 2 3 2�020 October 19, 2020 Sout oid Town Planning Board Southold Planning Board Town Hall 53095 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 Re: The Orchards, 2595 Orchard Street, Orient We are homeowners at 3780 Orchard Street,just a few lots east and across the street from the site under consideration for the Orchard Development. The Environmental Impact Statement deftly paints a seriously misleading picture of the impact of this project. The proposal to place a suburban development of this magnitude in this location will fundamentally change the character of this part of Orient Village. Currently,there is a feeling, for the many residents who walk or bike regularly on Orchard toward Narrow River, of leaving the village proper for a more rural environment, with houses set back or shielded by fences and trees,punctuated by brushland and woodland. The area in question bordering Halyoke is an important part of this feel. To replace it with five houses and a barn that is completely out of proportion with existing structures in the Village is to destroy a fundamental part of the Village's character. "View" is not a function of how far one can see but of what one sees. Everything about this plan suggests a serious downgrade from natural beauty to manmade clutter. The contribution to traffic also seems fundamentally understated. Whatever the database that was used for the calculation, if one makes the reasonable assumption that these houses are likely to be sold to young families fleeing the City, the assumption of fewer than two trips a day per household seems absurd. I do not envy the Planning Boards' challenge in balancing the right of property owners to monetize their holdings with the interest of preserving what makes the Village special for current residents. But this project—a brand new development of five houses mostly on smallish plots relative to the surrounding houses, which will turn an attractive wall of brushland into a suburban landscape that is at odds with the look and feel of the Village, all without conferring any identifiable social good- - does not seem a close call at all. We urge the Board to reject this proj ect. sill Margery and Ted Mayer 99100424 1